A Plea for Atheists

[Isambard]

:What do you mean by “a lesser probability”.

If I were born in a low socio-economic status, the probability of me staying there would be quite high. Acting on a lesser probability would me leaving that status through sheer will despite it being difficult.

A good movie to use as an example would be the movie Gatitca (sp?), or reading a biography on Nietzsche:thumbsup:

 

[dok]

Sounding a bit testy. Sorry if I ticked you off.

One book does not an expert make.

Yes, though I did have to read more than one or even two to earn a Ph.D. in the subject.

And frankly I don’t care whether I have free will any more than I care whether red exists in the real world or is simply a figment of my imagination. I’m interested in the different theories, but I have no investment in the outcome.

Hard to get into an interesting conversation with someone who has no passion for the subject. Say, what do you think of the designated hitter rule?

And are you sure that they are attached to the idea of free will, or they just don’t believe your theory that believing in free will means you need to believe in a god?

Guess I’m still not getting through… Don’t you see that free will is just as implausible as there being a God? That’s the point. If you don’t believe in “the” God, then I accept that. But don’t go around claiming you’re an atheist if you assign to yourself a supernatural power to choose your actions outside of the stream of physical causality.

 

[Sideline]

If I were born in a low socio-economic status, the probability of me staying there would be quite high. Acting on a lesser probability would me leaving that status through sheer will despite it being difficult.

A good movie to use as an example would be the movie Gatitca (sp?), or reading a biography on Nietzsche:thumbsup:

I see, so you are saying that exercising one’s free will is the same as doing the unexpected, essentially. That still sounds fairly deterministic to me.

It’s Gattaca, good story, bad acting. Jude Law wasn’t bad. Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke are about as riveting Barbie and Ken dolls.

Nietzsche is also on my reading list. I am, unfortunately, a very slow reader, so I would give my finishing the list a low probability. Especially since I am always adding to the list.

 

[Sideline]

Sounding a bit testy. Sorry if I ticked you off.

I’m always a bit testy, don’t worry about it.

Yes, though I did have to read more than one or even two to earn a Ph.D. in the subject.

What subject exactly? Philosophy? Anthropology? Psychology? Sociobiology? Physics?

Hard to get into an interesting conversation with someone who has no passion for the subject. Say, what do you think of the designated hitter rule?

Sorry, I just can’t get worked up over whether I’m running a program or have free will. It doesn’t change anything.

What’s a designated hitter?

Guess I’m still not getting through… Don’t you see that free will is just as implausible as there being a God? That’s the point. If you don’t believe in “the” God, then I accept that. But don’t go around claiming you’re an atheist if you assign to yourself a supernatural power to choose your actions outside of the stream of physical causality.

You’re not really selling that idea. I get that you believe it. You still haven’t shown why.

I’m not sure what you are so upset about. If I don’t have free will, then fine, I don’t have free will. What difference does it make to anything?

Even if I didn’t like the idea, it certainly doesn’t prove that there is a god.

Don’t have a list of people who have come to the same conclusion? Perhaps you could share more of your research? Have you published anything on this subject?

 

[Sideline]

Guess I’m still not getting through… Don’t you see that free will is just as implausible as there being a God? That’s the point. If you don’t believe in “the” God, then I accept that. But don’t go around claiming you’re an atheist if you assign to yourself a supernatural power to choose your actions outside of the stream of physical causality.

I’ve just been thinking some more about this, and perhaps the impasse is that your definition of free will and mine are somewhat different.

I’ve never believed that people have total freedom. I can’t desire something that I’ve never experienced. I can’t imagine an object without there being a correlation to something I’ve already come in contact with. I can’t think in a language I’ve never learnt. If you make a big enough change to my brain, and I won’t want the same things that I used to want. Of course the physical world determines my choices. I’d be surprised if anyone didn’t believe that.

There probably isn’t any point to discussing it further.

 

[cheddarsox]

Neo-darwinism, the idea that your genes determine more-or-less everything you do.

The New Atheist movement is very supportive of this philosophical framework to explain just about everything, as well as argue for a biological basis for morality.

This philosophy has yet to account for the large number of outliers. For ex. twin and adoption studies have demonstrated a strong link between certain personality a child has, and who their biological parents are. But, a sizeable percentage dont follow the pattern and become the outliers.

The “biological robot” analysis is shoddy at best.

DNA determines possibilities, there are many complex factors in the environment that determine whether some of those possibilities get “turned on”. It’s not a simple case of having a gene and it making a specific trait or behavior inevitable in all cases.

 

[cheddarsox]

I’m a natural pantheist, and I suspect there is no such thing as free will, it’s something I think about a lot.

The entire system is mindblowingly complex.

I theorize that everything that is and happens is due to the relationships between everything at any given moment, and there are a LOT of everythings in the Universe, every subatomic particle, every bit of energy, all interacting to cause what is.

If there is any amount of “choice” in it, it’s the result of things that came about without an act of will, so even if the end result is some level of choice…philosophically, it is not chosen.

Interesting stuff.

Some current theories on brain function posit that the brain works on a very small time delay, which allows us to process information and seemingly make choices.

I don’t know, but it’s interesting to think about.

 

[tGette]

Wow…I missed a lot in such a short time!
Thank you everyone for remaining civil!

I have to put this quote by Bertrand Russell (an atheist):
“Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.”
(So that answers one of the questions in my OP.)

I used to have this philosophy that life is a random set of occurences which happen in a fixed pattern. (Kind of like life is set out for us like color by numbers, but we fill in whatever colors we want, yet the same picture emerges.)

• Try figuring that one out -

Recently I have been thinking about the concepts of good and evil. Who is to say that evil really exists? Some of us have these labels for things and we presuppose that evil was not intended and is bad. (Mainly because of suffering.) Who is to say suffering is a bad thing?

Maybe everything just is. (I am having a hard time articulating this.) By that I mean we perceive evil as bad, but maybe everything is equal and bad is just as good as good and good is just as bad as bad.

Am I making any sense? I know some of this contradicts with what I believe as a Christian…but this is the fun of Philosophy. This is part of the intention of the thread…atheists/agnostics and those uncertain about God seem to offer great diversity to philosophical discussions and definitely unique perspectives.

 

[Sideline]

It is an assumption all children of God, following He and His Son, can happily make–it’s called faith.

And I can safely assume that if God exists, He won’t care if I believe in Him or not. I have faith in it.

How is her belief and practicing faithfully the tenets of her belief hedging her bets?

Oh, just seemed like she was using a watered down Pascal’s Wager. You know, it is more rational to believe in God because if you don’t you lose…

I could be wrong. Sorry if I assumed.

She never claimed to play it safe, she knows that those who suffer humiliation for His sake, will see the face of God.

Or not. But I guess it doesn’t matter if she doesn’t.

You sound very young. God bless you and give you faith and salvation.

No, not young.

 

[cheddarsox]

Recently I have been thinking about the concepts of good and evil. Who is to say that evil really exists? Some of us have these labels for things and we presuppose that evil was not intended and is bad. (Mainly because of suffering.) Who is to say suffering is a bad thing?

Maybe everything just is. (I am having a hard time articulating this.) By that I mean we perceive evil as bad, but maybe everything is equal and bad is just as good as good and good is just as bad as bad.

I believe as you describe above. Things are, humans label them according to how convenient or inconvenient they perceive them to be…according to their own agenda. Again, if one does not consider humanity to be the focus and reason for the existence of the Universe, then it does seem ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are not real in themselves, but simply human terms.

that does not mean that such judgements are useless or silly. They are not and for us, living in societies and needing to order our behavior it is “good” that we make judgements and apply them. But on an ultimate level…things are.

Being able to have the “things are” perspective, as well as the judging perspective is an amazing thing. It allows one access to much more of life’s experience. If, when in an experience I have always been taught is negative, I can use my “is” perspective, I can experience it on another level, I can experience nuances and amazing things about it, because I am not all caught up in the “isn’t this awful, I must reject this” mindset. And same with “good” experiences, instead of just putting them in the happy slot…I can experience more complex levels of them…see that everything that happens is astoundingly complex, and involves more than I used to give it credit for. Nothing that happens is pure good or pure evil, everything is a part of this complex system.

I have a much humbler gratitude for everything now than I used to.

 

[maggiemay2u]

And I can safely assume that if God exists, He won’t care if I believe in Him or not. I have faith in it.

Again, a matter of faith, “eyes that will not see, ears that will not hear”

Oh, just seemed like she was using a watered down Pascal’s Wager. You know, it is more rational to believe in God because if you don’t you lose…

I could be wrong. Sorry if I assumed.

You know what they say about folks who assume, although…apology accepted

Or not. But I guess it doesn’t matter if she doesn’t.

Exactly her point to her friend.

BTW, thanks for the demonstrated reverence throughout your post.

 

[Sideline]

BTW, thanks for the demonstrated reverence throughout your post.

You’re welcome… but I have no idea what you mean.

Oh… you mean the way I capitalize God when I am specifically talking about the Christian God, and I don’t when talking about a god in general. Is that what you mean?

 

[Isambard]

DNA determines possibilities, there are many complex factors in the environment that determine whether some of those possibilities get “turned on”. It’s not a simple case of having a gene and it making a specific trait or behavior inevitable in all cases.

Hence why Im not a neo-darwininan

 

[holy_wood]

What is the Atheist response to the following?

Why there must be a God:

For some background, when we speak of ‘God’, we’re initially speaking of an unchanging being, an ‘unmoved mover’, or ‘first cause’ of the created order. We begin our apologetic by asking two fundamental questions: 1) does something unchanging exist?; and 2) is this being the God of classical theism?

In support of (1), I (and others on this thread) argue that the regularity with which we observe change is itself an indication of something unchanging. ‘Regularity’ itself is a description of something unchanging. If it were to change, it would not be regular to begin with. So, something unchanging exists.

Secondly, we should define words ‘actuality’ and ‘potentiality’.

Here’s what I mean. At one point in time, you were a fetus (in actuality) and an adult (in potentiality). Changing beings are composed of both actuality and potentiality, since they are one thing, but can possibly change into something else.

Now, something unchanging has no potentiality to change whatsoever. Hence, it must be purely actual. This will be key as we explore the following questions.

Why must God be all powerful (not just powerful enough to create the universe?

If we understand the ‘universe’ as entailing every being that possesses some potentiality (we live in a changing universe, after all), then God must be fully actual in every respect. To illustrate this further, you and I are partly actual and partly potential. We have only some power because we are partly actual. A purely actual being, then, must possess every power there is to have.
Or lets put it another way.

1. Changing beings exist.
2. All changing beings are composed of act and potency.
3. No potency can actualize itself.
4. Only Pure Act can actualize being.
5. So, all finite beings are actualized by Pure Act.

The reason why (4) is true is because every being composed of both actuality and potentiality has its potentiality actualized. But since it cannot actualize its own potentiality, there must be something purely in actuality.

Why God must be infinite and eternal

Given that God is pure actuality, there could never be a time in which He was not. If He ever came into or out of being, then He wouldn’t be purely actual, since only potential beings can change from being to non-being, or vice-versa.

Why there cannot be more than one God:

If there were two or more gods (i.e. more than one purely actual being), then there would be distinctions between them. We can only know that A and B are different if they can be distinguished–that is, if one has some attribute the other hasn’t this would mean that it is not infinite. Since these distinctions entail limitations, and only potential beings are limited, then what is purely actual cannot have any distinctions between “other” pure actualities. Hence, what is purely actual (God) must be one.
Here is an example. Pour water into a cup and then pur some more. You would not be able to distinguish the water poured in initially from the water poured in the second time, since the water is indistinguishable.
or
Paint an entire wall yellow. Then color the wall with another coating of the same yellow paint. You would not be able to distinguish the first coating from the second costing, since both coatings color the entire wall and are the same color. It is the same with an infinite being. Two infinite beings would both be everywhere with the same infinitely perfect attributes. There would be no way for us to distinguish the two. They would completely overlap each other. So you can cannot have two or more distinguishable infinite beings.

Now, you may argue that although you cannot have two distinguishable infinite beings, I have not proven that you cannot have two indistinguishable infinite beings. You can have two or more infinte beings sharing the exact same space, and are indistinguishable except to each other. And if you said this, I would have to concede that you right.

But this is exactly what the Christian faith is saying. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proven by the use of natural reason. It is revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

However, despite the fact that natural reason cannot prove the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity, neither is the doctrine opposed to natural reason. There is no contradiction in saying that there is one God in three persons. Norman Geisler puts it this way: there is one what (God, the being of God) and three who’s (persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
If you have two or more indistinguishable beings, isn’t this what traditional Christianity calls the Trinity? If there are two or more beings that are indistinguishable, then that would mean that they share the same essence, just as two coats of yellow sharing the same essence - the yellow paint.

So logic clearly shows that you cannot have two or more distinguishable beings but logic cannot show that you cannot have two or more indistinguishable beings that completely overlap in the same state of existence, sharing the same essence, which is the doctrine of the Trinity - Three Persons sharing one Essence.

**
Why God must be personal in nature:**

Let’s take the example of knowledge. Partly actual beings have some knowledge. It therefore logically follows that a purely actual being would know everything there is to know; God must be omniscient, or all-knowing. However, only persons have knowledge. Therefore, it follows that God is personal.

One might respond by saying that ignorance is an actuality, but God cannot be ignorant. However, this misconstrues the nature of ignorance, which is a privation (a lack of an actuality). God is the fullness of what is actual, not of what is lacking.

 

[cheddarsox]

My response, as a pantheist, whom you may or may not consider to be an atheist (the Catholic response to my beliefs seems to vary from person to person) is that all those are very interesting philosophical and logical ‘arguments’.

But ultimate reality is not something that can be reached through the philosophy or logic of human thinking. Over and over and over humanity has learned that that which they thought MUST be according to logic, was not.

Some other thoughts…

I don’t have a problem with the idea of a higher power, but your post contains constant references to said “God” the unchanging source as he, which implies it must not only be a being, but a male being. Neither of those premises is supported by the other arguments and takes away from their impact.

I agree there must be a cause/source for what is.

But you lose me as soon as you start referring to it, not as a concept we can discuss, but as a being with a gender.

Your argument for why god has to be a being, or person is speculation. You have no way of knowing that ‘only persons have knowledge’.

This all strikes me as being a well thought out and sensible explanation for why some people believe in a personal god. And I can understand reasons why some people do, but I don’t think that the majority of evidence points to a personal god. I can see how individuals can reach that conclusion,but I have a harder time understanding how, in the light of human experience they hang on to it for very long. Because for most people, day to day life, where the rubber hits the road, end up being more compelling than a philosophical discussion or the force of logic.

I know some cling to a personal god because they are comforted by the idea of someone up there looking out for them. That makes sense to me.

What comes next? I mean, if someone accepts the arguments you posted…how does that mesh with the characterizations of the Christian god that people toss around?

Christianity is not logical. I don’t think it needs to be to serve its purpose. Logic is an interesting pastime, but it’s not the most powerful tool in the box (even though some seem to claim it as their highest power).

I think atheism is a belief, just as theism is. There is no definitive proof either way. I think there is less proof that a specific concept of deity exists than no personal deity at all.

I think people are atheists, most of the time, because they have found no compelling reason in their lives to believe in a specific concept of deity, or any of the concepts that they have come across. And for many, because when they did believe in a certain concept of deity, and used that as a guidepost for their life, they got results that made them believe that concept to be false, erroneous and in some cases detrimental and dangerous.

I guess a logical question, to follow your post is “if all that is true about god, why are things the way they are? Why does he deal with humanity in this way?”

and thats when the games begin.

 

[holy_wood]

My response, as a pantheist, whom you may or may not consider to be an atheist (the Catholic response to my beliefs seems to vary from person to person) is that all those are very interesting philosophical and logical ‘arguments’.

o.k.

But ultimate reality is not something that can be reached through the philosophy or logic of human thinking. Over and over and over humanity has learned that that which they thought MUST be according to logic, was not.

Our mistakes are not a testament to the inadequacy of our logic but rather the leaping to conclusions out of ignorance before all the information is in. When it comes to God the information we currently have, which is the exact same since mankind gained sentience, is that He exist.

Some other thoughts…

I don’t have a problem with the idea of a higher power, but your post contains constant references to said “God” the unchanging source as he, which implies it must not only be a being, but a male being. Neither of those premises is supported by the other arguments and takes away from their impact.
(snip),
But you lose me as soon as you start referring to it, not as a concept we can discuss, but as a being with a gender.

I am arguing from a Christian perspective and the God of Christianity is masculine in nature and metaphorically described as our Father. This does not mean God is male
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states:
In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother (Isaiah 49:14-15; 66:13; Psalm 131:2-3) and those of a father (Job 31:18; Jer. 3:4-20) and husband (Jer. 3:6-19). [CCC 370]

The God of Israel is Holy (Psalm 99). The word “holy” is rooted in the word “separated” (1 Chron. 23:13). God, being pure Spirit, has a certain “separation” or otherness to His material creation. This otherness of God is further revealed when He sent His only Son to the world instead of Himself. Even though we are created in His image, God the Father keeps His distance from matter to a certain extent. For this reason, the title “Mother” is not appropriate for God, since the words: “mother” and “matter”, are etymologically related (Latin root: mater-).

God is not Mother Nature or Mother Earth. Also mothers during pregnancy are biologically joined to their child, but fathers are physically separated. Even though fathers love their children, there is still a certain degree of distance as compared to mothers. Once again this “separation” of father from child is related and analogous to the “separation” (Holiness) of God from creation. ***The God of Israel is called Father not because He is male, but because He is Holy.

---

I agree there must be a cause/source for what is.

Good

Your argument for why god has to be a being, or person is speculation. You have no way of knowing that ‘only persons have knowledge’.

You want to clarify thiss statement for me. What other beings/things besides persons have knowledge. Animals in one since have knowledge but they themselves (rather there particular species) have the “potential” to gain sentience and therefore person hood.

As stated before God is a purely actual being and thus lacking any privations.

Logically speaking the only way a purely actual force/power/entity/whatever could be lacking person hood is if we turn sentience and/or person hood into a privation.

Do you believe that it is privation?

This all strikes me as being a well thought out and sensible explanation for why some people believe in a personal god. And I can understand reasons why some people do, but I don’t think that the majority of evidence points to a personal god. I can see how individuals can reach that conclusion,but I have a harder time understanding how, in the light of human experience they hang on to it for very long. Because for most people, day to day life, where the rubber hits the road, end up being more compelling than a philosophical discussion or the force of logic.

I know some cling to a personal god because they are comforted by the idea of someone up there looking out for them. That makes sense to me.

What comes next? I mean, if someone accepts the arguments you posted…how does that mesh with the characterizations of the Christian god that people toss around?

I have been Catholic all my life. In high school my non-Catholic-Christian friends started challenging my beliefs. I, however, knew that the various churches they attended believed different things as well. I eventually began questioning why I was a Christian and a theist at all.Through ***study ***of philosophy and history I remained a theist and a Catholic. The arguments I posted before was a big influence on me. As for the characterizations of the Christian God I would say challenge Christianities beliefs and claims in the way they themselves would explain it.

Do what St. Thomas Aquinus did. He would put forth his opponents arguments as accurately and persuasively as he could. He even put forth arguments his opponents had not thought of themselves. Then he progressed to tear them to shreds!!!

Christianity is not logical. I don’t think it needs to be to serve its purpose. Logic is an interesting pastime, but it’s not the most powerful tool in the box (even though some seem to claim it as their highest power).

Careful here. What exactly is in Christianity that is contrary to logic? If you accept the presuppositions of the faith then it is internally consistent.

Furthermore, if Christianity is not logical then that means all its adherents, men and woman throughout two millennium some of who were, yes, dumber and wiser than you or I, were illogical.

I think atheism is a belief, just as theism is. There is no definitive proof either way. I think there is less proof that a specific concept of deity exists than no personal deity at all.

Agreed, like in my first post the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unprovable by natural reason alone.

(continued)

 

[holy_wood]

(continued)

I think people are atheists, most of the time, because they have found no compelling reason in their lives to believe in a specific concept of deity, or any of the concepts that they have come across. And for many, because when they did believe in a certain concept of deity, and used that as a guidepost for their life, they got results that made them believe that concept to be false, erroneous and in some cases detrimental and dangerous.

Some belief systems are false, erroneous, and detrimental to ones health. Does not mean all are. And for my friends who are atheist they are pretty apathetic to God either way. Meaning if they knew for a fact he did exist they still would not worship Him. It’s saddening.

I guess a logical question, to follow your post is “if all that is true about god, why are things the way they are? Why does he deal with humanity in this way?”

I can’t answer that for I know not the mind of God.

However, if you accept the Christian presupposition that God created a rational world of free creatures to choose to love Him, as He loves them, then I see suffering as a logical inevitability.
The propositions that God exists and that suffering exists are not logically inconsistent.

The premises that If God is all-good, then He would want to create a world with no suffering; secondly, if God is all-powerful, He could prevent all suffering in the world, and therefore there should be no suffering, is not necessarily true.

Notice that in order to prove that God and suffering are logically incompatible with each other, You would have to show that both of these propositions are necessarily true. I don’t think that you can. First of all, if God is all-good, is it necessarily true that He would want to create a world with no suffering? I don’t think this is necessarily true. It might be true if God’s purpose were to create a comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view, we are not God’s pets. And the purpose of life is not happiness, as such, but rather the knowledge of God and His salvation which will ultimately bring true happiness.

As you pointed out many evils occur in life which are utterly pointless with respect to producing human happiness. But they may not be pointless with respect to producing a deeper knowledge of God. One would have to prove that there is another world that God could have created with this much knowledge of God and His salvation but with fewer evils. But how could anyone prove such a thing? It would be pure speculation.
What People are asking for…
is that God to create a world of free creatures in which He intervened every time to rescue them from suffering?
As appealing as it may be the world in which you imagine would be a world in which rational behavior would be completely impossible. It would lead to total irresponsibility, total irrationality in our actions. It would mean that you could drive as fast as you wanted on the highway, you could drink or eat any substance you wanted to, enter any environment whether it be the vacuum of space, the frigid crushing depths of the ocean or the blistering magma rivers of a volcano. It would mean you could do anything to another person, you could act anyway you wanted, and nothing harmful would ever ensue as a consequence. It would even mean that you need not eat, drink, or even reproduce because you need not preserve the species for you would never die. And in actuality if one followed the base desire to have sex for merely the physical pleasure the consequence would be that the population of the world would grow exponentially because there would be an ever growing birth rate with 0% mortality.
I think that when you think about this, clearly it would make rational behavior completely impossible. So if God creates a world that operates according to certain natural laws, then the fire that warms us will also inevitably be the fire that burns us, and it may well be the case that an all-good God would want to create a world governed by natural law, which includes the possibility of suffering.
Secondly, if God is all-powerful, can He in fact create a world of free creatures in which no suffering occurs? I think this is clearly not necessarily true. Given human freedom, God cannot guarantee how people are going to use that freedom. And if He intervenes every time to prevent people from choosing evil, then we turn into puppets. So if God is going to create a world of significantly free moral agents, He has to allow them to make choices for evil, and therefore it may not be within God’s power to create a world of free creatures in which evil does not exist. Therefore, I don’t think the premises can be found to be true. And therefore it has not been demonstrated that suffering and God are logically incompatible.
And in fact this is very widely recognized by philosophers today. Peter Van Inwagen of the University of Syracuse reports in the Philosophical Perspectives of 1991,"It used to be widely held that evil was incompatible with the existence of God: that no possible world contained both God and evil. So far as I am able tell, this thesis is no longer defended."
In fact, we can actually prove that these are logically consistent by adding a third premise, namely, that God has a morally sufficient reason to permit suffering. As long as that proposition is even possible, it shows that suffering and God are logically compatible with each other.
One could say that God could have made better laws of nature than the ones that don’t involve suffering. Well, how do we know? How do we know this wasn’t the world in which it allowed for the maximum latitude for human freedom rather than God perhaps intervening all the time to prevent evils or some such thing? We know that in the afterlife, according to Christianity, that God will compensate us for the sufferings that we have borne if we have borne these in courage, faith, and trust in Him. Every immoral act will be punished. So, if you put that into the equation, I think it makes it clear that it is not necessarily true that an all-good God would have to create a world in which there is no suffering.
All God is morally obligated to do is to create a good world, not the best world. And this is, on balance, a good world (or everyone would commit suicide). So it seems to me that there’s no real problem of evil that counteracts theism. On the contrary, I think we’ve seen on the basis of our intuition of objective moral values in the world, especially made evident by evil, that it follows that God does exist.

Unfortunately, logic doesn’t work on those whose hearts are so hardened that they reject belief in God because its irrational but rather out of a grudge, apathy, or the desire to continue in their sins.

 

[cheddarsox]

When it comes to God the information we currently have, which is the exact same since mankind gained sentience, is that He exist.

? I’m not getting you. It seems that some huge leaps have been made, either through god revealing itself, or humans speculating. Because religions and theologies have clearly altered over the years. So somewhere, various peoples are basing their beliefs on a god, or godlike concept on something other than “he exists”…there are many religious people, from way back in history to today that would not even agree with the statement “he exists”.

I am arguing from a Christian perspective and the God of Christianity is masculine in nature and metaphorically described as our Father.

Why, in the context of this thread are you arguing from a Christian perspective. Is this thread about how atheists view the points listed in the OP, or about your concept of God specifically? Are we discussing any god or just your god? I understand that for someone who is monotheistic, that might seem like the same thing, but really it’s not.

You want to clarify thiss statement for me. What other beings/things besides persons have knowledge. Animals in one since have knowledge but they themselves (rather there particular species) have the “potential” to gain sentience and therefore person hood.

As a pantheist, I don’t assume that humanity is the ruler by which all things are judged. It’s a big Universe, we know very little about it. There may be all sorts of intelligences and knowledge, etc in it. When I observe the Universe, I don’t see a human type of intelligence or personhood behind it, yet the order of it indicates something is behind it. I don’t see a reason to label that something to be like me, because it shows no indication of being anything like me.

I feel that characterizing god, or the higher power as a person is false, misleading, and the cause of people projecting much nonsense onto that which is beyond us. The next thing you know, people are talking about god being angry, jealous, etc. emotions which no limitless powerful anything has any need for. When we label god as a person, we demean, for our convenience, the ultimate reality.

As stated before God is a purely actual being and thus lacking any privations.

Logically speaking the only way a purely actual force/power/entity/whatever could be lacking person hood is if we turn sentience and/or person hood into a privation.

In the sense that ‘god’ contains all that is, it has personhood, by containing us. It’s not lacking, but that is like me labeling you a toenail, because you contain a toenail. You are not a toenail, nor is that which is the ultimate reality, a person.

I have been Catholic all my life. …
Do what St. Thomas Aquinus did. He would put forth his opponents arguments as accurately and persuasively as he could. He even put forth arguments his opponents had not thought of themselves. Then he progressed to tear them to shreds!!!

Catholics are not the only people who think about their faith, discuss or debate it, etc. I guess the fact that there are people here of all sorts of faiths (and none at all) and thousands of religious forums and discussion groups is evidence of that. I have done much debating, thinking, discussing over the years, about my faith and others. And it’s an ongoing process. I am still in discussion. I haven’t said “I’ve got all the answers” and closed the door.

Careful here. What exactly is in Christianity that is contrary to logic? If you accept the presuppositions of the faith then it is internally consistent.

This, based on the OP, is probably not something we should open in this thread. Christians can and do argue that if one accepts what they say about god, then everything they say about god is logical, and with enough “odd” thinking, I’ll give it to them…they can make a case. It ends up characterizing their god as pretty warped, but it’s not my place to define their god, nor to claim that god, if such exists, should not be warped. So we could go all around the block and back again. But you can have this, yes, if I accept all your presuppositions, I can follow your arguments for why your god behaves as he does.

but then, hey, if you accepted all the premises of pantheism, I guess you could see how logical my faith is as well. We’ve pretty much proved nothing.

Furthermore, if Christianity is not logical then that means all its adherents, men and woman throughout two millennium some of who were, yes, dumber and wiser than you or I, were illogical.

(continued)

no, not really. Most of them didn’t have the interest, luxury or reason to think it all out or argue it all out. Many things we do on a daily basis we don’t bother to work out the logic of, who has the time or energy? If one lives in a culture where everyone holds the same faith, and it works, and they are worrying about getting their daily needs met, why should they sit down and worry over this? It is more logical that they didn’t bother to.

 

[AnAtheist]

I have to put this quote by Bertrand Russell (an atheist):
“Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.”
(So that answers one of the questions in my OP.)

I like to point out that this sentence means, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless, not life itself. There is a difference between meaning and purpose.

 

[cheddarsox]

(continued)

Some belief systems are false, erroneous, and detrimental to ones health. Does not mean all are. And for my friends who are atheist they are pretty apathetic to God either way. Meaning if they knew for a fact he did exist they still would not worship Him. It’s saddening.

That must just be human nature, I know many people who do claim to believe in God, and enjoy arguing for his existence, but you’d never know it from the way they live their lives. Sometimes I think organized religion has made it too easy for people. They show up, and feel they’ve met their duty for the week. A faith is nothing if it is not lived in every moment, if it does not inform our decisions, and alter our daily perspective.

However, if you accept the Christian presupposition that God created a rational world of free creatures to choose to love Him, as He loves them, then I see suffering as a logical inevitability.
The propositions that God exists and that suffering exists are not logically inconsistent.

I don’t accept those presuppositions, so I guess the rest is a moot point with me. I come from a perspective where humanity is not the reason for the Universe, it’s not all about us. And I still find either logical inconsistencies or having to accept a bizarre list of presuppositions that to me, basically means we are starting out from a base so far from logic…what’s the point?

I mean if I have to accept that which is ridiculous in order to follow your “logic”, then what’s the point? Why not just call it faith and move on? I’m OK with that, but many Christians think they’ll get more respect or win over hearts and minds if they play the logic card. But the logic card comes with a huge “if”, and truly it’s the “if” that we are arguing, not what comes after it.

If I accepted everything you say about god, then of course, I’d accept the rest as well.

Unfortunately, logic doesn’t work on those whose hearts are so hardened that they reject belief in God because its irrational but rather out of a grudge, apathy, or the desire to continue in their sins.

I agree with the first part, logic doesn’t work on hearts.

People don’t live in a tidy world, a courtroom where logic can be applied, debated, argued, in an orderly manner. They live messy complex lives, where suddenly, all the logical arguments don’t match up with their daily experience. And many don’t have again, the luxury, of sitting down with a nice fat book of theology to have someone re-explain to them how what they are experiencing is logically consistent with what another big fat book of theology says about god.

That is why they reject it, because for many, when it comes to their daily lives, it all falls apart like a cheap paper towel.

Yes, lots of people hold grudges against god, and if you listen to their stories, and they might not sound all that illogical.

It’s hard to hold onto a belief in all those things one hears about god, when life is challenging all those presuppositions one is asked to accept.

And the one’s who stick around, like to point fingers and claim apathy, attachment to sin, grudge, hardness of heart. But there is more to it than that, more than labels and head shaking can address.

There is a big “why”…why are those other things more powerful than the concept of god that they have been fed. Why are those things more real and compelling in their lives.

You may claim it is purely the failure of those apathetic humans, but I think there is more to it, in many cases, much more to it.

There are some real aching undeniable chasms of human need that are not being met by either the presuppositions or the logic that comes after, of many religious faiths.