Agnostic versus Atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Solmyr said:
Do you have a coherent definition of God?
Click to expand...
Another good one is: God is that which nothing greater can be imagined.

(And here “imagined” is used in the classical philosophical understanding. As in “conceived”. I think there have been a few wags who crowed, when they first encounter this definition of God, “HAH! * Imagined. * Your God is an imaginary construct, eh?”

Yeah. Only if you have a grade school definition of the word “imagined”.)
 
Tomdstone said:
Everything that moves is moved by another.
A moves, therefore A is moved by B
There are three possibilities:
1.A is moved by B, B is moved by C, C is moved by D and …D is moved by A (Circular)
2. A is moved by B, Bis moved by C, C is moved by D, ad infinitum (infinite regress)
3. A is moved by B, B is moved by C and … C is moved by D (the chain terminates)
So 1 cannot hold because the cyclical argument is repugnant.
2 cannot hold because an infinite regress is repugnant.
Therefore 3 must hold. So the chain terminates at some point and we arrive at the unmoved Mover.
Why does this argument fail.
First of all, 1 and 2 although they are repugnant are possible. Gravity supplies the extra energy needed to keep the chain moving.
Secondly, for 3, I don;t see how God can be an unMoved Mover. At every Mass, God responds to the prayers, by coming down to earth and effecting the miracle of Transubstantiation. And God did come down from heaven and was made man 2000 years ago. God responds to our prayers. So God is not unmoved.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That’s a good one. 👍

#1 has been disproved by Science. The universe had a beginning, therefore, there is no “D is moved by A”. There is only the beginning: A.

#2 has been disproved by Philosophy. “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.”–David Hume

#3 God is the Unmoved Mover because God, existing outside of time, causes all things, moves all things, in the Eternal Now.
 
Tomdstone said:
No. I didn’t know that. I thought that mathematics was a logically consistent theory and that the assumption that time extends ad infinitum in the past and ad infinitum in the future presented no violation of any logical rule or law.
Click to expand...
See my post quoting David Hume above.
 
Bradski said:
And let’s skip atheism. That’s just a rejection of ALL other options.
Click to expand...
I wish this were the case.

It seems as if atheism is actually a rejection of some arguments no one is even presenting (except as an aside).
 
PRmerger said:
#2 has been disproved by Philosophy. “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.”–David Hume
Click to expand...
Apparently Hume never studied the mathematics of the real line. There is no contradiction in assuming a time line extending infinitely into the past as mathematics shows.
If you think that there is a contradiction, tell us what it is.
 
PRmerger said:
See my post quoting David Hume above.
Click to expand...
Hume’s quote proves nothing except that he does not understand the mathematics of the real line. His error is similar to people who do not understand the solution to.Zeno’s paradox.
 
PRmerger said:
Out of sheer, gratuitous love.
Click to expand...
But the atheist will say that He tricked Adam and Eve by presenting them with a temptation. He knew in advance that they would sin. God loves people in heaven, and yet He does not present them with temptations to sin in heaven?
 
PRmerger said:
#1 has been disproved by Science. The universe had a beginning,
.
Click to expand...
Science has not proven that the BB is the beginning of the universe. Many (possibly most) scientists will simply say that they do not know what occurred before the BB. Others will say that there is evidence for the cyclical universe.
 
PRmerger said:
#3 God is the Unmoved Mover because God, existing outside of time, causes all things, moves all things, in the Eternal Now.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how you can deny that God responds to prayers. God moves and performs a miracle as a result of the prayers said at each and every Holy Mass. If God moves, and responds to prayers, He is not unMoved.
 
PRmerger said:
It seems as if atheism is actually a rejection of some arguments no one is even presenting (except as an aside).
Click to expand...
Atheists point to the problem of evil as a contradiction to an omnipotent and all-Loving God. They do not see how the argument explaining evil from free will would apply to a suffering infant or child who had done no wrong. Further the atheist will appeal to the law of parsimony and say that everything can be explained without invoking divine intervention.
 
PRmerger said:
Could you please offer the explanation they have for the subatomic particles popping up from nothing?

How did they create “nothing” in a lab?
Click to expand...
The contention is that quantum fluctuations are random and uncaused.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
When you are ready to answer my questions, I will be ready to answer yours.

No dodging please. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I’m sorry…did you ask me something earlier? If so, could you refresh my memory?

I’m keen to know when you first classed yourself as a Christian. After investigating all the options, of course.
 
PRmerger said:
What the…what??

This is a “very bad example indeed” because Augustine’s parents were Christian?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Younwanted to give me an example of someone who was a Christian because they had examined the evidence from a theological and philosophical biewpoint.

Augustine was a Christian becuase his mother was a Christian. He was a Christian well before he ever studied the evidence. Everyone is. Including you and the pope.

There may very well be someone, somewhere, at some time, who studied all belief systems and then made a conscious decision to choose one. That would be exceptionally rare and would be an exception that proved the rule.
 
PRmerger said:
All I’m saying is that it’s no wonder you’re an atheist.

I would be an atheist too if the only argument I ever considered was, “Hey, there’s a whole lot of Believers in the world”.
Click to expand...
Who said it was the only argument considered? I would say that I have investigated probably all the arguments for God. Substantially more than your average Christian. And you very well know that. So enough already with it being the only argument.

You asked for the one I considered to be the best. And you are still complaining because it’s not one that you wanted.

And as to who would possibly use it as an argument anyway…well, simply check out the first couple of sentences in Charles post number 442. There are actually people using it in this very thread.
 
Bradski said:
I’m sorry…did you ask me something earlier? If so, could you refresh my memory?

I’m keen to know when you first classed yourself as a Christian. After investigating all the options, of course.
Click to expand...
I posed the question below as to why you think Einstein’s partial definition of God is incoherent.

*No definition of God would you even entertain if it was Scripturally based, so I’ll settle for the moment on Einstein’s partial definition. Tell me why you think Einstein’s definition, as expressed in the next two paragraphs, is not even partially true.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” And again, on a later occasion, Einstein said “… everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” *

I classed myself as a Christian and returned to the Catholic Church when I decided that atheism was a dead end. Though it pretends to be intellectually superior to Christianity, atheism offers no coherent explanation for anything,

You asked, I answered.

Now please answer my question. Why is Einstein’s definition of God incoherent to you as an atheist?
 
Tomdstone said:
Apparently Hume never studied the mathematics of the real line. There is no contradiction in assuming a time line extending infinitely into the past as mathematics shows.
If you think that there is a contradiction, tell us what it is.
Click to expand...
Only if you don’t have a present moment in time, that is, TODAY.

Take this example, borrowed from Apologist Trent Horn:

Imagine that you want to display your marble collection. You want to display them when you’ve counted all of them.

So if you have 12 marbles, you will display them pretty quickly.

If you have a million marbles, it will take quite a long time to get to the day when you can display them. But you would, eventually, get to the day.

But if you have an infinite number of marbles, you will never get to the day when you display your marbles. There will always be one more marble to count.

But I see your marble display. (That is, in this parallel, equal to “TODAY”. Today is happening, therefore that means you’ve displayed your marbles).

Therefore, I can conclude that you didn’t have an infinite number of marbles.
 
Tomdstone said:
But the atheist will say that He tricked Adam and Eve by presenting them with a temptation. He knew in advance that they would sin. God loves people in heaven, and yet He does not present them with temptations to sin in heaven?
Click to expand...
This is an argument against God’s existence, how? :confused:

Is this not acknowledging: God exists!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top