Agnostic versus Atheist

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how you can deny that God responds to prayers.

Oh, I am heartened to see you acknowledge this, Tom!

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.

You seem to have a very linear view of time. That’s fine from our very, very limited perspective.

But it’s kind of like an ant trying to describe the crystals of the sugar in front of him.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

The contention is that quantum fluctuations are random and uncaused.

That they come from nothing?

That seems to be true only if one redefines “nothing”, as…er…“something” (that is, a vacuum state).

As theoretical physicist David Albert says: “Vacuum state—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff . . . the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.”

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

This is where the error is. At this point, he is assuming that there is a beginning, which is not true for a line extending infinitely in the past. There is no logical contradiction in the mathematics of the real line which extends infinitely in both directions.

 

[PRmerger]

Atheists point to the problem of evil as a contradiction to an omnipotent and all-Loving God.

But it’s not an argument against the existence of God.

That is, there is no logical contradiction between: Evil exists and God exists.

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.

They still have to explain, as Dawkins acknowledges, the “trump card” of the theologian: why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[PRmerger]

This is where the error is. At this point, he is assuming that there is a beginning, which is not true for a line extending infinitely in the past. There is no logical contradiction in the mathematics of the real line which extends infinitely in both directions.

No, Tom.

He is not assuming there is a beginning.

He is only assuming that there is Point in Time, X, which is today.

And that’s not an assumption.

That’s reality.

 

[Tomdstone]

That they come from nothing?

That seems to be true only if one redefines “nothing”, as…er…“something” (that is, a vacuum state).

As theoretical physicist David Albert says: “Vacuum state—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff . . . the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.”

The contention is not so much that they come from nothing, but more that the principle of causality may not apply to this situation.

 

[Tomdstone]

Oh, I am heartened to see you acknowledge this, Tom!

The problem is with the argument that God is unMoved. The argument cannot be correct if God responds to prayer. If God is moved by our prayers, He is not unMoved.

 

[Tomdstone]

But it’s not an argument against the existence of God.

That is, there is no logical contradiction between: Evil exists and God exists.

An atheist will dispute this contention.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is with the argument that God is unMoved. The argument cannot be correct if God responds to prayer. If God is moved by our prayers, He is not unMoved.

There is no “God is moved by our prayers and therefore acts…” (which is the argument you are presenting. God hears our prayers AND THEN decides to do something)

With God, everything is in the Eternal Now, so there is no AND THEN.

 

[PRmerger]

An atheist will dispute this contention.

Then he would have to offer what’s the logical contradiction between evil existing and a transcendent, eternal, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient creator.

That’s like saying: “It’s a contradiction for turnips to exist and people believing we didn’t land on the moon.”

There’s no logical contradiction between those 2 things, no?

 

[Tomdstone]

No, Tom.

He is not assuming there is a beginning.

He is only assuming that there is Point in Time, X, which is today.

And that’s not an assumption.

That’s reality.

The argument given does not logically contradict the possiblity of an infinite extension of the time line into the past and into the future. This is assumed all the time in mathematics and there is no logical problem with this assumption.

 

[Aloysium]

The argument given does not logically contradict the possiblity of an infinite extension of the time line into the past and into the future. This is assumed all the time in mathematics and there is no logical problem with this assumption.

Consider that in mathematics there is a starting point, and it is zero. From that beginning it goes in two directions. Time goes in one and it had a start at point zero in time. You might contend that in regards to point zero, which has no dimensional quality itself, an infinite number of lines might proceed from it. You still need that zero point for any of this to be possible.

View attachment 23269

 

[Tomdstone]

Then he would have to offer what’s the logical contradiction between evil existing and a transcendent, eternal, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient creator.

That’s like saying: “It’s a contradiction for turnips to exist and people believing we didn’t land on the moon.”

There’s no logical contradiction between those 2 things, no?

A turnip is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, so the argument would not apply to a turnip. As the atheist looks at the world around her, she finds instances of gratuitous evil—pointless evils from which no greater good results. She concludes that these instances of unnecessary evil neither preserve free will nor promote the value of society or the well being of humans. The question is why an omniscient, omnipotent and wholly good God would allow the extreme gratuitous suffering we see in the world. there is no suffering in heaven. Why then is it necessary that there be suffering on earth. The existence of free will does not answer the question as to why a small child would suffer. After all, a child has done nothing wrong to deserve extreme gratuitous suffering.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Except that then you would say, “Well, his humidor repair man was a Believer…so that’s a very bad example indeed.”

Surely you see how absolutely ridiculous your criteria are, yes?

“Give me the names of some folks who have converted because they studied the arguments, but they can’t have had any teachers, parents, neighbors, repairmen, pilots, gardeners, massage therapist who have been Believers, because…you know…then that doesn’t count!”

Someone who was a feral child maybe? Is that what you’re looking for?
And then she studied her way into her religious faith?

Oh, wait, then she had philosophy and theology books she read.

So that would be a very bad example indeed too, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

Augustine was a Christian becuase his mother was a Christian.

Yes, he was baptized a Christian.

But he studied his way back into the Faith.

 

[PRmerger]

The argument given does not logically contradict the possiblity of an infinite extension of the time line into the past and into the future. This is assumed all the time in mathematics and there is no logical problem with this assumption.

Then you tell me how I could display my marbles after counting all of them, if I had an infinite number of marbles.

 

[PRmerger]

A turnip is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, so the argument would not apply to a turnip. As the atheist looks at the world around her, she finds instances of gratuitous evil—pointless evils from which no greater good results. She concludes that these instances of unnecessary evil neither preserve free will nor promote the value of society or the well being of humans. The question is why an omniscient, omnipotent and wholly good God would allow the extreme gratuitous suffering we see in the world. there is no suffering in heaven. Why then is it necessary that there be suffering on earth. The existence of free will does not answer the question as to why a small child would suffer. After all, a child has done nothing wrong to deserve extreme gratuitous suffering.

And this atheist is still left with explaining the problem of evil.

What’s her answer to this?

 

[Tomdstone]

Then you tell me how I could display my marbles after counting all of them, if I had an infinite number of marbles.

If you are going to take one second to count each marble, you would not be able to finish counting an infinite number of marbles. However, there is no logical contradiction in that.

 

[Aloysium]

A turnip is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, so the argument would not apply to a turnip. As the atheist looks at the world around her, she finds instances of gratuitous evil—pointless evils from which no greater good results. She concludes that these instances of unnecessary evil neither preserve free will nor promote the value of society or the well being of humans. The question is why an omniscient, omnipotent and wholly good God would allow the extreme gratuitous suffering we see in the world. there is no suffering in heaven. Why then is it necessary that there be suffering on earth. The existence of free will does not answer the question as to why a small child would suffer. After all, a child has done nothing wrong to deserve extreme gratuitous suffering.

The only argument against the existence of God that I see as having any potential merit would be the existence of evil. The others fall quickly when we focus on the reality of existence, beauty and truth. But then, even this one, with the image of Christ on the cross, the question is transformed into wonder - a God who suffers with us, a God who had intended to keep it for Himself, for the salvation of a free creation, until we grabbed and ate of that fruit. God is Love and Paul outlines its features.

Before we can ask why is evil, we must understand what it is. In a universe that is grounded in a loving act of creation, It involves a departure from that Centre. We disconnect from the eternal benevolent will, through acts that are unloving. With that, we depart from our eternal Home, a prodigal son. Evil includes something out there to harm us, but it can be known intimately and fully as it exists within us.

Evil exists as a potential, a choice to put ourselves at the centre of our existence, that in surrendering we demonstrate our love. Through our actions we participate in our own creation as loving persons. Giving into what is sin, it takes hold and grows until the lust leads to greater and greater harm not only to others, but to our eternal soul.

Suffering usually comes from the unwilling loss of something that was transient and never really ours. From money, power, honour and pleasure to our very relationship with God, it is all given, however hard we have worked to attain those fruits of existence. Like Job, when life hits us hard, within the context of the greater reality we can only affirm, “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?" and "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know . . . My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” For those who do not recall the story, after Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord gave him much more than he had in every respect. And that’s the way it works, and even while we are here on earth. The aim is to know and love God. Jesus Christ has made it possible to know Him.

Actually, all religions arise from the problem of evil in life. Even when we are in wonder over something beautiful, a truth that pierces the fog of ignorance, the amazingness of life, those moments are often brief, and we are left to grieve what we have lost. The answer to any question regarding the existence of God lies in the reality of the relationship we have with Him. How badly do we want to know Him?

 

[Tomdstone]

And this atheist is still left with explaining the problem of evil.

What’s her answer to this?

The answer of the atheist is that gratuitous evil does exist and it contradicts the existence of an all powerful and all good God.
At this point, I am repeating myself, so I am going to take a break for a while.