Any suggestions to refute atheism

[spectrm]

We will have to arm wrestle to see who is right.

I am not asking about DNA the molecule. I am asking about the language itself. Can you show me a language that has not been created by a mind?

2 + 2 = 4 # this is a sentence

Mathematics is a language (as it conveys communication) and it’s rules are constant. The structure we’ve framed around it not-withstanding, properties and their interactions with each other define a clear linguistic framework and definitely predated even humankind in this universe.

A “spoken” or “biologica” language is just a higher-level iteration of this. Abstract concepts in a particular order with definitions of their relation to one another producing a final result that is more often than not more than merely the sum of its parts. xkcd.com/435/

 

[buffalo]

Alright, then I shall respond in kind. I “limit” my worldview to what is rational and supported by scientific research and empirical observation.

Your worldview is ignoring rationality and embarking on a willful, unsubstantiated journey of falsehood.

Having said so, I believe this conversation no longer has a place in this thread. But thank you for your time.

Better.

Nope - my worldview includes empirical observation and that the universe is intelligible. I am rational and use reason to understand the total universe excluding nothing.

The Catholic position is beautiful.

Note: Catholics argued that the universe is intelligible against those who maintained it was random and science wasn’t worth pursuing. That is why credit is due as to the birth of modern science.

 

[buffalo]

2 + 2 = 4 # this is a sentence

Mathematics is a language (as it conveys communication) and it’s rules are constant. The structure we’ve framed around it not-withstanding, properties and their interactions with each other define a clear linguistic framework and definitely predated even humankind in this universe.

A “spoken” or “biologica” language is just a higher-level iteration of this. Abstract concepts in a particular order with definitions of their relation to one another producing a final result that is more often than not more than merely the sum of its parts. xkcd.com/435/

In the sentence you have used symbols. Symbols and language come from a mind. You do not see these in nature.

 

[spectrm]

I am quite content to label it as such. You deliberately limit your worldview. This is a willful act of negligence.

This has gone tremendously off-topic, you and logos, and it can be attributed to you, really. It’s a logical fallacy to ‘poison the well’. None of us tried to claim your arguments are without validity merely because you’re christian. You, on the other hand, has extrapolated from our mere lack of belief in a deity that we are inherently nihilist and that we think and believe that way. I’ve made no presumptions about anyone’s beliefs here, and nor has logos. You seem ready and willing to become judgmental right out of the gate (funny that…wasn’t there some christian saying against judging…and the atheists are the ones following it? interesting).

For one, you know nothing of logos’ actual beliefs. What he believes may encompass all kinds of mystical ideas. What (s)he will claim to KNOW is an entirely different story. Epistemology defines knowledge as ‘justified, true, belief’. I may believe something and have justification, but if it’s proven false, it’s just as worthless to me as something I don’t believe. I won’t claim to KNOW there to not be a god. As has already been admitted, there can be no way of KNOWing that there isn’t. I believe there isn’t a god as there has been no conclusive evidence to convince me there is one. But even as the epistemological definition of knowledge goes, knowing a falsehood is impossible. Fortunately, the burden of proof is on the believer.

 

[buffalo]

This has gone tremendously off-topic, you and logos, and it can be attributed to you, really. It’s a logical fallacy to ‘poison the well’. None of us tried to claim your arguments are without validity merely because you’re christian. You, on the other hand, has extrapolated from our mere lack of belief in a deity that we are inherently nihilist and that we think and believe that way. I’ve made no presumptions about anyone’s beliefs here, and nor has logos. You seem ready and willing to become judgmental right out of the gate (funny that…wasn’t there some christian saying against judging…and the atheists are the ones following it? interesting).

For one, you know nothing of logos’ actual beliefs. What he believes may encompass all kinds of mystical ideas. What (s)he will claim to KNOW is an entirely different story. Epistemology defines knowledge as ‘justified, true, belief’. I may believe something and have justification, but if it’s proven false, it’s just as worthless to me as something I don’t believe. I won’t claim to KNOW there to not be a god. As has already been admitted, there can be no way of KNOWing that there isn’t. I believe there isn’t a god as there has been no conclusive evidence to convince me there is one. But even as the epistemological definition of knowledge goes, knowing a falsehood is impossible. Fortunately, the burden of proof is on the believer.

You are confusing judgment with judging one’s salvation.

It comes down to this question - how extensively have you studied the science of divinity? You cannot find this in the empirical realm as we all have agreed. So one must take a positive step to hear and discern all the arguments and evidence the divine sciences possess. Philosophy is key, too.

Catholics teach that God can be known through reason. We also know God came to meet man and Revealed much. So the converging information convinces us that God is true. But as I said before the Catholic proposition is very rich indeed.

 

[spectrm]

In the sentence you have used symbols. Symbols and language come from a mind. You do not see these in nature.

To communicate my idea, I had to use words (sorry I didn’t send it telepathically). The symbols are merely representative of the concept they embody. You add value to the symbol, but the concept has an inherent value of its own. As proven by the fact that DNA predates “proper” linguistics, information can be stored and communicated in a normalized fashion without the pre-requisite of a creator.

Where you see a vacuum and a designer willing to fill it, I see a fabric of existence that defines things to operate exactly as they do.

 

[spectrm]

You are confusing judgment with judging one’s salvation.

I don’t believe I remember ‘the lord’ differentiating.

It comes down to this question - how extensively have you studied the science of divinity?

That largely depends on your definition of divinity - or do you mean Divinity?

You cannot find this in the empirical realm as we all have agreed.

No, that’s not what we agreed. We agreed that the only way to find empirical evidence of a supernatural is to measure any alleged effects it has had on the natural world.

So one must take a positive step to hear and discern all the arguments and evidence the divine sciences possess. Philosophy is key, too.

Unless a measured effect of this ‘divinity’ can be seen in the natural world, there is no reason to believe a ‘divine science’ exists anymore than there is reason to believe that a ‘divinity’ exists. Philosophy IS key…and the avoidance of logical fallacies should be a top priority of any philosophical discourse.

Catholics teach that God can be known through reason.

His existence can be inferred through reason - but by the same measure, so can the FSM, UFOs, and my ‘ghost penis’. The first is just as preposterous as Yahweh, the second is likely, but difficult to verify, and the third is merely the result of a slightly botched circumcision (DON’T CUT YOUR KIDS!!!) resulting in a nerve misalignment that makes me feel as if there are two of them. God, and his nature, cannot be KNOWN through reason as, stated before, knowledge is ‘justified, true, belief’. You can have a well-justified belief, but you don’t KNOW.

We also know God came to meet man and Revealed much. So the converging information convinces us that God is true. But as I said before the Catholic proposition is very rich indeed.

Once again, the ‘know’ is a falsehood, and the richness of the catholic proposition is another factor to it’s falsehood. Science recognizes that things develop from simple to more complex. Religion proposes a complexity and seeks to reduce it. The funny thing about science is that it recognizes religion as another phenomenon that has grown from something simple into something complex. It’s similarity in application and development to many other secular and even merely biological progressions is further evidence to suggest that religion, and belief in a deity in general, is another by-product of human existence, not the other way around.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t believe I remember ‘the lord’ differentiating.

That largely depends on your definition of divinity - or do you mean Divinity?

No, that’s not what we agreed. We agreed that the only way to find empirical evidence of a supernatural is to measure any alleged effects it has had on the natural world.

Unless a measured effect of this ‘divinity’ can be seen in the natural world, there is no reason to believe a ‘divine science’ exists anymore than there is reason to believe that a ‘divinity’ exists. Philosophy IS key…and the avoidance of logical fallacies should be a top priority of any philosophical discourse.

His existence can be inferred through reason - but by the same measure, so can the FSM, UFOs, and my ‘ghost penis’. The first is just as preposterous as Yahweh, the second is likely, but difficult to verify, and the third is merely the result of a slightly botched circumcision (DON’T CUT YOUR KIDS!!!) resulting in a nerve misalignment that makes me feel as if there are two of them. God, and his nature, cannot be KNOWN through reason as, stated before, knowledge is ‘justified, true, belief’. You can have a well-justified belief, but you don’t KNOW.

Once again, the ‘know’ is a falsehood, and the richness of the catholic proposition is another factor to it’s falsehood. Science recognizes that things develop from simple to more complex. Religion proposes a complexity and seeks to reduce it. The funny thing about science is that it recognizes religion as another phenomenon that has grown from something simple into something complex. It’s similarity in application and development to many other secular and even merely biological progressions is further evidence to suggest that religion, and belief in a deity in general, is another by-product of human existence, not the other way around.

You need to read the part in the Bible about fraternal correction. Perhaps there is more in the Bible that could help your learning.

Believing in God is simple. I used the word rich not complex.

The FSM could exist in one of the universes, but I cannot conclude that is does. UFO’s do exist, that is why they are defined that way. They are unidentified flying objects that humans have witnessed.

The effect of the supernatural has been to cause religion. The adherents of God far outnumber the unbelievers. The experience of God is measurable in people’s lives. How can science empirically measure this effect? Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population

is one way but I do not need it.

 

[Logos385]

The experience of God is measurable in people’s lives. How can science empirically measure this effect? Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population

is one way but I do not need it.

To harken this back at least slightly to the original post: One way to never go about attempting to convert an Atheist is to invoke the argument that prayer has unexplained power.

nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

Etc. Etc.

It may be consoling, but past that, it has no special power.

 

[buffalo]

To harken this back at least slightly to the original post: One way to never go about attempting to convert an Atheist is to invoke the argument that prayer has unexplained power.

nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

Etc. Etc.

It may be consoling, but past that, it has no special power.

Let me subsititute - One way to never go about attempting to convert an Atheist is to invoke the argument that talking to God has unexplained power.

But you will ignore the double blind study?

Let’s see - you claimed that the supernatural should manifest itself in the natural world. But you reject prayer outright?

 

[reggieM]

As for miracles reported modernly, and nearly all those in history, can be attributed to natural physiological happenings.

That’s quite a claim. It assumes that you’ve investigated the miracles reported, when it’s not possible that you could have even counted them all.

And I have nuns who are atheist - what’s your point? A person believing something doesn’t make it true, no matter how qualified they are.

My point is that you’re not interested in investigating this matter and therefore it is not worth bringing this up with atheists. As I said, it’s not the best argument – not for the fact that there is so much evidence, but because atheists do not want to get interested in this.

“Look for something long enough, and you shall find it” - the corollary being “whether it’s there or not”.

If you looked for God long enough, you would find God. Therefore, you do not find God because you do not want to look. It’s the same with miracles. If you read the Catholic books on miracles and the reports on thousands of them – or the writings on the lives of Catholic saints - -eventually, you would believe in God and the supernatural and miracles. But you don’t want to do that. It’s not because the material doesn’t exist but because you’re not interested in it for other, personal reasons known to you alone.

Much of these stories draws on emotions - inviting you to accept the ‘feel of The Presence’ and accept it…get used to it…to the point where you no longer question it. At which point, you’ve lost ‘your inner buddha’, as it were.

The book I mentioned is not an apologetics or evangelical book. The author is not interested in convincing anyone of anything except for what he experienced and how it affected him. He’s not trying to prove something. The fact that he converted to Theism is not something he’s trying to push on anyone.

He merely looked at the events, talked with the people and reviewed the information. He also experienced the miraculous and supernatural first-hand, so that helped quite a lot.

Father Sudac is a stigamatist priest in Croatia …

Father Sudac not only reportedly has the stigmata - a cross on his forehead, wounds on his feet, wrists and side - he has the powers of discernment, prophecy and bilocation (being in two places at once).

He was born on January 24, 1971. He is from the town of Vrbnik, on Krk island, in Croatia. He served in the Yugoslav army, then entered the seminary and was ordained June 29, 1998. He is a priest of the diocese of Krk, Croatia.

Father Sudac received the cross on his forehead in May 1999, on the Friday after the beatification of Padre Pio, the famed stigmatic priest. He was reportedly sent to the Gemelli Clinic in Rome, where, after an investigation it was concluded that his was not of human origin. He subsequently received the stigmata on his wrists, feet and side on October 4, 2000, the feast day of St. Francis of Assisi, the first stigmatic in the history of the Church.

A person who is not biased towards atheistic-materialism would not immediately judge this matter as being false. There would be some objectivity and openness to what was stated.

In my experience, virtually every atheist I’ve ever communincated such information (and there are more instances like this) has dismissed stories like this immediately, with no further investigation, or by taking some uninformed ridicule from other atheist websites as their own opinion.

That is understandable. It’s for this reason that I find arguing with atheists to be pointless after a minimal amount of information has been exchanged.

I’m afraid we’re at that point now with this exchange. I appreciate your thoughts on these matters. I understand your views and I know how your template will provide responses for you on every point raised. You may think the same about my responses – and it is true that I will defend belief in the existence of God because I see it supported both by evidence I’ve provided as well as personal experience that I’ve tested myself. That would be more than a Presence which is ambiguous, but a personal God who communicates with us and guides and directs events in life, in ways that natural laws do not and cannot explain.

That experience is the outcome of prayer to God – prayers that were answered clearly and fully, with God making himself known to me.

That is not an unusual testimony, although I understand you reject it. There’s no need to argue against what I said, but feel free to do so if you want.

 

[Logos385]

Let me subsititute - One way to never go about attempting to convert an Atheist is to invoke the argument that talking to God has unexplained power.

But you will ignore the double blind study?

Let’s see - you claimed that the supernatural should manifest itself in the natural world. But you reject prayer outright?

I’m sorry, but the claim prayer is talking to God is quite unproven.

I will rely on the much broader, all-inclusive, larger, peer-reviewed and public study I referenced three times than a single reference to a study with hardly any details and a paragraph-long write-up.

I do not believe in the supernatural, thus do not claim it should manifest in the natural. You are undoubtedly the one claiming the supernatural affects the natural. And I reject prayer not outright, but because it is not evidentially supported.

 

[Thing]

Once again, you keep asking me to throw out everything and put myself before God. But that’s impossible for many reasons, including the fact that I rely on science. And under science, the God Hypothesis fails.

Sorry, but repetition of your point does not make it any more believable.

Nooo…ooo… you throw out everything all by yourself when you say its impossible to prove. I don’t understand why you cannot see it.

You say; ‘God does not exist, it is impossible to prove His existance with science.’
Then you say, ‘Prove Gods existance to me with science.’

What do you want us to do. You already said you won’t believe any proof we might give you.
So, I simply said that your only alternative is to prove His existance to yourself, by going to him yourself and asking Him yourself. Theres nothing else you can do. But you won’t even consider the only thing you can do.

 

[reggieM]

1. Nature DOES command and forbid various actions (rather, courses of action). For one, we must survive. There are various behaviors and activities developed in us and other species that reflect this commandment.

Actually, nature does not care if we live or die – or if we survive or go extinct. Nature is amoral and unintelligent – it does not command or forbid any human behavior at all. It does not command that we survive – in fact, it causes some species not to survive. It commands nothing at all – it just “is”. Nature does not say that we must survive or not. Nature does not care because it cannot care. It has no purpose, desire or intention. It is blind and purposeless. Nothing is fulfilled – everything can die or be destroyed and nature does not care about that or “want” anything different. Again, there is no moral imperative that comes from atheistic-materialism, since nature is “all that there is”.

Nature also commands us to ‘do unto others we would have them do unto us’ - you don’t know if they have a tribe…or are stronger or faster than you…it makes more sense to be cooperative and so the right thing to do, even in the vein of self-interest, is to act civil.

Nature does not forbid us from acting selfishly in every situation. It does not command us to do any action at all.

I think the general christian perception that evolution means we’re all ‘inherently violent, thieving, scoundrels and only society saves us’ is deeply flawed and more reflects your own thoughts regarding humankind than mine - after all…look at YOUR creation myth…you even believe you’re BORN in a state that sanctions hell as a punishment. And MY world view is bleak…?

This is a classic atheistic approach. When stuck with no answer at all to the problem, or having to absurdly claim that “nature commands” certain behaviors, you turn the argument to “the creation myth”. No, the argument is that “nature is all that there is” in atheistic-materialism, and as such, no human behaviors are commanded or forbidden. None. Nature does not care about such things. Not even if the human race goes extinct or if everyone dies of starvation or if the earth was entirely destroyed, or if a dictator ruled the earth and subjected everyone to torture. There is nothing in matter and natural laws to forbid any of this – and all there is is matter and natural laws (in the atheist-materialist view). So this has nothing to do with creation-myths, but rather, the impossiblity of arguing against this simple fact.

If you mean by ‘permitted’ that we have the free will to do it, absolutely, I believe we do…but to that extent, so do you.

I do not believe what you do with regard to free-will since you believe everything has been determined by natural laws and evolutionary forces cause things to happen. In your view, there cannot be free will as I understand the term. Again, matter and nature do not make choices. They just exist and do what they are pre-determined to do. Mutations just happen by accident. If nature is all that there is, and your brain is the product of evolution, and evolution follows the patterns of natural laws – then there can be no free will. The fact that you accept free will is evidence against your own atheistic belief.

 

[Logos385]

Nooo…ooo… you throw out everything all by yourself when you say its impossible to prove. I don’t understand why you cannot see it.

You say; ‘God does not exist, it is impossible to prove His existance with science.’
Then you say, ‘Prove Gods existance to me with science.’

What do you want us to do. You already said you won’t believe any proof we might give you.
So, I simply said that your only alternative is to prove His existance to yourself, by going to him yourself and asking Him yourself. Theres nothing else you can do. But you won’t even consider the only thing you can do.

Your situation is incorrect.

I say: God has not been shown to exist by scientific means. Science doesn’t make commentary on anything outside the natural world. The only way to give at least a little legitimacy to your supernatural claims is to test them by examining first the effect you claim God has on the natural world, then by examining the natural world itself.

You say: God exists. In order to find him, you must search yourself.

You can see why your response seems to be almost a non-sequitor. However, I see what you mean. You mean you can’t show that the predicted natural affects are occurring, which means you can’t show that your belief system is justifiable in any evidentiary way. Because of this, you can’t say, “look at this natural effect,” you say, “go search yourself.”

Frankly, I have been searching. And it’s not there.

 

[Thing]

Your situation is incorrect.

I say: God has not been shown to exist by scientific means. Science doesn’t make commentary on anything outside the natural world. The only way to give at least a little legitimacy to your supernatural claims is to test them by examining first the effect you claim God has on the natural world, then by examining the natural world itself.

You say: God exists. In order to find him, you must search yourself.

You can see why your response seems to be almost a non-sequitor. However, I see what you mean. You mean you can’t show that the predicted natural affects are occurring, which means you can’t show that your belief system is justifiable in any evidentiary way. Because of this, you can’t say, “look at this natural effect,” you say, “go search yourself.”

Frankly, I have been searching. And it’s not there.

I did not say you must search yourself. I said you must search, yourself.

You just said to me that you cannot prove His existance to yourself by science. What other alternative do you have?

Are you sure you want to know if God exists?
??

 

[Filius99993]

Are you sure you want to know if God exists?
??

You bring up a good point… some people would rather be ignorant of God’s existence and unobligated to any particular religion than be sure of God’s existence and to actually know Him. They dislike our “dogmas” so much that their disapproval leaves them blind.

 

[Logos385]

I did not say you must search yourself. I said you must search, yourself.

You just said to me that you cannot prove His existance to yourself by science. What other alternative do you have?

Are you sure you want to know if God exists?
??

I do want to know. As a scientific man, I live on rational inquiry and the wonder it provides. And so far this rational inquiry has led me to not follow any religions. That is really all I have to say at this point on this subject.
I am a man of science, and that has not led me to God.

 

[buffalo]

I do want to know. As a scientific man, I live on rational inquiry and the wonder it provides. And so far this rational inquiry has led me to not follow any religions. That is really all I have to say at this point on this subject.
I am a man of science, and that has not led me to God.

That is what I meant by atheism is an act of will. " I am a man of science and I have not found God there, but I will never be able to because science cannot address Him."

You will not be led to God because the ladder you are climbing is leaning on the wrong wall.

Try this - learn the Rosary and sincerely pray it for one year, being sure to meditate on the Mysteries. If you want to find God learn from the people who have. Study the Saints.

 

[spectrm]

@reggieM: on my mobile, so responding to individual points has to wait till later tonite.

In the meantime…

There is no grounds for you to be inferring all this about my beliefs and world-view. You are wholly innaccurate in your assessment if me and would do well to keep assumptions out of intelligent discourse. Once again, one’s presumptions of another reflect more about the presumer than the presumed. I’m not a mental automaton, and I resent the notion. Remember, you have to resolve free-will with an omniscient alpha, as well.

Just think critically about your treatment of people. You know what you do when you assume…