Arian Foster: Answers to Atheists

[SPBlitz]

Anselm’s “ontological argument” is a bit iffier, but has some merit. C. S. Lewis popularized an argument from moral intuition, which as I see it is really a variant of the cosmological argument. Lewis also makes an argument from “desire,” which again, can be subsumed under the Five Ways (the fifth way, or maybe the fourth, is about final causality, which is really about the desire or tendency of all created things to seek for an ultimate goal).

Edwin

I think that Lewis’ most convincing argument was his Argument from Reason.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Well, I think that there are two atheistic ‘Problems of Evil’ which I probably should have specified.
The first usually comes from the emotional problem of evil that is usually used as proof against God. In a nutshell, the argument is that it is too horrible to think that a good God would allow as much evil/suffering as we see in the world. My response to that is that if it is too horrible for God to allow evil in this life (with at least the promise of ultimate justice), the idea that there is no ultimate justice and that any good or evil in this world is ultimately luck is even worse. Thus, if we are choosing specifically based on which is the ‘better’ option, I think that the God is the better choice.

The other problem of evil that atheists face is the ontological problem of evil. No atheist I’ve talked to has ever been able to give me a solid ontological basis for good and evil that doesn’t ultimately reduce them to either personal preference or meaninglessness.

Well the when it comes down to it reality isn’t about choosing which one sounds better but which has more evidence. Now personally I don’t think the ultimate justice sounds better because it goes too far in both ways but even if it did sound better I still wouldn’t believe because there is less evidence for it. As far as your second point, what I said earlier in response to contari is my basis for good and evil, which I based off of points by Matt Dillahunty who is a speaker in the atheist movement and usual host of the Atheist Experience a call in show so if you want to hear more about that kind of argument I recommend listening to him as he articulates it better than I can write it(and if you really want to you could check out the show on Ustream on Sunday at 5 and call in).

 

[Honorius]

2.) While yes there is strong evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure(Personally I believe that there was a person like Jesus) There isn’t evidence that he preformed miracles and came back to life outside of the bible. So I wouldn’t call that evidence for God.

Would you say that you do not believe the accounts because they were written by people in the church, or something else?

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Would you say that you do not believe the accounts because they were written by people in the church, or something else?

I would say that I do not believe these accounts because no historical document other than that which was written after years of oral tradition then written down and then edited by the church(by which I mean they chose which books go in and which go out and also regular editing by the writers, and then later kings) All of which was done by people who worshiped him as a God. For example in 2000 years if The Church of Latter Day Saints(commonly called Mormons) becomes the most popular religion in the world would the book of Mormon be a verifiable source of history?
In other words Yes I don't trust the bible because it was written by the church, but there are other reasons as well.

 

[SPBlitz]

Well the when it comes down to it reality isn’t about choosing which one sounds better but which has more evidence. Now personally I don’t think the ultimate justice sounds better because it goes too far in both ways but even if it did sound better I still wouldn’t believe because there is less evidence for it. As far as your second point, what I said earlier in response to contari is my basis for good and evil, which I based off of points by Matt Dillahunty who is a speaker in the atheist movement and usual host of the Atheist Experience a call in show so if you want to hear more about that kind of argument I recommend listening to him as he articulates it better than I can write it(and if you really want to you could check out the show on Ustream on Sunday at 5 and call in).

I agree that you shouldn’t believe something just because it feels better - it’s more in response to folks who argue that God doesn’t exist because it’s too horrible to think that he does.

My problem with Matt Dillahunty’s secular morality is that it appears to me to be subjective morality dressed up as objective morality. He claims that by “evaluating an action with respect to some standard or value” (whatever that standard is) will make morality ‘objective’. That’s obviously not true. You can’t subjectively choose an objective standard - that’s nonsensical. If everyone were to decide their own standard, then all sorts of horrible things result. What makes the moral standard that Pol Pot, or the KKK, choose worse than our own? There has to be some objective moral standard that morality is based on, one that is the same regardless of a person’s opinions or emotions. According to atheism, everything is ultimately based upon mindless matter (I’m assuming Naturalistic Materialism here). I don’t see how mindless matter could ever be the basis for an objective morality.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I agree that you shouldn’t believe something just because it feels better - it’s more in response to folks who argue that God doesn’t exist because it’s too horrible to think that he does.

My problem with Matt Dillahunty’s secular morality is that it appears to me to be subjective morality dressed up as objective morality. He claims that by “evaluating an action with respect to some standard or value” (whatever that standard is) will make morality ‘objective’. That’s obviously not true. You can’t subjectively choose an objective standard - that’s nonsensical. If everyone were to decide their own standard, then all sorts of horrible things result. What makes the moral standard that Pol Pot, or the KKK, choose worse than our own? There has to be some objective moral standard that morality is based on, one that is the same regardless of a person’s opinions or emotions. According to atheism, everything is ultimately based upon mindless matter (I’m assuming Naturalistic Materialism here). I don’t see how mindless matter could ever be the basis for an objective morality.

Well we aren’t mindless matter, we have brains and we can know Objectively that certain things are better for humanity and certain things are not(such as racism) that combined with our emotions and empathy we can create a standard of morality. I agree that this isn’t 100% objective but so what? This is about as close as we can get. Now keep in mind when I say that people are just matter in a meaningless universe I just mean humanity is not significant to the universe but that doesn’t mean the humanity isn’t significant to humanity. We have emotions and thoughts and ideas so we can do things like come up with morality.

Also how is morality any better when it comes from God? He isn’t a person so he has no idea what it’s like to be a person(and if you want to say Jesus was a person you also think he was a sinless perfect person so that doesn’t count as being human) so God dictating what we can and can’t do isn’t any better then our morality it’s just different.

Also God isn’t an objective source of morality because he has a chosen people. And in the bible he often took sides in wars. And Hebrews had special exemptions from rules he set up so that is Subjective not Objective.

 

[Honorius]

I would say that I do not believe these accounts because no historical document other than that which was written after years of oral tradition then written down and then edited by the church(by which I mean they chose which books go in and which go out and also regular editing by the writers, and then later kings) All of which was done by people who worshiped him as a God. For example in 2000 years if The Church of Latter Day Saints(commonly called Mormons) becomes the most popular religion in the world would the book of Mormon be a verifiable source of history?

In other words Yes I don't trust the bible because it was written by the church, but there are other reasons as well.

Doesn’t this create a sort of predicament though? Let us say that Jesus did work miracles and rise from the dead. Those who witnessed these things would most likely believe in his divinity, and worship him. Those that wrote down what they had seen would have had their writings put into the the New Testament canon. The only people that wrote down information about Jesus other than “this man existed” would seem to fall into the category of people you don’t believe, because they came from the church. Hopefully that makes sense.

Also, the book of Mormon analogy is rather flimsy. We can use DNA to prove that the inhabitants of the Americas are of no relation to the inhabitants of the Middle East. We can also use archaeology to check for some of the alleged cities. All the cities do not have to be proven to have existed, but at least a fragment or two should have been found by now. Just my:twocents:

 

[SPBlitz]

Well we aren’t mindless matter, we have brains and we can know Objectively that certain things are better for humanity and certain things are not(such as racism) that combined with our emotions and empathy we can create a standard of morality.

Now this is the real kicker. Like it or not, if materialist naturalism is true, than we are nothing but mindless matter. If I may quote the (atheist) Professor Haldane: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms”.

This is one of the main reasons I believe in God - I don’t see how a non-rational universe can create rational beings. If human rationality is to be more than an illusion, then there has to be something about us that is not determined by causality or physics (which, according to Naturalism, is the base reality for all things). Something that is over and above the normal laws of nature. Our thoughts must not just be caused by physics - we must have grounds for the belief. We must see a logical connection between two events, and to me mindless matter could never form a connection because of logical events. Atoms move because of physics, not because they see that there must be a logical connection.

To quote C.S. Lewis: “But even if grounds do exist, what exactly have they got to do with the actual occurrence of the belief as a psychological event? If it is an event it must be caused. It must in fact be simply one link in a causal chain which stretches back to the beginning and forward to the end of time. How could such a trifle as lack of logical grounds prevent the belief’s occurrence or how could the existence of grounds promote it?”

This is the Argument from Reason, and I think that it is a real problem for Naturalism.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Doesn’t this create a sort of predicament though? Let us say that Jesus did work miracles and rise from the dead. Those who witnessed these things would most likely believe in his divinity, and worship him. Those that wrote down what they had seen would have had their writings put into the the New Testament canon. The only people that wrote down information about Jesus other than “this man existed” would seem to fall into the category of people you don’t believe, because they came from the church. Hopefully that makes sense.

Also, the book of Mormon analogy is rather flimsy. We can use DNA to prove that the inhabitants of the Americas are of no relation to the inhabitants of the Middle East. We can also use archaeology to check for some of the alleged cities. All the cities do not have to be proven to have existed, but at least a fragment or two should have been found by now. Just my:twocents:

Well for one my point was that despite current lack of evidence people believe that, and like how the stories in the bible have no such evidence(Noah’s ark didn’t happen, which we know due to the fact that the entire 7 billion people on earth could not come from a family of 8 which they themselves descended from a family of two, not to mention it takes more than 2 of a species of animal to re-populate) (No evidence of the mass exodus of slaves from Egypt and then death of pharaoh and tons of soldiers by the red sea collapsing on to them) (also no one mentioned how all of the dead rose from their graves around the time Jesus came back) yet you dismiss Mormonism because it happened so recently and there is so little evidence you are sure it is false what I am saying is imagine being around when Christianity was being introduced and I’m sure people viewed it in a similar fashion.

Secondly while sure it would seem to make sense that the people who saw the miracles would be a believer but the bible isn’t just a collection of historians findings it’s a book, a narrative they didn’t just take the writings of historians and and put them in there. Yet no historical source verifies that the miracles take place only the people in the church recorded that they happened. Plus not literally everyone who saw the miracles would have joined the church, I have said for a long time I will never be a christian even if I was shown evidence of God. I would then believe in him but I wouldn’t convert. So there is bound to be some people like that back then.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Now this is the real kicker. Like it or not, if materialist naturalism is true, than we are nothing but mindless matter. If I may quote the (atheist) Professor Haldane: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms”.

This is one of the main reasons I believe in God - I don’t see how a non-rational universe can create rational beings. If human rationality is to be more than an illusion, then there has to be something about us that is not determined by causality or physics (which, according to Naturalism, is the base reality for all things). Something that is over and above the normal laws of nature. Our thoughts must not just be caused by physics - we must have grounds for the belief. We must see a logical connection between two events, and to me mindless matter could never form a connection because of logical events. Atoms move because of physics, not because they see that there must be a logical connection.

To quote C.S. Lewis: “But even if grounds do exist, what exactly have they got to do with the actual occurrence of the belief as a psychological event? If it is an event it must be caused. It must in fact be simply one link in a causal chain which stretches back to the beginning and forward to the end of time. How could such a trifle as lack of logical grounds prevent the belief’s occurrence or how could the existence of grounds promote it?”

This is the Argument from Reason, and I think that it is a real problem for Naturalism.

Ok well first off, if we are discussing this here I will just leave that out of my rebuttal to your private message. First off who says we don’t merely have an illusion of rationality. If that were the case how could we ever know it was not the illusion? while you may say you don’t want that to be true, the idea that what we think is dictated by the physics of our brains is a possibility. This goes hand in hand with the illusion of free will, do we really make choices or do we just think we do? Now you brought up again mindless matter or as Frank Turek likes to say “molecules in motion” well the issue with saying that is that we aren’t mindless matter we are minds we have thoughts and ideas and emotions all caused by our brain through chemical mixes and electrical impulses. We are intelligent because we have a neo-cortex, that is an enhanced part of the brain that other animals don’t have, this is what separates us from even our closest relative of primate and this is what allows us to think logically and problem solve. We know this because when the brain is impaired so are our abilities to think and behave logically. You mentioned that atoms move because of physics and not because they think logically. Ok. I don’t see what that has to do with anything. I think you are trying to say we must be more than just matter but you realize we are just matter right? I mean even if you think God created life we have only atoms and matter inside us. I mean I am just now realizing this and don’t want to erase all that stuff I wrote before(because it is true) but even supposing God created life what does that change? I also would like to quote a well spoken atheist Christopher Hitchens “We do not have bodies, we are bodies.”

 

[Honorius]

Well for one my point was that despite current lack of evidence people believe that, and like how the stories in the bible have no such evidence(Noah’s ark didn’t happen, which we know due to the fact that the entire 7 billion people on earth could not come from a family of 8 which they themselves descended from a family of two, not to mention it takes more than 2 of a species of animal to re-populate) (No evidence of the mass exodus of slaves from Egypt and then death of pharaoh and tons of soldiers by the red sea collapsing on to them) (also no one mentioned how all of the dead rose from their graves around the time Jesus came back)

I do not say that all must be taken literally.

yet you dismiss Mormonism because it happened so recently and there is so little evidence you are sure it is false what I am saying is imagine being around when Christianity was being introduced and I’m sure people viewed it in a similar fashion.

If they did, it would appear that they did not care to commit those oppositions to writing.

Secondly while sure it would seem to make sense that the people who saw the miracles would be a believer but the bible isn’t just a collection of historians findings it’s a book, a narrative they didn’t just take the writings of historians and and put them in there. Yet no historical source verifies that the miracles take place only the people in the church recorded that they happened.

I am not saying that historical writings were put in the gospels. Jesus is claimed to have ministered to the poor. The poor were illiterate. Word of mouth would have been the only way of preserving whatever they saw. The oral accounts would have been gathered into the gospels along with whatever the authors knew from firsthand knowledge. The gospel accounts are the closest accounts that have survived oblivion. Josephus mentions Jesus, but that is about it.

Also, I think there is a problem with saying that Historian X, Y, or Z should have mentioned something, because we do not know what they are thinking.

As a last point, Ancient Historians are unanimous in their consent to omens and portents. Do agree and believe in omens and portents?

Plus not literally everyone who saw the miracles would have joined the church, I have said for a long time I will never be a christian even if I was shown evidence of God. I would then believe in him but I wouldn’t convert. So there is bound to be some people like that back then.

I would say that without more knowledge of you personally, I can not respond to that. I am content to say it is a matter that is between you and God.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I do not say that all must be taken literally.

Great then neither does the Book of Mormon

If they did, it would appear that they did not care to commit those oppositions to writing.

Well not everyone feels the need to dispel what they believe to be false I’m sure many people aren’t going to save their refutations of Mormonism for the future because 1 it isn’t that important to save them and 2 people in the future will likely have those same refutations.

I am not saying that historical writings were put in the gospels. Jesus is claimed to have ministered to the poor. The poor were illiterate. Word of mouth would have been the only way of preserving whatever they saw. The oral accounts would have been gathered into the gospels along with whatever the authors knew from firsthand knowledge. The gospel accounts are the closest accounts that have survived oblivion. Josephus mentions Jesus, but that is about it.

Yes the gospels are all that was really saved for today because the church valued them and kept them, the people who wrote against Christianity didn’t save their work, or at least didn’t store them properly or any number of things that lead to the, not around but that doesn’t mean that there weren’t people who disbelieved or flat out knew that the claims were untrue.

Also, I think there is a problem with saying that Historian X, Y, or Z should have mentioned something, because we do not know what they are thinking.

I honestly don’t know what you mean by this. I don’t remember saying that historians should have said X Y or Z, it’s possible that you didn’t put what you were referring to in quotes but I never said that historians should say something.

 

[SPBlitz]

Ok well first off, if we are discussing this here I will just leave that out of my rebuttal to your private message. First off who says we don’t merely have an illusion of rationality. If that were the case how could we ever know it was not the illusion? while you may say you don’t want that to be true, the idea that what we think is dictated by the physics of our brains is a possibility. This goes hand in hand with the illusion of free will, do we really make choices or do we just think we do? Now you brought up again mindless matter or as Frank Turek likes to say “molecules in motion” well the issue with saying that is that we aren’t mindless matter we are minds we have thoughts and ideas and emotions all caused by our brain through chemical mixes and electrical impulses. We are intelligent because we have a neo-cortex, that is an enhanced part of the brain that other animals don’t have, this is what separates us from even our closest relative of primate and this is what allows us to think logically and problem solve. We know this because when the brain is impaired so are our abilities to think and behave logically. You mentioned that atoms move because of physics and not because they think logically. Ok. I don’t see what that has to do with anything. I think you are trying to say we must be more than just matter but you realize we are just matter right? I mean even if you think God created life we have only atoms and matter inside us. I mean I am just now realizing this and don’t want to erase all that stuff I wrote before(because it is true) but even supposing God created life what does that change? I also would like to quote a well spoken atheist Christopher Hitchens “We do not have bodies, we are bodies.”

I think my objection still stands. Yes we have a brain, and a neo-cortex, and all that jazz, but that still doesn’t show how mindless matter can create logical connections and behave in ways other than those dictated by physics. Any worldview (like Naturalism) that reduces thought simply to matter, or chemical impulses or electrical impulses, kills reason.

You mention that we don’t know if reason is true or not. Let’s assume that it is an illusion. That means that our thoughts are not connected to the universe via logic or reason. Our thoughts are determined by physics, not by the truth known. If this is true (and our thoughts don’t really reflect reality, i.e. they are illusory) then why should I believe the belief that reason is an illusion? If reason doesn’t exist, then this thought (along with all others) are inherently non reasonable. And if a certain thought isn’t connect to the truth known, then I have no reason to believe it. Thus, we have to assume that reason does exist. Denying this leads to a self-defeating argument. I shouldn’t believe thoughts that are unreasonable. Thus, any thought stating “there is no such thing is reason” destroys its own credentials (since it is inherently unreasonable - you can’t use reason to prove that there is no such thing as reason!)

As to your comment from Hitchens that we are just bodies - this seems to be begging the question against certain Mind-Body dualism philosophies (that posits that the mind is separate from, though connected to, the body - i.e. the brain). You mention that we know that the brain is the source of reason since damage to the brain impairs reasoning capabilities. But I see no reason to believe that this wouldn’t be equally true on a Mind-Body dualist point of view. If the mind acts through the brain, then damage to the brain will give the appearance of impaired logical abilities. That doesn’t prove that the mind is the brain.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I think my objection still stands. Yes we have a brain, and a neo-cortex, and all that jazz, but that still doesn’t show how mindless matter can create logical connections and behave in ways other than those dictated by physics. Any worldview (like Naturalism) that reduces thought simply to matter, or chemical impulses or electrical impulses, kills reason.

You mention that we don’t know if reason is true or not. Let’s assume that it is an illusion. That means that our thoughts are not connected to the universe via logic or reason. Our thoughts are determined by physics, not by the truth known. If this is true (and our thoughts don’t really reflect reality, i.e. they are illusory) then why should I believe the belief that reason is an illusion? If reason doesn’t exist, then this thought (along with all others) are inherently non reasonable. And if a certain thought isn’t connect to the truth known, then I have no reason to believe it. Thus, we have to assume that reason does exist. Denying this leads to a self-defeating argument. I shouldn’t believe thoughts that are unreasonable. Thus, any thought stating “there is no such thing is reason” destroys its own credentials (since it is inherently unreasonable - you can’t use reason to prove that there is no such thing as reason!)

As to your comment from Hitchens that we are just bodies - this seems to be begging the question against certain Mind-Body dualism philosophies (that posits that the mind is separate from, though connected to, the body - i.e. the brain). You mention that we know that the brain is the source of reason since damage to the brain impairs reasoning capabilities. But I see no reason to believe that this wouldn’t be equally true on a Mind-Body dualist point of view. If the mind acts through the brain, then damage to the brain will give the appearance of impaired logical abilities. That doesn’t prove that the mind is the brain.

Well first off I don’t know if reason is or isn’t an illusion, personally I don’t think it is so I have no problem with your arguments against it being an illusion but nice work that was well argued. And for the record my stating on how we have a brain isn’t an answer to how the brain does that because I don’t fully understand how the brain does that because I’m a 19-year-old, and a blonde at that so I can’t give an answer if there is one.

In regards to mind body dualism I’m not begging the question I’m outright dismissing it. Cards on the table I don’t believe people have souls because there is no evidence of a soul and there is no evidence of a mind of any sort existing without a brain. And to your point of souls I have a question I would like to ask you: In the case of multiple personality disorder are there multiple souls or is the soul split into the multiple personalities? What if one personality is atheist and the other christian(this really happened by the way) does the christian part still go to hell? or is the soul split? What about in cases of amnesia where someone forgets their whole personality and they become an entirely new person is the soul of the new personality or the old one? Now to be fair I’m not actually expecting answers to these questions as I’m sure you don’t know the logistics of souls I’m mostly asking these to get you thinking about how impractical the soul would be(which is not a reason for not believing it). Anyway it is getting late so I’m going to bed. Just to let you know why I won’t be responding for quite a while.

 

[exnihilo]

However, they were asking very good and tough questions. I tried to answer them myself, but I was wondering if you could let me know if these answers are acceptable.

These are standard questions. There are easy answers to all of them. But I think you’ll find when you combat many atheists, especially internet atheists, they aren’t really interested in answers.

1. If God exists, then why does He allow evil?

Atheists can’t prove God doesn’t have sufficient reason to allow evil. It is really as simple as that. And Christians have very good explanations for why there is evil. In the atheist worldview what is evil anyway? Many claim to be materialists. But evil isn’t material.

1. Where is your proof that God exists?

There are many proofs for God’s existence. They won’t listen to or try to understand most of them. That isn’t to say that there aren’t reasonable issues that can be raised with some of the arguments. But many atheists simply will not or can not interact with the arguments.

One could always ask the atheist what proof would be sufficient. I think for many no proof is.

1. The God you worship will be forgotten, just as the greek gods and other gods long ago were forgotten.

If they are directly attacking the Catholic idea of God then they are ignorant. The Catholic idea of God is that He is existence itself. He is not a being but being itself. He is the first cause. Socrates was executed for not worshiping the Greek gods but having some notion of God more like Catholicism. Certainly Aristotle believed in the Unmoved Mover. Assertions like this suggest the person is not even aware that when the Greek gods were worshiped there were Greeks who had an idea of God much like Christianity. And they arrived at this from pure reason. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not always right, but they were brilliant men and most likely far smarter than the atheists you are interacting with.

 

[SPBlitz]

Well first off I don’t know if reason is or isn’t an illusion, personally I don’t think it is so I have no problem with your arguments against it being an illusion but nice work that was well argued. And for the record my stating on how we have a brain isn’t an answer to how the brain does that because I don’t fully understand how the brain does that because I’m a 19-year-old, and a blonde at that so I can’t give an answer if there is one.

In regards to mind body dualism I’m not begging the question I’m outright dismissing it. Cards on the table I don’t believe people have souls because there is no evidence of a soul and there is no evidence of a mind of any sort existing without a brain. And to your point of souls I have a question I would like to ask you: In the case of multiple personality disorder are there multiple souls or is the soul split into the multiple personalities? What if one personality is atheist and the other christian(this really happened by the way) does the christian part still go to hell? or is the soul split? What about in cases of amnesia where someone forgets their whole personality and they become an entirely new person is the soul of the new personality or the old one? Now to be fair I’m not actually expecting answers to these questions as I’m sure you don’t know the logistics of souls I’m mostly asking these to get you thinking about how impractical the soul would be(which is not a reason for not believing it). Anyway it is getting late so I’m going to bed. Just to let you know why I won’t be responding for quite a while.

The Argument of Reason is a bit complex - I think much of your confusion is my fault, since I’m probably not explaining it very well.

One thing to point out is that the argument is not attempting to prove the existence of the soul in a Christian sense. I think it would be a misunderstanding to say that the argument is conflating the mind with the soul. The argument is simply trying to show that one aspect of our minds - namely, our ability to reason - cannot be explained using a Naturalistic system. If the argument is successful, it will show that Naturalism is fundamentally unable to account for human reason. This leaves us with two alternatives.

1. Naturalism is true, and human reason is an illusion
   or
2. Human reason is objectively real, thus, Naturalism should be rejected in favor of some other worldview, like Supernaturalism, Mind-Body Dualism, or Idealism.

Since I believe that 1 (namely, that reason is illusory) leads to a self-contradiction, I cannot view it as being true. Thus, the only option left to us is 2. (The argument can then be further developed to show that reason is the result of a supernatural, eternal, ‘mind’ for whom reason is a necessary component. However, at this point I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves.)

You pointed out that certain mental diseases - like Dissociative Identity Disorder, give us reason to believe that the mind is entirely physical. However, I think this would only work if the Argument from Reason sought to show that personality cannot be material. In reality, the argument’s goal is much more modest - that only our ability to reason cannot be accounted for by natural processes. While I do think such mental disorders raise interesting philosophical questions, particularly in regards to the formation of personality, I don’t think that it serves to undermine the argument.

Again, the argument is not chiefly concerned with souls - at least not in the Christian sense of the word. I do, of course, believe that the soul exists, and I do believe that it is related to the mind, though I’m not sure if I’d conflate the two. But I think that the argument gives good reason to believe that materialism is false and that some sort of mind-body dualism is true. If reason exists, and if it can’t be accounted for by naturalism (in this case, bodily processes) then I think that we must conclude that at minimum, one specific part of our mind (our rationality) is non-material. Since Naturalism, by definition, does not allow for the existence of anything outside of ‘nature’ then I think we have to conclude that it is false.

 

[robsully]

Hello all, please excuse me if I have missed or over read it, but there has been the mention of evidence of the existence of God. Could someone guide me towards it?
I am not the brightest candle in the Menorah so simple would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

The Argument of Reason is a bit complex - I think much of your confusion is my fault, since I’m probably not explaining it very well.

One thing to point out is that the argument is not attempting to prove the existence of the soul in a Christian sense. I think it would be a misunderstanding to say that the argument is conflating the mind with the soul. The argument is simply trying to show that one aspect of our minds - namely, our ability to reason - cannot be explained using a Naturalistic system. If the argument is successful, it will show that Naturalism is fundamentally unable to account for human reason. This leaves us with two alternatives.

1. Naturalism is true, and human reason is an illusion
   or
2. Human reason is objectively real, thus, Naturalism should be rejected in favor of some other worldview, like Supernaturalism, Mind-Body Dualism, or Idealism.

Since I believe that 1 (namely, that reason is illusory) leads to a self-contradiction, I cannot view it as being true. Thus, the only option left to us is 2. (The argument can then be further developed to show that reason is the result of a supernatural, eternal, ‘mind’ for whom reason is a necessary component. However, at this point I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves.)

You pointed out that certain mental diseases - like Dissociative Identity Disorder, give us reason to believe that the mind is entirely physical. However, I think this would only work if the Argument from Reason sought to show that personality cannot be material. In reality, the argument’s goal is much more modest - that only our ability to reason cannot be accounted for by natural processes. While I do think such mental disorders raise interesting philosophical questions, particularly in regards to the formation of personality, I don’t think that it serves to undermine the argument.

Again, the argument is not chiefly concerned with souls - at least not in the Christian sense of the word. I do, of course, believe that the soul exists, and I do believe that it is related to the mind, though I’m not sure if I’d conflate the two. But I think that the argument gives good reason to believe that materialism is false and that some sort of mind-body dualism is true. If reason exists, and if it can’t be accounted for by naturalism (in this case, bodily processes) then I think that we must conclude that at minimum, one specific part of our mind (our rationality) is non-material. Since Naturalism, by definition, does not allow for the existence of anything outside of ‘nature’ then I think we have to conclude that it is false.

Your problem here is assuming that naturalism cannot explain reason. I could be wrong but I don’t remember you ever giving a solid reason as to why reason cannot arise from the process of our brain. You said that atoms don’t work on reason but on physics but that doesn’t have anything to do with our brains creating reason. Although I don’t think this is going to get a fruitful discussion because neither of us are brain surgeons or expert theologians and this argument has probably gone past our area of knowledge. If you want you can keep making points(which you have been doing very well by the way) but I think this is where we must simply agree to disagree.

 

[opulumpu]

So I’m not sure if any of you have heard, but Houston Texans football player Arian Foster recently declared that he didn’t believe in God. This is not what bothered me. What bothered me was reading the story online, and the comment thread attached to it. I am not a member to the site so I couldn’t reply, but it just broke my heart seeing all the atheists attacking Christians. However, they were asking very good and tough questions. I tried to answer them myself, but I was wondering if you could let me know if these answers are acceptable.

In answer to atheists, let us imgagine the following. Imagine atheists are computers with a body (metal box, wires, plastics etc), spirit (software, algorithms etc) power source (electricity). Softwares are so advanced these days that computers fly airplanes, pilot ships etc etc etc (think Robotics) and even make computers. Imagine computers questioning the existence of human beings.

Well well well!. First off, the computer’s intelligence is limited to the capacity of the software that the human being placed inside it. So it is beyond the capacity of the computer to answer the question about its origin or whether human beings exist unless the creator (human beings) included a software in the computer that indicates that human beings exist. Whether the computer does not believe that human beings exist does not change the fact that HUMAN BEINGS EXIST and that HUMAN BEINGS CREATED THE COMPUTER.

It is sad that atheists, with their limited intellectual power, (just like computers) do not accept that we human beings are created by SOMETHING beyond humanity. Computers consist of a body (box, metal wires, plastic, etc, etc), spirit (software, algorithms etc) and power (electricity); human beings conist of water, blood, spirit, intelligence and power, a different form of existence. God Consists of ??? we cannot say.

Just as it is beyond the capability of the computer to understand, by its own limited intelligence, that human beings exist without being told so by human beings, so it is beyond the capability of human beings to understand that God exists without being told or made aware of HIS existence.

Just my two cents take on this.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Hello all, please excuse me if I have missed or over read it, but there has been the mention of evidence of the existence of God. Could someone guide me towards it?
I am not the brightest candle in the Menorah so simple would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Uh sort of, we mentioned some evidences and rebuttals to the existence of God so instead of pointing to them here I will give you some website links for both sides of the argument.

godandscience.org/

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Hopefully both of these websites can help, they did quite well for me.