Ask the Atheist

[EnterTheBowser]

Toni:

Just wanted to share this story.

The following is a true story that happened just a few years ago at USC.

…

That’s a fairly good story; do you have some source we can look to? I imagine the student newspaper would run a piece on an occurrence like that. Or perhaps you can name the professor, and we can contact him. The story probably would’ve gotten round the philosophy department, so I imagine if I contact some other professors, they’ll remember at least hearing about it. Should I go ahead and contact them? Also, do you know which year in specific this happened? That would make it a lot easier to find out more.

Which USC is it, by the way? There are at least three.

 

[kamz]

Toni:

Just wanted to share this story.

The following is a true story that happened just a few years ago at USC.

STAND UP!!!

There was a professor of philosophy who was a deeply committed atheist. His primary goal for one required class was to spend the entire semester attempting to prove that God couldn’t exist. His students were always afraid to argue with him because of his impeccable logic. For twenty years, he had taught this class and no one had ever had the courage to go against him. Sure, some had argued in class at times, but no one had ever really gone against him because of his reputation. At the end of every semester on the last day, he would say to his class of 300 students, “If there is anyone here who still believes in Jesus, stand up!” In twenty years, no one had ever stood up. They knew what he was going to do next. He would say, “Because anyone who believes in God is a fool. If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove that He is God, and yet He can’t do it.” And every year, he would drop the chalk onto the tile floor of the classroom and it would shatter into a hundred pieces. All of the students would do nothing but stop and stare. Most of the students thought that God couldn’t exist. Certainly, a number of Christians had slipped through, but for 20 years, they had been too afraid to stand up.

Well, a few years ago there was a freshman who happened to enroll. He was a Christian, and had heard the stories about his professor. He was required to take the class for his major, and he was afraid. But for three months that semester, he prayed every morning that he would have the courage to stand up no matter what the professor said, or what the class thought. Nothing they said could ever shatter his faith…he hoped.

Finally, the day came. The professor said, " If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!" The professor and the class of 300 people looked at him, shocked, as he stood up at the back of the classroom. The professor shouted, “You FOOL!!! If God existed, he would keep this piece of chalk from breaking when it hit the ground!” He proceeded to drop the chalk, but as he did, it slipped out of his fingers, off his shirt cuff, onto the pleat of his pants, down his leg, and off his shoe. As it hit the ground, it simply rolled away unbroken. The professor’s jaw dropped as he stared at the chalk. He looked up at the young man, and then ran out of the lecture hall. The young man who had stood, proceeded to walk to the front of the room and shared his faith in Jesus for the next half hour. 300 students stayed and listened as he told of God’s love for them and of His power through Jesus.

That is awesome!!! I will pray for the OP of this thread but since he really is only here to stir up the pot and clearly has no intention of learning anything other than trying to find people to doubt and leave, I’m not giving him another thought, I pray for everyone, those who believe, those who don’t, the list has grown so long, I keep a prayer list and just keep adding names and if I don’t know the name, I write, that person on Catholic.com who needs your help Lord. I have read each post on this thread and it is very, very clear that of course us well meaning Catholics will give and give and try to show our very confused friend the truth but sometimes it takes a very long time to come to God as it did for the woman in the thread I posted , it took her 30 years to go from being an atheist to a Catholic Christian and in those years she had all the answers and did not want to hear what anyone had to say and this is exactly where the OP of this thread is at, he is convinced he has it right and Nothing anyone of us can say will change his mind and we are basically wasting our time and pumping up his ego by responding, what would be far more worthwhile is if every single one of us would choose to pray many times a day for the OP that in his life he might come to know God.
Of course God gives us free will and if the OP chooses with his free will to ignore the truth, so be it, in my opinion.

 

[PLP]

**It just is! ** You mean like when God said to Moses, “I AM WHO AM.” Which means, “My very essence is to exist.”

Indeed. If it’s logically possible for something (God) to have the essence of existence, then it’s possible for the physical universe itself to have the essence of existence. Not that I really take “essence” philosophies all that seriously, but the general principle holds: If it is logically possible for God to have any particular attribute, then it is logically possible for the physical universe to have that attribute; invoking God to have an attribute which you’ve established ex hypothesi to be logically impossible is contradictory on its face.

You’re not sounding very atheistic; agnostic maybe.

I’m a philosopher, that happens a lot.

Plus you’re just talking in circles.

Philosophers and theologians have been talking in circles for three thousand years. Who am I to buck such a tradition?

If matter wasn’t created the universe would just be a vacuum and science has yet to prove anything otherwise.

Obviously, I reject this assertion. Matter might just exist. Matter might have come from something immaterial but non-conscious.

Okay, for the sake of argument, It’s not perfect. Now what?

Well, you invoked God to explain the perfection of the universe. If the universe is not perfect, one does not need to invoke God on this point. The argument from perfection trivially fails if you don’t hold that the universe is in fact perfect.

Nor any off mine about what you don’t believe. Remember, you came knocking on our door, we didn’t come knocking on yours. It’s certainly not my personal mission to convert you. No one has ever been shamed or argued into conversion with facts and figures, which is all you seem to be interested in.

You (I think it was you?) asked what you were “supposed to believe”; I answered. I’m not trying to convert or shame anyone. I’m just here to have good conversations.

Only the Holy Spirit can convert a humble and contrite heart. I pray someday you will be humbled.

My wife will be home in a couple of hours. That should do the trick.

One great thing about what I believe is I win in the end no matter what.

Good for you!

I can gain all the knowledge in the world and not give up one ounce of my faith. If I’m totally wrong, how am I any worse off than you? Will I be any more dead than you. I still will have lived a wonderful life and gained lots of knowledge without giving up anything. Now, what if I’m totally right?

Are you saying that you live your life exactly the same as you would if you were an atheist? If so, what difference does it make what we believe? Is God interested only in the slogans we chant?

In a very real sense, I do in fact live my life exactly the same way as I would if I believed a god existed. I don’t ever, for instance, do anything my conscience forbids, and I perform those duties to my fellow human beings which my conscience demands. It’s not even exactly correct to say I “obey” my conscience; it is more correct to say that I am my conscience.

If it is indeed the case that God communicates with each person through the agency of his conscience, then I comply completely, without hesitation. Without, even, the promise of any reward beyond the satisfaction of my own conscience, my own self-image.

Even if I were to believe in a god, I would not subordinate my conscience, my will, or my autonomy to any person, or even any book. I’ll take wisdom wherever I find it, and reject folly where it comes from. I am the final earthly arbiter of my own conscience.

If I am right, I have lived my life being most completely myself. If I am wrong then I have failed pnly to follow instructions not given to me; for a God to punish me for that would be irrational tyranny.

I have studied it. Some interesting facts (yes, I said facts) and theories, but certainly not enough to rattle my faith.

The Catholic Church accepts scientific evolution in its entirety. There’s no reason it should rattle your faith.

 

[kamz]

EnterTheBowser:

That’s a fairly good story; do you have some source we can look to? I imagine the student newspaper would run a piece on an occurrence like that. Or perhaps you can name the professor, and we can contact him. The story probably would’ve gotten round the philosophy department, so I imagine if I contact some other professors, they’ll remember at least hearing about it. Should I go ahead and contact them? Also, do you know which year in specific this happened? That would make it a lot easier to find out more.

Which USC is it, by the way?

 

[PLP]

kamz:

from atheist to Catholic Christian:

chnetwork.org/seconv.htm

Interesting story.

 

[kamz]

PLP:

Indeed. If it’s logically possible for something (God) to have the essence of existence, then it’s possible for the physical universe itself to have the essence of existence. Not that I really take “essence” philosophies all that seriously, but the general principle holds: If it is logically possible for God to have any particular attribute, then it is logically possible for the physical universe to have that attribute; invoking God to have an attribute which you’ve established ex hypothesi to be logically impossible is contradictory on its face.

I’m a philosopher, that happens a lot.

Philosophers and theologians have been talking in circles for three thousand years. Who am I to buck such a tradition?

Obviously, I reject this assertion. Matter might just exist. Matter might have come from something immaterial but non-conscious.

Well, you invoked God to explain the perfection of the universe. If the universe is not perfect, one does not need to invoke God on this point. The argument from perfection trivially fails if you don’t hold that the universe is in fact perfect.

You (I think it was you?) asked what you were “supposed to believe”; I answered. I’m not trying to convert or shame anyone. I’m just here to have good conversations.

My wife will be home in a couple of hours. That should do the trick.

Good for you!

Are you saying that you live your life exactly the same as you would if you were an atheist? If so, what difference does it make what we believe? Is God interested only in the slogans we chant?

In a very real sense, I do in fact live my life exactly the same way as I would if I believed a god existed. I don’t ever, for instance, do anything my conscience forbids, and I perform those duties to my fellow human beings which my conscience demands. It’s not even exactly correct to say I “obey” my conscience; it is more correct to say that I am my conscience.

If it is indeed the case that God communicates with each person through the agency of his conscience, then I comply completely, without hesitation. Without, even, the promise of any reward beyond the satisfaction of my own conscience, my own self-image.

Even if I were to believe in a god, I would not subordinate my conscience, my will, or my autonomy to any person, or even any book. I’ll take wisdom wherever I find it, and reject folly where it comes from. I am the final earthly arbiter of my own conscience.

If I am right, I have lived my life being most completely myself. If I am wrong then I have failed pnly to follow instructions not given to me; for a God to punish me for that would be irrational tyranny.

The Catholic Church accepts scientific evolution in its entirety. There’s no reason it should rattle your faith.

Praying for you and will hold you in my prayers each day.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

The final authority of the Church does not seem to be working out all that well. Contrast that to the final authority of experiment in science.

Why isn’t the final authority of the Church working out all that well?

You need to develop your thoughts more fully.

The Church claims final authority and has final authority. That is not to say its authority will always be revered or obeyed any more than God will always be revered or obeyed as final authority.

No Catholic would ever dream of saying that God’s final authority isn’t working out all that well, though he might admit that for some people that authority in a subjective way has ceased to exist.

Moreover, the final authority of scientific experiment is a myth. Ask any physicist.

 

[kamz]

theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?postid=105278

this board would be well suited for the OP

 

[PLP]

john doran:

sure there is: if, arguendo, one concedes that the universe requires a cause because it is impossible that the universe have existed for an infinite amount of time…

My concession to TNT’s argument is not that the universe requires a cause because it is impossible for it to have existed an infinite amount of time. My concession is only *arguendo *that the physically observable universe might simply in fact be caused.

In fact, the Kalam argument fails on this point: It elevates time “outside” the physical universe. Our conception of time, however, is a conception of a relationship of entities within the universe. Even if our physical observable universe were not in fact everything there is, there is no justification to believe that is is embedded or has a relationship to everything else in any way that even remotely resembles our conception of time.

The Kalam argument fails for a lot of other reasons too. In particular the assertion that a “non-necessary act of causation which is most easily comprehensible as a kind of free will,” is not supportable; unintelligent randomness is a simpler conception of non-necessary causation.

 

[PLP]

martino:

how would an atheist account for the Big Bang theory? was matter formed from nothing? im not trying to quibble or be argumentative but are you saying there is evidence that demonstrates that before the Big Bang there was “nothing”?

The Big Bang theory describes the state of the universe ~13.7 bya. Before that, there are no good scientific theories.

It’s not logically impossible for a god to have created the universe. It’s not logically necessary either. However, the evidence is pretty clear that even if God does exist, He hasn’t intervened in the operation of the universe since then. Or, if He has, He has taken great pains to obfuscate His intervention.

 

[PLP]

martino:

i am not saying that you need to know every conceivable fact, only the names of those present. i know you are not buying my analogy, and im sure its not perfect, but you havent shown me how it is irrelevant to this discussion.

To be blunt, your analogy is trivial. It’s just not important at all whether or not there is someone named John Smith at the football game. I am indeed agnostic to such inconsequential conceptions of God, but I don’t think those conceptions are important enough to change my primary self-identification as an atheist.

although my belief in God is a matter of faith, it is also something that can be ascertained through reason.

That’s why I’m here.

i do not buy your God in the gaps argument, you say that, not me. i believe science can help to undestand the natural world that God created but in no way can it disprove its creator.

It’s you who invoked scientific ignorance as rational evidence for the existence of God. This is a flawed argument because scientific ignorance has a nasty habit of being filled by knowledge.

well so far history has only proven that man cannot explain how he came to be. well at least so far he hasnt been able to, but how can you take this failure as a blow to my beliefs?

I don’t take it as a blow to your beliefs. And we’ve done a pretty good job of working out how we came to be back several billion years. The actual origin of terrestrial life is a complicated problem, but there is nothing to suggest it’s intractable. Lack of scientific knowledge with regard to a subtle and difficult problem for which the evidence is at least three billion years cold, is no blow to my own beliefs.

you say that scientists settle and argument then move on to the next thing but thta is not true at all. there is no concensus in the scientific community as to how life began.

Indeed. The origin of life is right now on the frontiers of science. Science works by imagining different theories and testing them by experiment and evidence.

our schools teach evolution in science and there isnt even a concensus on that!

Yes, yes there is. And that’s why schools teach evolution, because, on the broad issues, there is consensus.

 

[PLP]

Toni:

Just wanted to share this story.

The following is a true story that happened just a few years ago at USC.

STAND UP!!!

There was a professor of philosophy who was a deeply committed atheist…

This is an Urban Legend.

 

[PLP]

Praying for you and will hold you in my prayers each day.

I of course take all good wishes in the spirit in which they are granted, and I wish you well in return.

 

[PLP]

Gilbert Keith:

Why isn’t the final authority of the Church working out all that well?

It’s my understanding that Catholics do not universally follow the ethical dictates of the church. I could be wrong; it’s a side issue anyway. Billions of people do not recognize the authority of the church at all, and no church or single religious authority is even predominantly recognized as an authority.

Moreover, the final authority of scientific experiment is a myth. Ask any physicist.

Well, it’s not a myth. I admit my statement is considerably oversimplified.

The role of experiment in science is still a matter of heated contention in the philosophy of science. Of course, Plato’s theory of Ideal Forms is still a matter of heated contention in Philosophy even after almost 2,500 years, so I expect I will not live to see the end of the controversy.

 

[PLP]

theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?postid=105278

this board would be well suited for the OP

Two discussion boards is about as much as I can handle. I’ll have to pass on the invitation indefinitely.

 

[jbuttrey]

If Jesus was a Man.

If he was a smart man.

Why did he say he was God and get himself Killed unless he had something important to show us?

I believe he did - forgiveness was his way, makes no sense unless we are eternal, otherwise justice is more important.

If forgiveness is true and we are eternal then we have helped the future.

If the stongest and meanest are all that is and we all die, then we bet on an idea that should have been God’s.

Funny Jesus said it was his idea.

Brother John

 

[PLP]

jbuttrey:

If Jesus was a Man.

If he was a smart man.

Well, I think the character depicted in the Gospels is either partially or completely fictional.

Why did he say he was God and get himself Killed unless he had something important to show us?

The character? Because sacrifice motifs are pretty common in pretechnological mythology. I don’t know enough about anthropology, sociology or psychology to speculate as to why other than to point to Freud’s speculations in The Future of an Illusion.

 

[martino]

PLP:

The Big Bang theory describes the state of the universe ~13.7 bya. Before that, there are no good scientific theories.

It’s not logically impossible for a god to have created the universe. It’s not logically necessary either. However, the evidence is pretty clear that even if God does exist, He hasn’t intervened in the operation of the universe since then. Or, if He has, He has taken great pains to obfuscate His intervention.

i will be sure to find you some good stories of miracles and i promise to try to not send anything that cant be verified. i think your explanation would account for some cases but certainly not all of them, i believe some of them are true miracles.

only to keep us from going round and round i will abandon my analogy…although i may try to soup it up a little for next time!

its obvious to me that you have been at this for a while, certainly longer than i have, lucky for me ive got St. Thomas Aquinas (among many other giants) to lean on.

i am also certain that will probably not throw anything at you that you have had thrown at you before. how do you answer some of St. Thomas’ proofs of God’s existence? they are philosophical and not scientific, but that doesnt mean they can be easily dismissed.

do you believe there is no effect without some cause? can something happen without something else causing it?
is their a first cause that wasnt the result of anything before it? wouldnt there have to be something that started the whole line of cause and effect because if nothing started it then there would be no causes or effects…and we wouldnt be here!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

It’s my understanding that Catholics do not universally follow the ethical dictates of the church.

Catholic do not universally follow the ethical dictates of God either. That does not mean that they don’t recognize God as the final authority. What it means only is that they are rebels, and much the worse for it. God still has his final authority. So has the Church of God.

 

[TNT]

PLP:

Indeed. Change, though, is relative. You have to have something before and something after to have change. Matter cannot “come into existence” without something “before” the existence of the matter to have a change relationship with.
That above was an observation on Time.
ie No matter, then no time. ie absolutely nothing = time cannot exist in that condition of absolute nothingness.
Now, with that little review:
PLP:
Matter cannot “come into existence” without something “before” the existence of the matter to have a change relationship with.
Yeahhh! But matter is all there is, or isn’t, there is no substance or existence that is not matter…unless it is non-matter…which requires a complete act of faith in that which has no material existence, lifeless, but able to transform into matter. Of course that too requires a precedent cause. It is just as Faith-based to have faith in a causeless immaterial substance is it is to have faith in [EOM].

It is entirely possible that there’s an “earliest moment in time”.
Which means nothing UNLESS there is matter on which we that time is dependent.

However, since there is nothing before that moment in time, it is not correct to say that everything came from anything, since there is nothing for it to come from.
Bravo!! You are thinking…straight…and out loud.

Your argument raises time and causality to logical principles. They are not.
They are scientific principles that establish relationships between pieces of matter within the universe.
First, true science is centered on LOGIC and principles of logic, especially investigative/ exploratory / theoretical science.
Second, you have again swerved off the point.
The point again is:
** An atheist must have Faith in Eternity of Matter [EOM]
** But instead of confronting that simple truth, you go off talking about time, relative positions, and finally:
“relationships between pieces of matter within the universe.”
Every one of these asides requires MATTER. So, all you are establishing is misc proofs of the need for MATTER, which I already insist on.

You can wander all over the various aspects of matter, it won’t budge the Faith that an atheist must have in [EOM]…unless he believes in something many times more hypothetical ie non-matter transforming into matter.
But the essence of non-matter is an obtuse way for the atheist to promote an idea that SOMETHING comes from Nothing aka his term for “non-matter”.
(In the following
I removed …" observable," because it is decoration without necessity.)
If, in fact, the… material universe is everything that is, there is nothing with which the universe as a whole to have a temporal or causal relationship.
DAHH!

Bravo again! This is a wordy way of saying that there is no relativity within the same contiguous object.
OR,
there is no relativity within an object…need something outside itself to be relative to.
OR,
I cannot go even 1 mph past myself.

*** Atheism does not entail rejection of the immaterial.*** The atheist immaterialist just does not believe that the immaterial is conscious or intelligent.
Uhuh…If an atheist does not reject it then he accepts it on Faith…just like a theist does.