Ask the Atheist

[TNT]

Cont’d from prev post:

The comment was, of course, stipulating that we could handwave around the earlier problems with your theory.
Wouldn’t that be fun.

I am merely pointing out that your argument does not establish theism, even if it were successful, which it is not.
Let’s get this firmly in our minds:

1. My posts from the beginning was NEVER to establish theism. Period.
2. The purpose of my posts is to show that the atheist has a Faith equal or even more abundant than a theist.
3. Both, through their Faith, are religions.
4. Then my conclusion is that atheism should be identified as a RELIGION if it is being taught in a public forum. Just as theism is taught as a religion.
5. Theism is at least on the same intellectual level as atheism. BECAUSE they both espouse FAITH to sustain their beliefs.

Well, I actually argue that your dichotomy is incoherent only a few paragraphs earlier. But yes, I should have said “argue”, not “assert”.
Good.
I will be more explicit: The dichotomy between the eternal existence of matter and the existence of an immaterial intelligent and conscious entity is a false dichotomy.

Even if it were established that matter did indeed come from something (by definition immaterial), that immaterial something else need not have been intelligent or conscious.

Well put.
May I define “not have been intelligent or conscious” simply as inanimate.
Now, if we have inanimate immaterial existence, it would be a 2nd rule of Faith for the atheist.
This would then require the 3rd rule of Atheist Faith: That inanimate immateriality transforms itself into materiality.

As I just said, the level of Faith in atheism can far exceed the Faith required to be a theist.

And that is the WHOLE point in a nutshell.
Atheist Faith:
[EOM] or
[EOI] (Eternity of Immateriality)
requiring
Faith in:
Immaterial inanimate substance transforms itself into material substance.

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. If there’s no possible way to know whether theism or atheism is true, if they are in fact both positions of faith, completely unprovable, then** there’s no difference in the consequence of adopting them**.

Scientifically? NO. Otherwise…
Of course their is! Try reading the Declaration of Independence…slooowly.
It was written by a majority of theists. We could have no such document as that from an atheist no matter how much faith he had. Thus the USA would be an entirely different philosophy of government…more like the Soviet Union circa 1927.

If they are indeed both positions of faith (which is your argument, not mine) then the atheist universe is exactly the same as the theist universe.
TRUE. With the very HUGH exception of WHAT is the nature of the eternal substance.

The Catholic description of the universe, from any scientific perspective, is exactly the same as the Hindu universe. Same physical laws, same evidence, same phenomena. In some sense, yes, they are identical.

The nature of the Faith that begets their religion, and therefore their Faith in the universe’s creation is entirely different.
Does that effect the daily secular activity of either. Not necessarily.

What’s your argument here? That I do not have the right to be an atheist? That you are impugning that I assert you do not have the right to be a theist?

The point is we do not have a right to hold error as true. We do have a free will to choose either, but not a right. IF theism is true, you have no right to embrace the opposite. If atheism is true, I have not right to embrace the opposite.
Objective Error has no rights, (one has no right to teach 3+1=31) truth is all that has the right to be believed.
That’s my little side point after you introduced the matter of free choice.

As far as political and social rights, which are established by mutual agreement,

HUH? I really want you to read the Declaration of Independence then come back and post what it says about rights “by mutual agreement”.

I definitely agree that you have the right to whatever religious belief you want, regardless of how I personally judge it, so long, of course, as you obey the same laws that I do.

No comment on this only because it is drifting too far from our original subject.
And I thank you for your willingness to engage in a civil manner.
I hope that all whole review our posts appreciate the effort and preparation we both took to make our points
TNT

 

[PLP]

**TNT: **Rather than respond point-by-point, let me reformulate my argument a little more rigorously.

The Metaphysical Case for Atheistic Scientific Materialism

Let us assume:
(1) There is some “best” Scientific Theory of Everything (SToE), i.e. the simplest set of statements which logically entails all evidence that is or could be observed.
(2) This best SToE does not specify any god-like beings.
(3) The existence of God-like beings are not derivable from the SToE
We already have at least a partial SToE (a collection of scientific theories). It’s incomplete, but a “god of the gaps” argument is in a whole different class, so we’ll deal with it separately. It is a small philosophical stretch to consider the ideal case.

I assume (2) and (3) because if (2) or (3) were false, I would be a theist on the evidence, and no metaphysical argument would be necessary. But if (2) or (3) were false, belief in the existence of God would be by virtue of evidence, not faith.

Now, I believe the ontological entities named by our Best SToE (and those that are derivable from the Best SToE) by virtue of the explanatory power of the theory. I disbelieve in additional fundamental entites because *ex hypothesi *they lack explanatory power. I disblieve in entities not derivable from the SToE because they contradict the SToE.

Again, *ex hypothesi *the Best SToE itself is not derivable from a simpler set of axioms. If it were, those simpler axioms would themselves be the Best SToE. In order to derive the SToE, you would have to create an axiom set which is more complex than the SToE itself. But that axiom set would itself be non-derivable; to derive those axioms, an even more complex set of axioms would be required. So there is simply no point in attempting to *derive *the SToE; one is “needlessly multiplying entities”. Denying more fundamental entities than specified by the Best SToE is by virtue of argument from Occam’s Razor.

The Best SToE itself is not held on faith (absent evidence, argument or proof). It is held by virtue of its explanatory power, i.e. on the basis of the argument or meta-evidence that it explains the primary evidence. The desire to explain the primary evidence in the first place is not held on faith; faith, by definition, faith ignores evidence.

Therefore, at the metaphysical level, all the beliefs of Atheistic Scientific Materialism are not held on faith.

 

[PLP]

TNT:

The point is we do not have a right to hold error as true.

On one hand, I think it’s better to permit the right to believe error; I don’t think thought control is a pragmatically useful political tactic. And I also think it’s better to permit the right to declare a statement which is factually in error; again, it’s better to permit freedom of speech so errors can be corrected by discussion rather than by the police.

On the other hand, I strongly disapprove of declaring or otherwise promulgating as true a statement the speaker himself believes to be false. I also disapprove (but less strongly) of declaring as true a statement that has been contradicted by evidence or argument without addressing the evidence or argument which appears to contradict the statement.

On the gripping hand, I think it’s very dodgy indeed to assign a cognitive (true/false) status to any statement of faith. I think calling statements of faith either true or false is, at best, a linguistic idiom; lacking (by definition) evidence, argument or proof, one is using “true” or “false” wrt statements of faith in a very different manner than one uses “true” or “false” to discuss statements of fact.

 

[PLP]

martino:

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.

I await your evidence.

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.

A few years yes. And I myself have David Hume (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.

They cannot be easily dismissed, but they can be refuted.

If you’re interested, you can find a good survey on philosophical arguments for the existence of God and (more importantly) their nontheistic refutations in the Infidels library. I’m unsure of the propriety of posting off-site links; if you’re interested, PM me and I’ll send you the link.

do you believe there is no effect without some cause? can something happen without something else causing it?

Calling some event an effect presupposes the existence of a cause. I think the scientific evidence is clear that (absent the quantum realm) all macroscopic events in the part of spacetime that we can observe are causally related to other macroscopic events, and the “cause” events are always earler than the “effect” events in any reference frame.

I don’t, however, think we can generalize that scientific principle to the observable universe as a whole. As an analogy, every point on earth is related to every other point on earth by a great circle. This fact, however, does not entail that the earth itself is related each object in the universe by a great circle.

Let me explain again the logical fallacy in all “first cause”-like arguments.

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P2: The physical universe exists​

C1: A cause of the physical universe (i.e. God) exists

But…

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P3: God exists (by C1)​

C2: A cause of God (meta-God?) exists

And we’re in an infinite regress.

If, on the other hand, we deny that a cause of God exists, then we deny P1 (that *everything *has a cause). But without P1 the whole argument collapses. All first-cause-like arguments fail in this manner.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

If, on the other hand, we deny that a cause of God exists, then we deny P1 (that everything has a cause). But without P1 the whole argument collapses. All first-cause-like arguments fail in this manner.
You assume that God is subject to the laws of His creation. You treat God as something that exists in this universe and is therefore subject to the laws of this universe.

 

[PLP]

Gilbert Keith:

You assume that God is subject to the laws of His creation. You treat God as something that exists in this universe and is therefore subject to the laws of this universe.

The refutation is to the logic and rationality of the argument.

If God is somehow outside of logic, then I can’t see much point to any logical argument for the existence of God.

 

[awfulthings9]

PLP:

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P2: The physical universe exists​

C1: A cause of the physical universe (i.e. God) exists

But…

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P3: God exists (by C1)​

C2: A cause of God (meta-God?) exists

And we’re in an infinite regress.

If, on the other hand, we deny that a cause of God exists, then we deny P1 (that *everything *has a cause). But without P1 the whole argument collapses. All first-cause-like arguments fail in this manner.

I haven’t read most of this thread, so excuse me for jumping in. The problem with this refutation is that it refutes a simplified and erroneous explanation of the “first cause” argument. The words “cause” and “effect” apply to those things which are bound by the laws of physics. Everything that is currently within our scientific understanding is subject to the laws of physics, which means that everything that exists “physically” must have a cause. Likewise (to call upon another of Aquinas’s arguments), everything that exists physically and moves must have a movement causation. This would go on, impossibly, into infinity (which is where science fails to provide explanation) unless we have a being which is removed from the laws of physics. Such a being would not be subject to a first cause or first movement. Such a being would be supernatural (above nature). It provides a tidy explanation for all that is unexplaned AND is consistent with the revelation we have received, which also gives us an identity for this supernatural being.

 

[Magicsilence]

Hi PLP, welcome to the forums

You mention your belief that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and indeed the one Christians today worship is, in your opinion, partially/totally fictional.

Assuming that Jesus and all his disciples were not insane, how do you picture the change from:

1 - Jesus, an ordinary man, with some followers who liked his ideas.

to

2 - Jesus being worhsipped as God after his death.

Can you provide a motive for the switch (i.e falsifying the character in the gospels) given the way in which Christians were thus hated for their beliefs.

Moreover, can you explain why the apostles decided to make the story that Jesus was God and not, just another prophet. It would have been easier I would have thought to spread the word about a prophet. The apostles would have still held as much status. More, perhaps. Perhaps all the Jews would have believed them. Jesus as God really really got on their nerves.

Moving on, how do you explain the fact that many apostles/disciples/followers (but talking principally about the apostles who knew Jesus) went to death for such a belief in Christ as God (having, in your opinion, falsified parts/all of the gospels). Do you view them as all having gone insane? Perhaps you take the view that they had gone along with it so much they started to believe themselves?

Thirdly, can you explain why Jesus was put to death, if it was not for his outrageous actions/signs/sayings primarily against the high class Jews of that time, which leads me to the final point:

Why didnt the authorities just go and get Jesus’ body from the tomb? It would have been the easiest simple action that would have dispelled the Christians instantly.

Just quickly, if Christ appeared to you, would you believe? or dismiss it as a hallucination?

In Christ.

Andre.

p.s You dont have to have faith to pray to God.

 

[kamz]

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let’s imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don’t. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don’t know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Let’s say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn’t be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon’s great-grandmother’s black cat’s fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, “We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything.” Let me repeat: Let’s say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven’t yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let’s look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, “There is no gold in China,” what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, “There is gold in China,” I don’t need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, “There is no God,” is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don’t know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an “agnostic” - one who claims he “doesn’t know” if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is “ignoramus.” The Bible tells us that this ignorance is “willful” (Psalm 10:4). It’s not that a person can’t find God, but that he won’t. It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, “God, if you are there, strike me dead!” When God didn’t immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

If God is somehow outside of logic, then I can’t see much point to any logical argument for the existence of God.

Again, you are assuming that God exists in the human universe only and is therefore subject to the laws of human logic. No Catholic I know would ever agree to that definition of God. Nor does it make any sense. If God transcends the universe, surely His logic also transcends ours and we would be unable to completely understand His logic in the the same way that we understand our own.

 

[IanS]

Okay, my baloney factor may also be going “Ping” on the whole speed of light and atmosphere stability theory. However, I am waiting to hear back from a NASA Astrophysicist on at what point it would have an affect on the atmosphere. I’ll let you know if I hear anything.

That aside, kristinma did refer me to Sir Martin Rees who is currently Astronomer Royal and holds a Royal Society Research Professorship at the University of Cambridge. I haven’t read any of his books yet, but I plan to. He has some very interesting theories about how perfect the density and roughness of the universe has to be to even exist.

*The density of the universe is important in determining the geometry, whether it is flat or not. Another intriguing feature of our universe is that it is smooth on a very large scale. But of course it has structures in it, stars and galaxies and clusters of galaxies. We would like to understand why it has this mixture of smoothness and roughness.

To give an analogy, it is rather like the surface of an ocean, where, if you are in the middle of a rough sea, you will see a lot of waves, long swells, and so on, but nonetheless, if you average out to your horizon, you can talk about the average properties of waves, because even the biggest wave is small compared to the distance to your horizon.

Our universe is like that. There are galaxies, and there are clusters of galaxies, but even the largest cluster is small compared to the distance we can see using our telescopes. So that allows us to talk about the average properties of our universe. We couldn’t if the largest clusters were on a scale similar to the size of the universe, if the analogy were not with a rough sea, but with, say, a mountain landscape, in which one big mountain can dominate the entire view, so you can’t really talk about averages.

So our universe is smooth, in the same sense that the surface of the ocean is smooth - there are lots of features in it but on a large scale we can talk about average properties. And that makes cosmology simple, otherwise we could not talk about average densities.

But of course on the other hand if our universe was completely smooth it would consist now of a very dilute gas of mainly hydrogen! No stars, no galaxies and no people.

There is a particular number, which has a value of about 0.00001, one part in one hundred thousand, which measures, in a natural way, the roughness of the universe. We can pin down this number observationally. What we don’t yet really know is why it has that value.

it’s fairly special, in the sense that if the universe was much smoother, if that number was, say, 10-7 rather than 10-5, then there would be no stars and no galaxies. On the other hand, if it was much larger, say 10-2, then we would not be able to do cosmology so easily, because we would not be able to take averages over our universe and, moreover, there probably wouldn’t be any stars or galaxies, because if that was the case the universe would have developed huge lumps early on in its history, which would have developed into vast black holes. So a habitable universe has to be one that’s not too rough and not too smooth.
*

 

[PLP]

awfulthings9:

I haven’t read most of this thread, so excuse me for jumping in.

No excuses necessary! Jump right in!

The problem with this refutation is that it refutes a simplified and erroneous explanation of the “first cause” argument.

Well, it refutes a particular version of the first cause argument. You present a different version, which does require a different refutation.

The words “cause” and “effect” apply to those things which are bound by the laws of physics. Everything that is currently within our scientific understanding is subject to the laws of physics, which means that everything that exists “physically” must have a cause.

We do not know the laws of physics independently of actual events. Rather, we infer a law of physics by observing that no actual event contradicts the hypothesized law. Because of this, we cannot conclude with *logical *confidence than an unobserved event definitely obeys a supposed physical law. We can, of course, conclude that it is very plausible that an event which is very much like an observed event will exhibit the same sort of behavior that we have observed, but we can never elevate a physical law to the status of an absolute logical truth.

The application of the physical law of causality (which is, of course, very plausible) to the universe as a whole suffers from an obvious weakness: Causality describes a relationship; we must first establish with which the universe as a whole to have a relationship.

All the first cause argument can prove is that if the physical universe is in fact all that there is, then the universe was not, in fact, caused, and causality is limited in its application.

One can look at the issue in a scientific manner: We hypothesize that everything physical must have a cause. We hypothesize that the observable universe is indeed “something physical” under this definition. We then attempt to analyze these hypotheses to create a statement of falsification: If we see X, then the hypothesis is false. If we do not see X, that supports the hypothesis (it’s important to construct the analysis in this manner so that we do not inadvertently conclude that any logically possible observation would verify the hypothesis and thus render the hypothesis scientifically meaningless).

One can look at the issue in a metaphysical manner: Suppose it were impossible to construct a falsifiable implication of the hypothetical statement, “The observable universe as a whole was caused.” In this case, the hypothesis is in-principle unfalsifiable and therefore scientifically meaningless. So we would have to evaluate the statement metaphysically: Is it simpler to presuppose that the universe was caused then to presupposed it is just a brute fact? I’ve not seen a good argument that it is.

Adding the “physical” specifier turns the argument from a logical, philosophical argument to a evidential, scientific argument or an Occam’s Razor metaphysical argument. In any event, the modified argument (and all others like it) still fails.

 

[PLP]

Magicsilence:

Hi PLP, welcome to the forums

Thanks

You mention your belief that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and indeed the one Christians today worship is, in your opinion, partially/totally fictional.

Indeed I do.

Assuming that Jesus and all his disciples were not insane, how do you picture the change from:

You’re asking me to not only assume that Jesus and his disciples were not insane, but that they were actually real. This is too much of a stretch even for the purpose of argument.

Can you provide a motive for the switch (i.e falsifying the character in the gospels) given the way in which Christians were thus hated for their beliefs.

I don’t think I understand your question. Are you asking why the Gospel authors would write a fictional story of Jesus’s life? People write fiction all the time.

Moreover, can you explain why the apostles decided to make the story that Jesus was God and not, just another prophet.

You understand, I consider the entire New Testament, including Acts, (with the exception of the authentic Pauline Letters) to be mostly fictional. Jesus, the apostles, everything is pretty much fiction.

Moving on, how do you explain the fact that many apostles/disciples/followers (but talking principally about the apostles who knew Jesus) went to death for such a belief in Christ as God (having, in your opinion, falsified parts/all of the gospels).

I don’t necessarily think that the actual Gospel authors were martyred. Since they were anonymous, we have no way of knowing. Furthermore, it is absurd to believe that the authors of fictional Gospels were persuaded by those selfsame works. If they were persuaded at all, it was because of other factors (e.g. Paul’s evangelism).

Thirdly, can you explain why Jesus was put to death, if it was not for his outrageous actions/signs/sayings primarily against the high class Jews of that time…

Because the sacrifice motif is prevalent in many historical mythologies (see Prometheus) including Judaism.

…which leads me to the final point:

Why didnt the authorities just go and get Jesus’ body from the tomb? It would have been the easiest simple action that would have dispelled the Christians instantly.

It would have been somewhat difficult for the temporal authorities ca. 33 CE to respond to the events of a fictional narrative written at least 40 (if not more) years later.

Just quickly, if Christ appeared to you, would you believe? or dismiss it as a hallucination?

Depends. If an omnipotent god wished me to believe I had seen Jesus, it’s logically impossible that I would disbelieve. Contrawise, if I were capable of disbelieving, then I would probably ascribe the experience to hallucination for exactly the same reason.

 

[PLP]

kamz:

There can be no such things as an atheist.

And yet, one stands before you.

It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

I certainly do not assert that I know everything. You do not need to belabor the point.

Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible.

Of course it’s logically possible.

Let’s look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, “There is no gold in China,” what is needed for that statement to be proven true?

Read my responses to martino earlier in the thread, where he draws much the same analogy. If you’re going to trivialize God to the point where he might be “hiding behind the couch”, you’re not talking about much of a god at all.

I need absolute or total knowledge.

For entities which not inherently or obviously plausible, such as alien spaceships, unicorns, leprechauns, exceptions to the laws of physics, or married bachelors, no, you don’t need total knowledge to rationally disbelieve.

Technically, I am a agnostic weak atheist with regard to those conceptions of god so limited that knowledge about it is so obscure. However, no one actually believes in such a god; these definitions are trotted out only to quibble with atheists.

Because “god” is a word with many variations of meaning, from the frankly irrational to the incomprehensible to the obviously false, any position of disbelief is going to be equally complex. So sue me.

To say categorically, “There is no God,” is to make an absolute statement.

Fortunately, I don’t make such a categorical statement, especially across all categories of the meaning of the word “god”. I merely state that, on the whole, I believe that no gods exist.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don’t know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist.

In the strict sense of the word, I cannot know anything. If you insist on certainty to claim any knowledge, then you’re stuck with epistemological nihilism, which isn’t a very useful definition.

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an “agnostic” - one who claims he “doesn’t know” if God exists.

That’s what you call atheists. I obviously don’t accept your definition. But regardless of what you choose to call me, my beliefs remain the same.

It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is “ignoramus.” The Bible tells us that this ignorance is “willful” (Psalm 10:4). It’s not that a person can’t find God, but that he won’t. It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

Were I of a mind to be offended, I might read the above paragraph as insultingly calling me stupid and/or a liar. Happily, I am in no such mood.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, “God, if you are there, strike me dead!” When God didn’t immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

You are, of course, aware that Mussolini was not struck down by God, but rather hanged by his subjects. If God did in fact exist, He would have done the Italian people a great service had he taken El Duce at his word.

 

[ncgolf]

PLP,

What is it that you seek or want to know most in life? Just one thing though. I am curious to know that one thing that an atheist would like to know.

Thanks

 

[PLP]

Gilbert Keith:

Again, you are assuming that God exists in the human universe only and is therefore subject to the laws of human logic. No Catholic I know would ever agree to that definition of God. Nor does it make any sense. If God transcends the universe, surely His logic also transcends ours and we would be unable to completely understand His logic in the the same way that we understand our own.

If God transcends logic, then I cannot comprehend what it is I’m being asked to believe.

 

[PLP]

The density of the universe is important in determining the geometry, whether it is flat or not…

It is indeed a fascinating scientific mystery. I’ll definitely keep up my subscription to Scientific American!

 

[PLP]

ncgolf:

What is it that you seek or want to know most in life? Just one thing though.

To be always completely myself.

• “to be nobody but yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you like everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight, and never stop fighting.” *

** e e cummings **
​

I am curious to know that one thing that an atheist would like to know.

I’d like to know what women want. If that’s too complex, I’d settle for a deterministic theory of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[RyanL]

PLP:

Let me explain again the logical fallacy in all “first cause”-like arguments.

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P2: The physical universe exists​

C1: A cause of the physical universe (i.e. God) exists

But…

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P3: God exists (by C1)​

C2: A cause of God (meta-God?) exists

And we’re in an infinite regress.

If, on the other hand, we deny that a cause of God exists, then we deny P1 (that *everything *has a cause). But without P1 the whole argument collapses. All first-cause-like arguments fail in this manner.

PLP,

I don’t intend to participate much in this thread, but I would like to propose that your P1 is ambiguous and therefore this is an invalid argument. I would not assert that God is somehow “not bound by logic”, as that would violate His very nature (and denies Truth, which He *is - *i.e., God is bound by Himself alone). To say that God is illogical is to deny what He has revealed to us about Himself and our own nature, which is a reflection of His own (and we are, by nature, logical). In other words, to say that God stands counter to logic is not Catholic teaching. It is a silly defense which I would not expect you to accept.

My modification to the ambiguous premise number 1 would be as follows:

P1: Everything which exists in time has a chronologically preceeding cause which also exists.

If God is outside of time, as Catholics teach, your meta-God argument fails and the Catholic argument is proved true.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Is an acceptable blessing for an athiets “Bless yourself”?

 

[forthright]

I’m sorry if this has already been asked - I didn’t feel like reading 200+ posts to find out.

I’m working on the assumption that as an atheist you put a fair amount of trust in the theory of evolution. Can you explain why we don’t see greater diversity in animals if evolution began with single-cell organisms and expanded from there? Socially, I should expect to see other animals that have formed languages, civilizations, wars, know the difference between good/evil, etc. Physically, I should see a lot more variance in the major land creatures - everything that comes to mind has 4 limbs, 2 eyes, etc. Why not 6 legged horses (or dogs or whatever). (BTW, if you decide throw insects into the mix, how come there aren’t giant insects that rival the mammals in one section of the world or another?) It seems to me that even Star Trek’s aliens are mild compared to the variation we should see if evolution expanded in all kinds of wild directions, starting with single celled organisms.