Ask the Atheist

[forthright]

RyanL:

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.

PLP, Although I doubt your sincere interest theology, the book “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed may help understand why your first cause argument doesn’t apply to the Christian God. The first chapter or two covers the theology of who God is and His existence.

 

[RyanL]

forthright:

…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?..

Actually, their bodies woudn’t support it. By nature, their exoskeletons are both strong and fragile - if they were as big as, say, a cat, their limbs would collapse.

Just so you know.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

PLP,

As a fun exercise, you may want to participate in the following thread: Flip Flop Existence.

God Bless (Bless yourself?),
RyanL

 

[steveandersen]

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.

I’m not an atheist but I’ll take a stab at these

forthright:

Can you explain why we don’t see greater diversity in animals if evolution began with single-cell organisms and expanded from there?

Creation is full of an enormous variety of plants and animals

99.999% of them are currently extinct and still there are tens of thousands of living species

What exactly are you looking for?

forthright:

Socially, I should expect to see other animals that have formed languages, civilizations, wars, know the difference between good/evil, etc.

Why?

forthright:

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).

Apparently you are missing the heart of the theory

Under common decent things can only have modifications of characteristics that were present in their ancestors. they can’t swap parts in and out they have to mdoify what they have

The fact that all land vertebrates share a common body plan is a clear indication of common decent. All living things are laid out in a clear chronological and geographical relationship to one another.

Under evolution you could never have a 6-legged dog, a Devonian rabbit, or a New World ape

forthright:

(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?)

Giant insects are impossible due to structural and physiological constraints

forthright:

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.

Sci-Fi aliens are limited only by imagination and budgets

Real life forms have to follow rules

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

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

Now you’re cooking.

You get to know what God wants you to know, which is sufficient for your salvation … when we are told you will get to know a good deal more.

It’s why Christianity is called a mystery religion. If it were perfectly rational, it would not be religion at all.

 

[forthright]

steveandersen:

Apparently you are missing the heart of the theory

Sorry, I didn’t mean to be vague about my question. (For the record, I believe in the limited evolution of plants and animals adapting to their environment. I just don’t believe that ultimately we as humans are nothing more than millions of years of mutations that all started as an amoeba. Also, for the record, I didn’t ask this just to upset PhilVaz.)

I guess my basic question is: Why do we automatically assume that evolution started at one point and went in one direction (unless guided somehow)? Why didn’t other amoeba’s evolve into things radically different? If you go with the 99.999% extinction you mentioned, why was this the only line that continued (unless it was selected somehow)? Why does evolution teach (at least to my knowledge - I may be mistaken here) that we are all related somehow? If evolution is 100% correct as I was taught it, I would surely think that we should be able to pick a few dozen “lineages” that are not related in any way, shape or form - each tracing their evolution back completely separate from the others.

 

[IanS]

PLP:

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

Be careful here PLP. You’re not sounding very atheistic again. To claim something is a mystery it to open up the possibility that there is indeed an intelligent power beyond our own comprehension that is carefully orchestrating the delicate balance of density and roughness in the universe. Without which we would be nothing but a dilute gas of mainly hydrogen.

I know you don’t believe what I say, but prove me wrong. At least I can take my theory beyond just “who knows” and then walk away.

 

[steveandersen]

…… (For the record, I believe in the limited evolution of plants and animals adapting to their environment. I just don’t believe that ultimately we as humans are nothing more than millions of years of mutations

Oh we assuredly are more than just millions of years of mutations
But that is still part of what we are

forthright:

that all started as an amoeba.

I don’t think anyone would say we started out as an amoeba. We diverged from their ancestors a long time ago

forthright:

Also, for the record, I didn’t ask this just to upset PhilVaz.)

Confidentially, I think he rather enjoys it

forthright:

I guess my basic question is: Why …… Why …… why ……

We probably shouldn’t get into this on the “ask the atheist” thread
There are already plenty of evolution threads without us high jacking another
You questions are good but in general science will answer the “how” questions. For “why” you would need to consult poets and priests

forthright:

Why does evolution teach …… that we are all related somehow?

Because the evidence, on many levels, is very very strong.
Doesn’t the Bible also say we are part of Creation?

forthright:

If evolution is 100% correct as I was taught it, I would surely think that we should be able to pick a few dozen “lineages” that are not related in any way, shape or form - each tracing their evolution back completely separate from the others.

Evolution was devised to provide a mechanism for observable data. Could there have been other lineages? Sure. Why did they die out and ours survive?……I don’t know why. Call it the Hand of God, luck of the draw, laws of nature.

 

[PLP]

RyanL:

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.

Well, it’s not ambiguous; it seems pretty univocal. It might, of course, be false, in which case the argument is unsound.

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.

You might want to mention that to Gilbert Keith. I agree with you: I just can’t accept an argument that rests on irrationality or illogic without throwing out all the perfectly good prosaic knowledge I think I have.

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.

That’s an excellent premise, it differs substantially from my own premise 1, it avoids the logical problems with my premise 1.

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

Indeed. However, it is very easy to deny the corresponding premise 2, that the physical universe as a whole exists in time, since the only time we know about is a relationship between events within the physical universe.

However you modify the premises of the first cause argument, either you end up with a logical contradiction, or you have enough “wiggle room” to attribute or deny the specified property to the physical universe as a whole; it is a logical fallacy to conclude a property of the whole from only a property of the parts (and vice versa).

Is an acceptable blessing for an athiets “Bless yourself”?

 

[MTH]

Okay, I’m not even sure why an atheist is posting on this forum. It does not make any sense to me. It would be like me posting on an opera forum, something I have absolutely no interest in. Why would I waste my time logging on to a forum that has no interest or substance for me? It seems to me an atheist only has two objectives for posting here. First, they want to cause controversy and upset a lot of people or maybe, in other words, make trouble. The other objective is maybe deep down they are not an atheist at all and are looking for any reason to change their belief and just want some comforting from us to help ease the transition to believe in God. However, since an atheist has already posted, I’ll put in my two cents worth. I doubt very seriously that a hard core atheist would change their belief no matter how much “proof” we give them that God really does exist. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say the atheist is right and there is no God. When our life ends, it’s just that, we die and are put into the ground or cremated and all the time that we believers prayed and went to church didn’t do us any good, so nothing was lost or gained. It was not wasted time because compared to everything else we do it is just a small percentage of our time that was spent praying. In addition, praying and attending church makes me feel good even if you don’t get anything out of it. Now, on the other hand, since God does exist, then I, as a believer, have everything to gain and the atheist has everything to loose. The analogy I like to use with atheist is this. Is it worth to gamble your soul away to Satan with the belief there is no God? In other words, would you take your entire life savings and gamble it on one spin of the roulette table in Vegas. I don’t think so. Since a hardcore atheist won’t/can’t believe in God, I will continue to pray for them and for their salvation (and I do that every day). Remember, once our end time has come it will be too late to change our minds and there is no appeal. God will judge us for what we really think and believe and what is truly in our hearts.

 

[PLP]

forthright:

PLP, Although I doubt your sincere interest theology…

Well, theology is not my primary area of interest. But I will put it on my list.

…the book “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed may help understand why your first cause argument doesn’t apply to the Christian God.

It’s entirely possible the First Cause argument is irrelevant to Christian theology. It’s not really that great an argument in the first place, and even if it were to succeed, it would prove only Deism. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a theologian were to simply dump it completely.

It’s also important to understand that my refutation of the First Cause argument is not in any way an argument for the non-existence of any god. One cannot draw many conclusions from only the successful refutation of an argument.

 

[PLP]

forthright:

I’m working on the assumption that as an atheist you put a fair amount of trust in the theory of evolution.

I do indeed. (Keep mind that there are some atheists some who hold more… exotic… theories about the diversity of life and some who are outright anti-science. Most atheists do, of course, hold pretty mainstream scientific views.)

Can you explain why we don’t see greater diversity in animals if evolution began with single-cell organisms and expanded from there?

Variation occurs only so quickly, and since variations are not correllated to success, a lot of variations have to be tried to produce an improvement. One particular prediction that the basic paradigm of Evolution makes is that the rate of variation should consistently correlate to the amount of diversity across multiple ways of measuring those variables independently. Which is exactly what we do see.

As to the fine details, you’d have to ask a real scientist.

 

[RyanL]

PLP:

Well, it’s not ambiguous; it seems pretty univocal. It might, of course, be false, in which case the argument is unsound.

Actually, the premise was ambiguous - exists is not as specific as “exists in time”. It wasn’t false, it was simply too general for this specific logical application.

Indeed. However, it is very easy to deny the corresponding premise 2, that the physical universe as a whole exists in time, since the only time we know about is a relationship between events within the physical universe.

Interesting perspective, but it seems incorrect. According to the new P1, the universe exists in time and therefore has a cause which exists. I am currently unaware of anyone who posits that parts of the universe (which came into being at the Big Bang) exist outside of time (and therefore existed outside of the Big Bang). On the surface, this seems illogical. Could you please elaborate?

However you modify the premises of the first cause argument, either you end up with a logical contradiction,

I don’t see this…could you please spell it out more clearly?

…or you have enough “wiggle room” to attribute or deny the specified property to the physical universe as a whole

Perhaps I am too simple to grasp what you are saying here - could you please use smaller steps?

it is a logical fallacy to conclude a property of the whole from only a property of the parts (and vice versa).

I agree that this is a logical fallacy, but I’m not certain where you are applying this.

Just because you deny what I would attribute to be humanity’s (and specifically my) ultimate purpose, that doesn’t mean we can’t keep our sense of humor.

God (or belevolent force of your choosing) Bless,
RyanL

 

[PLP]

RyanL:

Just because you deny what I would attribute to be humanity’s (and specifically my) ultimate purpose, that doesn’t mean we can’t keep our sense of humor.

I’ll get to the substantive parts of your post later. I just wanted to note that I wasn’t mocking or taking offense at your “Bless yourself” comment. Quite the contrary: I thought it was witty and humorous.

 

[TNT]

TNT:

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.

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”.

POST 261: PLP: The desire to explain the primary evidence in the first place is not held on faith; faith, by definition, faith ignores evidence.

Well, let us compare your definition to the English language:
Dictionary faith (fāth)
n.

1. 
   *] Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
   *] Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
   
   PLP’s: Definition again:
   faith, by definition, faith ignores evidence.
   
   So, PLP’s definition or essential attribute of faith is IGNORES EVIDENCE! WOW!
   
   No wonder you can’t get any traction here.
   Faith is the English language definition, and as was clearly used in my posts
   **Again:
   **Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that **does not rest **on logical proof OR material evidence.
   To put it more succinctly: Faith, defined in my posts, is belief in anything which does NOT REST on material evidence.
   
   Since your SToE [T] points straight to [EOM] (meaning also the magical [immaterial substance) as a final conclusion from which there is no material evidence whatsoever, but only a pointer, then the atheist does indeed have a Faith system undergirding his position.
   Just as the theist has his pointers without material evidence.
   **
   POST 261: PLP:** Therefore, at the metaphysical level, all the beliefs of Atheistic Scientific Materialism are not held on faith.
   I already proved that to be wrong, and further, we can only assume that you are referring to your own erroneous definition of (Faith.= ignoring evidence) for your conclusion.
   
   POST 262: PLP: don’t think thought control is a pragmatically useful political tactic.
   Who said “political”; not me. Where did that come from? You inserted it as a qualifier of your statement. Why assume I was talking about politics or government for that matter?
   Making it clear, ontologically, or objectively if you will, error has no rights.
   
   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.
   
   Now we have the police as a qualifier. But, this also does not objectively give error any “right” in the sense that it should be propagated. You are also assuming a person is willing to discuss and be open to the truth, which is frequently not the case.
   Ex:
   A talk show debate today was between a NASA scientist and a “skeptic” institute “expert”. The debate was “America never put anyone on the moon”. From the skeptic points, anyone with less than a college education could find his position points reasonable. And from the callins, many did.

 

[TNT]

Cont’d…
POST 262: PLP: I strongly disapprove of declaring or otherwise promulgating as true a statement the speaker himself believes to be false.
**This is lying, NOT error.
Lying, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, is a statement at variance with the mind.
**
POST 262: PLP: 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.
Bravo! Good for you
Yet any statement of faith will be objectively true or contain error. It is just that we cannot prove either on the basis of fact (not Ignoring fact as you proposed).

POST 273: PLP: I merely state that, on the whole, ***I believe that no gods exist. ***
(BTW: you can just say “no god exists” and that would cover any possible plurality as well.)

1. Beyond proof, beyond material fact. = An act of faith.
   Which you certify by having said: "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” "
   That is, you believe something that cannot be proved, but are merely led by your own mental powers of scientific investigation.
   However, those of equal powers and accumen take the opposing stance and say "I believe that god exists.
   Both are acts of faith properly so-called.
   Which goe right back to my original premise that the Atheist has at least the abundance of Faith as does a theist.
   You prove my point:
   If one believes there is no God, then by [T] it follows right to [EOM] lest he become contradictory.
   For, no god, then matter or the magical immaterial substance is required to be eternal, regardless of how many “regressions” you go, into that eternity or “universes”.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Quote: RyanL
*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. *

PLP

You might want to mention that to Gilbert Keith. I agree with you: I just can’t accept an argument that rests on irrationality or illogic without throwing out all the perfectly good prosaic knowledge I think I have.

Gilbert here:

Gilbert does not think God is illogical. Gilbert thinks God is supra-rational, which is quite a different thing and rests on sound Catholic teaching.

Ever heard of the Mysteries … Luminous, glorious, joyful, sorrowful? Ours is a mystery religion. We cannot enter God’s head and know his thoughts in the fullness of their complexity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not playing with a full deck and is certainly not a Catholic. Anyone who thinks that God must be rational in the same way that humans are rational … simply is not rational. God created Reason and therefore there must be supra-rational genius in God that is unfathomable to us.

Only the atheist is so shallow as to say that God cannot exist because he cannot understand God.

He is not supposed to … except to the extent that God chooses to reveal himself to our poor intellects.

 

[RyanL]

Gilbert Keith:

We cannot enter God’s head and know his thoughts in the fullness of their complexity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not playing with a full deck and is certainly not a Catholic. Anyone who thinks that God must be rational in the same way that humans are rational … simply is not rational. God created Reason and therefore there must be supra-rational genius in God that is unfathomable to us.

GK,

Easy, amigo. While you haven’t *directly *questioned the fullness of my deck or my Catholicity, you’re not far from doing so. Before you actually do question my faith, please allow me to explain what I have said.

Human logic can get us to the existence of God, but that’s about it. St. Thomas’ work on Natural Law demonstrates this. Beyond this, we must be enlightened by God in order to understand Him, and the mechanism He uses to enlighten us is divine revelation. I believe we agree this far.

We have objective moral truths. These truths may also be known through natural reason. They are objectively true for us, but are subjectively true for God. However, they are no less true. Once God has deemed it true, He cannot violate His own nature. He cannot lie, He cannot sin, He is immutable, He is good, and He is Truth. Truth involves logic and reason. Again, it is objectively true for us, but subjectively true for God - that said, it is no less true.

To make the logical argument that an illogical God will somehow prove His existence is…not the strongest argument to present for defense of the faith. That’s what I was trying to say. Supra-logical? I could agree with that. Illogical? Nope. Should we be able to fully understand the wisdom of God? It would be a poor God, indeed, if we could! As Fr. Corapi has said, “God has placed obvious limits on our intelligence, but none whatsoever on our stupidity.”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[tomaskovarik]

MTH:

Okay, I’m not even sure why an atheist is posting on this forum. It does not make any sense to me. It would be like me posting on an opera forum, something I have absolutely no interest in. Why would I waste my time logging on to a forum that has no interest or substance for me? It seems to me an atheist only has two objectives for posting here. First, they want to cause controversy and upset a lot of people or maybe, in other words, make trouble. The other objective is maybe deep down they are not an atheist at all and are looking for any reason to change their belief and just want some comforting from us to help ease the transition to believe in God. However, since an atheist has already posted, I’ll put in my two cents worth. I doubt very seriously that a hard core atheist would change their belief no matter how much “proof” we give them that God really does exist. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say the atheist is right and there is no God. When our life ends, it’s just that, we die and are put into the ground or cremated and all the time that we believers prayed and went to church didn’t do us any good, so nothing was lost or gained. It was not wasted time because compared to everything else we do it is just a small percentage of our time that was spent praying. In addition, praying and attending church makes me feel good even if you don’t get anything out of it. Now, on the other hand, since God does exist, then I, as a believer, have everything to gain and the atheist has everything to loose. The analogy I like to use with atheist is this. Is it worth to gamble your soul away to Satan with the belief there is no God? In other words, would you take your entire life savings and gamble it on one spin of the roulette table in Vegas. I don’t think so. Since a hardcore atheist won’t/can’t believe in God, I will continue to pray for them and for their salvation (and I do that every day). Remember, once our end time has come it will be too late to change our minds and there is no appeal. God will judge us for what we really think and believe and what is truly in our hearts.

I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE THAT YOU DON’T LIKE OPERAS!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING FOR WHICH YOU SHOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED!!! Thats the main issue in this tread…whether or not you like operas.
How about Verdi??? Lets start with that.

 

[Lillith]

MTH:

Okay, I’m not even sure why an atheist is posting on this forum. It does not make any sense to me. It would be like me posting on an opera forum, something I have absolutely no interest in. Why would I waste my time logging on to a forum that has no interest or substance for me? It seems to me an atheist only has two objectives for posting here. First, they want to cause controversy and upset a lot of people or maybe, in other words, make trouble. The other objective is maybe deep down they are not an atheist at all and are looking for any reason to change their belief and just want some comforting from us to help ease the transition to believe in God. However, since an atheist has already posted, I’ll put in my two cents worth. I doubt very seriously that a hard core atheist would change their belief no matter how much “proof” we give them that God really does exist. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say the atheist is right and there is no God. When our life ends, it’s just that, we die and are put into the ground or cremated and all the time that we believers prayed and went to church didn’t do us any good, so nothing was lost or gained. It was not wasted time because compared to everything else we do it is just a small percentage of our time that was spent praying. In addition, praying and attending church makes me feel good even if you don’t get anything out of it. Now, on the other hand, since God does exist, then I, as a believer, have everything to gain and the atheist has everything to loose. The analogy I like to use with atheist is this. Is it worth to gamble your soul away to Satan with the belief there is no God? In other words, would you take your entire life savings and gamble it on one spin of the roulette table in Vegas. I don’t think so. Since a hardcore atheist won’t/can’t believe in God, I will continue to pray for them and for their salvation (and I do that every day). Remember, once our end time has come it will be too late to change our minds and there is no appeal. God will judge us for what we really think and believe and what is truly in our hearts.

I completely agree with this…MTH!

My dad is an athiest…and he would rather go to the dentist and have a root cannal than talk about God…