Atheism, and ignoring Jesus

[Shredderbeam]

oneGODoneCHURCH:

For you that can not except or refuse to see the evidence of God in the world around you I feel real sorrow. May God move upon your soul and open your eyes to a world beyond that which is provable in a lab or court of law.

I try to treat my beliefs in a consistent manner. If I wish to see if my fiancee is home from work, I check the driveway for her car. If I need to check if I need more food, I examine my refrigerator. When I am told of an alligator living in my basement, I wish to see the evidence for it. Now, when I am told of an intelligent being who created all, I ask for evidence, and it is not provided. You speak of evidence as an oddity, only admissible to chemists in their laboratories or lawyers in their courtrooms - however, it is something we all use every day. If there is none, and you still believe, that is fine, though I am confused as to why you do. However, you cannot reasonably expect me to believe on the same basis.

 

[1holycatholic]

The existence of God is a matter of faith. 'T’were it otherwise, there’d be no need for faith.

That’s not right. Check the Summa Theologica.

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

 

[1holycatholic]

The average person will dismiss Santa Claus, and reasonably so, but if they have any philosophical knowledge, they will acknowledge that the concept is logically possible.

Well, matter certainly cannot be created or destroyed, so I am loathe to think that it did not exist at one point. Perhaps some of the principles of entropy are incorrect, and the universe has been around forever, or perhaps the big bang/big crunch model has been recurrent throughout infinity. I don’t know for sure.

Time is not infinite.

Entropy only applies to a closed system, not the entire universe.

 

[Shredderbeam]

1holycatholic:

Time is not infinite.

How do you know?

1holycatholic:

Entropy only applies to a closed system, not the entire universe.

The universe is a closed system.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I try to treat my beliefs in a consistent manner. If I wish to see if my fiancee is home from work, I check the driveway for her car. If I need to check if I need more food, I examine my refrigerator. When I am told of an alligator living in my basement, I wish to see the evidence for it. Now, when I am told of an intelligent being who created all, I ask for evidence, and it is not provided. You speak of evidence as an oddity, only admissible to chemists in their laboratories or lawyers in their courtrooms - however, it is something we all use every day. If there is none, and you still believe, that is fine, though I am confused as to why you do. However, you cannot reasonably expect me to believe on the same basis.

I see the world in which we live and that is my evidence of God. To dismiss the whole of creation to a cosmic happenstance is to me a hard pill to swallow. I have the written testimonies of those that were there and witnessed the Crucifixion, death, and resurrection and Ascension of Christ. I have the miracles that I have witnessed myself. These are the proof of God. I don’t need to go look in the frig to know if I need to go to the store If it has been a week or to chance are I need to go, I may need to look to see just what I need to get, But thats pretty much the same each time I go. Just because your fiancee car is in the driveway does not mean she home your drawing a conclusion on the most menial of evidence. It is really confusing to me how anyone can not believe in God. I would find It more believable if the person was to take the condition of the world or the personal tragedies of their life and blame God, then state that they refuse to acknowledge Him for them. Than just stating there is no God.

See it like this if there is no God then people have no one to answer to as all people have faults, it just a matter of degree as to how bad you are there is no absolute good or right and wrong so there can be no absolute evil. And we can decide what is right and wrong as we see fit and change it if it becomes bothersome. On the other Hand if there is a God it can be just down right inconvenient to even try and live by the standard that he as set.

 

[Shredderbeam]

oneGODoneCHURCH:

I see the world in which we live and that is my evidence of God.

I don’t see how one draws a logical conclusion of God when looking at the world.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

I have the written testimonies of those that were there and witnessed the Crucifixion, death, and resurrection and Ascension of Christ.

I don’t really know how realistic those are. Of course, given the literary spirit of the time, such reports would not have been unique.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

I have the miracles that I have witnessed myself.

I don’t know what miracles you have seen, but I must quote one of my favorite philosophers, Hume:

“That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…”

What it essentially means is that the laws of nature are very highly established, and as such, alleged violations of them require a full and complete proof before they can be accepted.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Just because your fiancee car is in the driveway does not mean she home your drawing a conclusion on the most menial of evidence.

I did not say that it was a proof. I said it was evidence. If her car is in the driveway, she has probably arrived home from work, unless she took public transit (an unlikely event).

oneGODoneCHURCH:

It is really confusing to me how anyone can not believe in God. I would find It more believable if the person was to take the condition of the world or the personal tragedies of their life and blame God, then state that they refuse to acknowledge Him for them. Than just stating there is no God.

“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

• Stephen Roberts.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

See it like this if there is no God then people have no one to answer to as all people have faults, it just a matter of degree as to how bad you are there is no absolute good or right and wrong so there can be no absolute evil. And we can decide what is right and wrong as we see fit and change it if it becomes bothersome. On the other Hand if there is a God it can be just down right inconvenient to even try and live by the standard that he as set.

Irrelevant. “X is comforting” does not imply “X is true”, or in this case, “X provides an objective moral standard” does not imply “X is true”.

 

[1holycatholic]

How do you know?

Read David Hilbert.

Past time has occurred (been achieved.)

Infinity, by definition is unachievable.

Infinite past time would be an achieved unachievable, which is a contradiction and cannot be.

The universe is a closed system.

Not in thermodynamics.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Many texts define the second law as “the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process” and then throw qrev/T or free energy = ΔG and ΔS at you.

That’s too complex too fast. We’ll see that the second law and entropy are simple, at the level of first-year university chem.

The second law is based on human experience. It doesn’t come from complicated theory and equations. So, think of these experiences that you have had: A rock will fall if you lift it up and then let go. Hot frying pans cool down when taken off the stove. Iron rusts (oxidizes) in the air. Air in a high-pressure tire shoots out from even a small hole in its side to the lower pressure atmosphere. Ice cubes melt in a warm room.

What’s happening in each of those processes? Energy of some kind is changing from being localized (“concentrated” in the rock or the pan, etc.) to becoming more spread out. Look at those examples again to see how that statement fits them all.

OK? That’s it — a simple way of stating fundamental science behind the second law:
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.

But what about “entropy” and “universe” that is in so many textbooks and may be in yours? We’ll see what entropy is in a minute. But the “universe” just means “the system you’re looking at PLUS its surroundings, i.e., everything that’s close around it”. System plus surroundings. If that “system plus surroundings” bothers you, or if you want details of three of the processes mentioned above, read the next paragraphs.
…

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t know what miracles you have seen, but I must quote one of my favorite philosophers, Hume:

“That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…”

What it essentially means is that the laws of nature are very highly established, and as such, alleged violations of them require a full and complete proof before they can be accepted.

Hume’s position is easily disproved:
Hume’s argument in a nutshell is that a miracle would be a violation of scientific law, but scientific laws are more certain than miracle stories, so we should reject these stories. But Hume himself supplies his own refutation: according to Hume induction never gives us certain knowledge, because it’s always possible that we will observe a violation of the pattern that has held so far. Therefore scientific laws, which are all based on induction, are not absolutely certain, and miracles are possible.

At a deeper level, this argument demonstrates that atheistic naturalism is self-refuting, and therefore false. Consider the principle that all knowledge is obtained by induction applied to sensory data. Call this the epistemological principle of induction, that is, induction as a general theory of knowledge. But it is clear that induction applied to sensory data can never prove the epistemological principle of induction itself. How could it, when induction only draws probable conclusions of a statistical nature, whereas the epistemological principle of induction makes a statement about all knowledge?

Therefore if the epistemological principle of induction is true, then it must also apply to itself, in which case it is false because it cannot be validated inductively. If it’s true, then it’s false. And if it’s false, then it’s also false. Therefore the epistemological principle of induction is simply false. Not all knowledge is obtained inductively from sensory data. Knowledge of God is therefore possible.

 

[Shredderbeam]

1holycatholic:

Read David Hilbert.

Past time has occurred (been achieved.)

Infinity, by definition is unachievable.

Infinite past time would be an achieved unachievable, which is a contradiction and cannot be.

Interesting thoughts; I’ve discussed it a little with others, and come up with the idea of a circle laid upon itself, but it’s still in the works.

Would you consider infinity in general to be impossible?

1holycatholic:

Not in thermodynamics.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Many texts define the second law as “the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process” and then throw qrev/T or free energy = ΔG and ΔS at you.

That’s too complex too fast. We’ll see that the second law and entropy are simple, at the level of first-year university chem.

The second law is based on human experience. It doesn’t come from complicated theory and equations. So, think of these experiences that you have had: A rock will fall if you lift it up and then let go. Hot frying pans cool down when taken off the stove. Iron rusts (oxidizes) in the air. Air in a high-pressure tire shoots out from even a small hole in its side to the lower pressure atmosphere. Ice cubes melt in a warm room.

What’s happening in each of those processes? Energy of some kind is changing from being localized (“concentrated” in the rock or the pan, etc.) to becoming more spread out. Look at those examples again to see how that statement fits them all.

OK? That’s it — a simple way of stating fundamental science behind the second law:
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.

But what about “entropy” and “universe” that is in so many textbooks and may be in yours? We’ll see what entropy is in a minute. But the “universe” just means “the system you’re looking at PLUS its surroundings, i.e., everything that’s close around it”. System plus surroundings. If that “system plus surroundings” bothers you, or if you want details of three of the processes mentioned above, read the next paragraphs.
…

To qualify what I meant - I used the word “universe” to mean “the totality of all existence”. It would be a closed system in that nothing “out of existence” comes into it.

 

[Jon_S]

Atheism is the denial of God’s existence. Whether denial is taken to mean absolute or reasonable is up for debate. With the qualifier that my denial is reasonable, I am an atheist.

So what you’re telling me is that you have no evidence to support your claim that God does not exist? You don’t have any real substantial evidence to back up that claim, but you can demand evidence from us to prove it to you?

I am criticizing their belief in something that has no supporting evidence. I am not trying to assert how the universe came into being.

The fact that the universe exists at all is evidence. Your inability to give an alternate explanation, yet continue to demand from others any empirical evidence for their beliefs, seems to put you in a rather hypocritical spot. I’m not trying to attack your character, but your arguments demand from others what you can’t even provide yourself.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Jon_S:

So what you’re telling me is that you have no evidence to support your claim that God does not exist? You don’t have any real substantial evidence to back up that claim, but you can demand evidence from us to prove it to you?

My “evidence”, so to speak, is the lack of evidence. It is the same argument I use with God, fairies, and a teapot orbiting Saturn.

Jon_S:

The fact that the universe exists at all is evidence. Your inability to give an alternate explanation, yet continue to demand from others any empirical evidence for their beliefs, seems to put you in a rather hypocritical spot. I’m not trying to attack your character, but your arguments demand from others what you can’t even provide yourself.

First, I don’t see how the universe is evidence of a God.

Second, my explanation for the universe is that it could not be created. It must always have existed in some form or another. Do I know exactly how? Not really, but gaps in my theory do not necessarily mean that your theory wins by default.

 

[Jon_S]

My “evidence”, so to speak, is the lack of evidence. It is the same argument I use with God, fairies, and a teapot orbiting Saturn.

If I tried to tell you that “the lack of evidence is my evidence” for proving that God exists, how convincing would that argument sound to you? Obviously it would carry no weight, so why are you trying to use it on me?

First, I don’t see how the universe is evidence of a God.

I disagree. I can’t prove it, but then neither can you.

Second, my explanation for the universe is that it could not be created. It must always have existed in some form or another. Do I know exactly how? Not really, but gaps in my theory do not necessarily mean that your theory wins by default.

You’re right, it doesn’t. But what it does do is illustrate how hypocritical this “In your face” atheism is. You’ve demanded proof for the existence of God several times, yet here you are clearly admitting to something that you have no empirical evidence for.

 

[Jon_S]

My “evidence”, so to speak, is the lack of evidence. It is the same argument I use with God, fairies, and a teapot orbiting Saturn.

If I tried to tell you that “the lack of evidence is my evidence” for proving that God exists, how convincing would that argument sound to you? Obviously it would carry no weight, so why are you trying to use it on me?

First, I don’t see how the universe is evidence of a God.

I disagree. I can’t prove it, but then neither can you.

Second, my explanation for the universe is that it could not be created. It must always have existed in some form or another. Do I know exactly how? Not really, but gaps in my theory do not necessarily mean that your theory wins by default.

You’re right, it doesn’t. But what it does do is illustrate how hypocritical this “In your face” atheism is. You’ve demanded proof for the existence of God several times, yet here you are clearly admitting to something that you have no empirical evidence for.

 

[Gump]

You’re right, it doesn’t. But what it does do is illustrate how hypocritical this “In your face” atheism is. You’ve demanded proof for the existence of God several times, yet here you are clearly admitting to something that you have no empirical evidence for.

What I think you misunderstand/misinterpret is that the person who asserts something **does **exist lies with the burden of proof.

 

[Jon_S]

What I think you misunderstand/misinterpret is that the person who asserts something **does **exist lies with the burden of proof.

So does a person who says something does not exist. If you are going to make a claim, and make it absolutely, then you need to back it up. You seem to absolutely believe that there is no God. Why is it that you can demand proof from me, but I can’t demand proof from you?

If you can show me that God does not exist, I’ll quit going to Church right now.

 

[Gump]

So does a person who says something does not exist. If you are going to make a claim, and make it absolutely, then you need to back it up. You seem to absolutely believe that there is no God. Why is it that you can demand proof from me, but I can’t demand proof from you?

If you can show me that God does not exist, I’ll quit going to Church right now.

Prove to me my Religion, Gumpism, is false and that my God does not exist.

 

[Jon_S]

Prove to me my Religion, Gumpism, is false and that my God does not exist.

You are Gump and you exist. Whether or not you are God is what I would dispute.

Did hundreds of people witness you perform miracles, and then go on to establish a Church in your name, often under circumstances of intense persecution, or did you just make up “Gumpism” earlier today to be condescending?

 

[Gump]

You are Gump and you exist. Whether or not you are God is what I would dispute.

Did hundreds of people witness you perform miracles, and then go on to establish a Church in your name, often under circumstances of intense persecution, or did you just make up “Gumpism” earlier today to be condescending?

Churches are all around you. Everyone around you is proof of my existence; I created it. I know of glories you cannot imagine. Only once you believe and have seen the true way of Gumpism will our Churches become visible to you.

Gump Bless.

 

[Jon_S]

Churches are all around you. Everyone around you is proof of my existence; I created it. I know of glories you cannot imagine. Only once you believe and have seen the true way of Gumpism will our Churches become visible to you.

Gump Bless.

I doubt it. Good night.

 

[Gump]

I doubt it. Good night.

Why do you doubt it? You believe the same exact thing, but with a different name!