A
AnAtheist
Guest
If I would believe this event had really taken place, the way your religion has recorded it, we would not have this discussion.
- Status
P
Philthy
Guest
Of course you don’t believe it! How could anyone believe it and not accept who Christ claims to be? This is your most logical position to date!
Phil
P
Philthy
Guest
Correct - you have admitted that you are incapable of clarifying your position further in this forum. I have, I think, pretty clearly demonstrated that omniscience and free will are not, of necessity, mutually exclusive.
It would withstand my logic if you could demonstrate it’s truth - but you haven’t. I have only critiqued your logic in 2 areas:
- Your claim that omniscience excludes free will
- Your application of science to all areas of knowledge
I stand by those critiques. Your position(omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive) fails because of its inherent weakness as revealed through logic. It is imperative that knowledge be built on solid foundations. You have built your tower of knowledge(atheism) on some weak foundations - IMO. You introduced the concept of omniscience as precluding free will and therefore emiminating the possibility of the Christian God. I simply have pointed out flaws in that assumption so that we could proceed to discuss other issues. But I haven’t seen you refute what I have presented, nor have I seen you admit that omniscience per se doesn’t exclude free will.
And if does not exist in realiter, meaning it is just a philosophical concept rather than a physical process, ok, then the theodicee problem is not solved that way (imo).
Could you please retype this? I can’t quite follow it…
thanks,
Phil
N
Nan_S
Guest
Let’s give AnAthiest credit for understanding what we were trying to say, even though it doesn’t quite make sense to him yet:
AnAthiest:
I’ve got to give him credit for this next question, too. Too many other athiests, having rejected God, also conclude that the universe and human life are simply some kind of great cosmic accident with no real meaning outside of what we personally feel.
AnAthiest:
AnAthiest, thank you for keeping an open, searching mind.
AnAthiest:
I’d like to suggest a book to you, former athiest Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. I know this book is vilified by some athiests. But I, for one, have always believed in reading something for myself before passing judgment. I think you’re the kind of open-minded person who would do the same.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
I tell what’s imperitive to draw conclusions with a process of logic:
- We need premises.
- For the premises, we need definitions, we agree upon.
- We must agree that logic is applicable at all.
So, if we want to continue or restart that discussion, let’s start with defining “knowledge”.
That is, because you do not read what I write. I said, an omniscient, uninvolved (and that exclude a Creator) observer would allow free will. Furthermore, I presented that quantum physics suggests that an omnipresent observer would imply complete pre-determination. While writing this, I must add, that quantum physics also suggests, that an univolved observer is impossible. All this is not illogical nor flawed, you reject those arguments, because they are incompatible with or not applicable (iyo) to a super-natural being like your God.
That contention is a good definition to determine what “true”, or better “objectively true” really means. I agree, there is no proof for that definition. That does not mean it is self-refuting, it means you mix apples and nuclear reactors.
Sound like a good definition for “reality” to me.
What has that to do with anything? I apporach this from the wrong side. There is a physical process, we call “free will”. Period.
Request for retype: If Free Will is not real, ie by the defintion made above does not have a physical representation like a electro-chemical reaction in our brains, it’s a concept to scope with unpredictability of physical events. You may call it an illusion.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Nan S:
The point is, many people seem to need a meaning beyond pure existence, and religions fulfill that desire. Religions construct a “higher” meaning or purpose for life, but then reach a point where the same question could be asked again, though religious people don’t do that.
Questions like “What’s the meaning of an afterlife?” or “What is the purpose of God?” are not asked. You get an infinite chain of questions once you start asking, much like the infinite chain of causes you get once you get into that argument. The diffierence between Atheists and Theists is, they stop asking at different links of that chain.
Frankly I do not see a “meaning” behind the universe or life too. But then I do have the urge to look for one, I am quite content with the fact that there is a universe and life.
The point is, many people seem to need a meaning beyond pure existence, and religions fulfill that desire. Religions construct a “higher” meaning or purpose for life, but then reach a point where the same question could be asked again, though religious people don’t do that.
Questions like “What’s the meaning of an afterlife?” or “What is the purpose of God?” are not asked. You get an infinite chain of questions once you start asking, much like the infinite chain of causes you get once you get into that argument. The diffierence between Atheists and Theists is, they stop asking at different links of that chain.
C
cheddarsox
Guest
Nan S:
The whole arguement that if you threw a bunch of letters into the air they wouldn’t fall down to create Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is often used to show the foolishness of people who don’t believe in a divine creator, but there are not parallels here. Letters on paper don’t have a tendency to form words without human intervention. The matter and energy of the universe does tend to form certain types of materials and systems without human intervention.
It has its own inherent nature.
You may ascribe that nature to a divine being, but that is not the only possible explanation. It may seem like the only logical one to you, but that is a matter of perspective.
There is that very gray area where one can ascribe action to a being or to an inherent nature…Mommy, why did that rock roll into the stream…Mommy can answer “god made it do so” of “Gravity” For some, this would ultimately be the same answer.
I don’t use the term god, but as a pantheist, the answers are the same for me, those inherent forces and tendencies, while not having a personality, are indeed the divine and ultimate cause for all that happens.
The mistake many make in this arguement is acting as if anything that happens without a thinking being making it happen is mere chance, and that is false.
cheddar
I have to jump in here (no I am not an atheist, but I think this is a gross misrepresentation of this belief system) People who don’t believe in a divine being as creator do not usually believe the universe is a cosmic ACCIDENT. Matter and energy are subject to laws and tendencies that are inherent. They behave in certain ways. There are ways that they tend to come together given their nature. What they do is not an accident, it is what they do.
The whole arguement that if you threw a bunch of letters into the air they wouldn’t fall down to create Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is often used to show the foolishness of people who don’t believe in a divine creator, but there are not parallels here. Letters on paper don’t have a tendency to form words without human intervention. The matter and energy of the universe does tend to form certain types of materials and systems without human intervention.
It has its own inherent nature.
You may ascribe that nature to a divine being, but that is not the only possible explanation. It may seem like the only logical one to you, but that is a matter of perspective.
There is that very gray area where one can ascribe action to a being or to an inherent nature…Mommy, why did that rock roll into the stream…Mommy can answer “god made it do so” of “Gravity” For some, this would ultimately be the same answer.
I don’t use the term god, but as a pantheist, the answers are the same for me, those inherent forces and tendencies, while not having a personality, are indeed the divine and ultimate cause for all that happens.
The mistake many make in this arguement is acting as if anything that happens without a thinking being making it happen is mere chance, and that is false.
cheddar
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Great post!
Yes, there is a big difference between randomness, non-causality, purposeless, and meaningless. The term “accident” only applies to random events, that does not mean an accident has no cause or meaning. Otoh a non-random, even a planned event may have no purpose. When it comes down to the universe’s origin in theological debates those terms are often used without cleasr distinction.
S
SamCA
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I’m not trying to be a smartass. I honestly see no reason why some planet would have to be at the summit. Come to mention it, I’m not really sure what you mean by “at the summit.” I would be interested in what you mean by that, and why there must be a particular world that fits the bill.
Why?
I’m not trying to be a smartass. I honestly see no reason why some planet would have to be at the summit. Come to mention it, I’m not really sure what you mean by “at the summit.” I would be interested in what you mean by that, and why there must be a particular world that fits the bill.
S
SamCA
Guest
Simple – it is an idealized form of human. While it may be true that no human being is perfectly moral, when you posit such a being, you are describing a being that is still fundamentally human in its motivations.
When you say “totally moral in all its actions,” you are describing a being who perfectly adheres to morality as human beings understand it. (Actually, as a specific group of human beings understands it.)
Unless you believe that God’s morality is unlike ours and beyond our understanding – but if God’s view of good and evil are so unlike ours that we can’t map them onto our own morality, then does “God is perfectly moral” have any real meaning among human beings?
P
Philthy
Guest
My whining has produced some concrete results: you are now posting with coherence and foresight!
I’ll take a stab at some definitions: Omnscience is possessing all knowledge past, present and future. Knowledge is any truth. Boy those sound weak to me - Im sure we’ll dismantle them quickly…
That contention is a good definition to determine what “true”, or better “objectively true” really means. I agree, there is no proof for that definition. That does not mean it is self-refuting, it means you mix apples and nuclear reactors.
It is self-refuting because by accepting it as true without scientific evidence to prove it (as required by the rule) you have violated the alleged truth of the rule. Self refuting!
Interesting stuff - thanks for your time. Hey, BTW, you never answered my querie regarding who is ultimately responsible for our actions, the individual who acts or the parents of the individual who acts, or both. What do you think? No need for deep thinking here - just a simple A= the actor B = the creator of the actor C = both.
Phil
J
john_doran
Guest
you’re missing the point: saying that the “universe is an accident” is not saying that everything that occurs in the universe occurs randomly - it is, rather, saying that if the ***existence ***of the universe wasn’t the result of conscious causal efficacy, then it is random. and this includes the existence of the laws that govern matter and energy.
put another way, if the existence of the laws of the universe isn’t the result of divine agency, then why do they exist at all?
perhaps true, but beside the point: why does that inherent nature exist?
J
john_doran
Guest
this isn’t quite right.
the proposition “only that which can be verified scientifically should be considered true” is synonymous with the proposition “if a proposition cannot be empirically verified, then it is false”. whether or not it’s a definition, it is a conditional proposition. specifically, it is an example of modus ponens, and is self-applicable; that is, since it makes a claim about all propositions, and it is itself a proposition, then it must satisfy the condition it sets for itself.
which means, of course, that unless the proposition “if a proposition cannot be empirically verified then it is false” can be verified empirically, it will be false.
can you provide empirical verification for that proposition?
N
Nan_S
Guest
john doran:
By using the word “accident” I was not trying to claim that the laws of the universe were random or invalid. Indeed, ***as an ongoing existence ***the universe is bound by those laws. But where did the universe come from in the first place???
Which is what I was going to say, but you got there first.
By using the word “accident” I was not trying to claim that the laws of the universe were random or invalid. Indeed, ***as an ongoing existence ***the universe is bound by those laws. But where did the universe come from in the first place???
N
Nan_S
Guest
Seeing as you brought up quantum physics, I’d like to explain the fatal flaws in using this model to explain the origin of the universe:
- The quantum vacuum isn’t empty nothingness. Rather, it’s a very active sea of fluctuating energy that itself demands an explanation for how it came into being. What accounts for the origin of the quantum vacuum?
- Quantum theory holds that the quantum vacuum is subject to quantum uncertainties. Theoretically, anything can pop into existence by means of a quantum quirk, aka a vacuum fluctuation. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly.
- Probability dictates that pairs of subatomic particles are by far the most likely creations of vacuum fluctuations and that they will last extremely briefly. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.
- In an apparently eternal quantum vacuum, there is still a positive - that is a non-zero - probability that a significant vacuum fluctuation would occur, and a universe would be spawned at some point in the quantum vacuum. There is also a positive - that is a non-zero - probability that another universe would be spawned at another point, and another, and another…
- If the quantum vacuum is eternal, or virtually eternal, eventually multiple universes would have formed at multiple points in the quantum vacuum. *[Don’t confuse “galaxies” with “universes”.] *Finally, these universes would be running into each other or coalescing until eventually the entire quantum vacuum would be filled with an infinitely old universe, which totally contradicts the observations of science.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
I posted a new thread in which I ask atheists about the meaning of life. Here it is:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=779803#post779803
Looking forward to hearing some responses!
Peace
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=779803#post779803
Looking forward to hearing some responses!
Peace
A
AnAtheist
Guest
I am not happy with that. Truth is a meaningless term unless applied to a statement. Statements may be true or false (which is interchangeable by negation), but there are also some which are neither. Those would be part of knowledge by that definition, yet we can think them. Therefore knowledge would be a subset of thinking. Thus omniscience would not encompass any thinking process. Is that a satisfactory definition then?
Phil
A of course, as there is no creator.
To do some apologetics on my “contradictions”: I said an omniscient, uninvolved observer allows for free will. In a hypothetical world, where uninvolved observers could exist, that would be possible, ergo is omniscience alone and free will alone NOT mutally exclusive. BUT in our world uninvolved observation is impossible. Furthermore the Christian God is very much involved by His creation. You would agree I hope, that our decisions are not made out of thin air, we judge things with our experiences, which we draw from education and our own observation, thus the environment very much influences our decisions. And who set up the environment?
Now two remarks re knowledge “produces” causation:
- Knowledge of something implies at least that there was a cause-and-effect-chain producing the event, one has knowledge about, but that is not the same as “producing” of course.
- Recent scientific research really points to that direction. I have shown one experiment (empirical evidence!) that implies that.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
john doran:
ps: Self-reference often leads to such contradictions. Interesting to note, that when I try to apply self-references to God, which lead to a contradictory (thus impossible god-image ?) that is not “allowed”.
I can provide a justification for it: It works in practice. Verification by divine revelation does not.
ps: Self-reference often leads to such contradictions. Interesting to note, that when I try to apply self-references to God, which lead to a contradictory (thus impossible god-image ?) that is not “allowed”.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Nan S:
(
*Thanks, I won’t, I had cosmology classes back at the university. 
)
You’r absolutely right except point 5. #4 btw does not contradict our observations.
“Point” is a spatial term only applying to our universe,…
(
*
*Thanks, I won’t, I had cosmology classes back at the university. )…thus those universes would co-exists in higher dimensions without ever interfering with each other. As we can observe only 5 dimensions (if we count time as a dimension), that does not contradict our observation. In fact a multitude of universes with different parameters or even different natural laws could exist in such a “quantum vacuum”, our universe fits to us by the weak anthropocentric principle then.
C
cheddarsox
Guest
Nan S:
I am not an atheist, so I am not arguing that there is no cause, I am arguing that there are other explanations than the Catholic concept of God. I am a pantheist, I am operating from a different concept.
The existence of the universe does not automatically prove that the Catholic God and attending trinity exist. The fact that I cannot (and honestly, neither can you) explain the origin of the universe and its laws, does not mean that you are right simply by virtue of having a story to fill in the blank.
cheddar
I don’t know how the universe came to be. I admit that. But that does not make your concept of God the only explanation. That is akin to saying that kids are correct in believing in Santa, after all the presents got into the stocking somehow, and isn’t that the only possible explanation?Which is what I was going to say, but you got there first.
By using the word “accident” I was not trying to claim that the laws of the universe were random or invalid. Indeed, ***as an ongoing existence ***the universe is bound by those laws. But where did the universe come from in the first place???
I am not an atheist, so I am not arguing that there is no cause, I am arguing that there are other explanations than the Catholic concept of God. I am a pantheist, I am operating from a different concept.
The existence of the universe does not automatically prove that the Catholic God and attending trinity exist. The fact that I cannot (and honestly, neither can you) explain the origin of the universe and its laws, does not mean that you are right simply by virtue of having a story to fill in the blank.
cheddar
- Status