Atheism and the Christian God.

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AnAtheist:

If there really was something divine, this sounds valid to me.

to that ! If there is a God - because there most definitely is a God - He cannot be so small that He can be fitted into our tiny minds. Christians do sometimes manage to give the impression that God is simply a super-version of themselves. “Your God is Too Small” is a very good antidote to such thinking. ##

 

[AnAtheist]

Gottle of Geer:

If there is a God - because there most definitely is a God - He cannot be so small that He can be fitted into our tiny minds. Christians do sometimes manage to give the impression that God is simply a super-version of themselves. “Your God is Too Small” is a very good antidote to such thinking. ##

Inho, that would apply to any human god-image, if there really was a nearly omni-whatever god. Therefore all religions are somewhat wrong in any case (god or no god).

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:
If he’s omniscient at the same time, he already knows the outcome of all my actions, hence they are predetermined. Perhaps not for me, but certainly for him, as he has created the universe in a way that I must do whatever he knows I will do, ergo there cannot be Free Will.

Sorry but you are dead wrong here. Knowledge of an event does not imply, in any way, causation. God’s ability to know the outcome of an event does not mean He caused it or predetermined it; all it means is that he knows of it.
I know, for example that each time I hit 1+1 and then the = sign, that my calculater will display the numeral 2. I know in advance but I, no no way, predetermined or caused the result.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

Basic set mathematics. Knowledge and the things one can do can be presented in sets.

Oh really? Could you please show me the mathmatical proof of that? When you say"presented" does that mean it is a perfect presentation of knowledge applicable under all circumstances or does it have limitations?

AnAtheist:

Omni-X would require power-sets containing all other sets including themselves, that’s impossible.

Why? And how does that apply to an infinite God that cannot be contained by mathmatical calculations? All you have succeeded in doing is demonstrating that God, if he is omniscient, can’t be fully represented by set mathmatics.

AnAtheist:

Eg, an omniscient being cannot know, how it is like to be not omniscient.

Really? Is this what your numbers told you? I didn’t get that - all I got was your inability to apply number sets to omniscience reliably. Numbers can’t handle infinity as well as you would like to pretend and your own thinking is limited to the mathmatical realm of the model you create to represent reality.

Phil

 

[E.E.N.S]

Rationalism: the heresy for those who try to fit the infinite into the finite…lol.

 

[Philthy]

You said regarding your innate sense of justice:

AnAtheist:

I think it has evolved, as it helps surviving of mankind. After all humans have to live in social groups, which cannot survive without proper behaviour.

I don’t doubt your mathmatical expertise, but it would seem your logic is seriously flawed here. Do you realize that a necessary implication of this explanation is that all living organisms which exist in social groups require a sense of “justice”? That would include, like, ants?! I dunno that doesn’t quite add up.

Phil

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

You said regarding your innate sense of justice:

I don’t doubt your mathmatical expertise, but it would seem your logic is seriously flawed here. Do you realize that a necessary implication of this explanation is that all living organisms which exist in social groups require a sense of “justice”? That would include, like, ants?! I dunno that doesn’t quite add up.

Phil

Why not? When was the last time you discussed that issue with an ant?

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

And how does that apply to an infinite God that cannot be contained by mathmatical calculations?

Ok, if that’s true, then WHY do religious people dare to make statements like “you must do A, then God does B”? If logic can’t be applied to God, those statements have no basis. Even if God told you so, how could you know there is a logical connection between his words and his mind, if he’s is not contained by mere logic?

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

Sorry but you are dead wrong here. Knowledge of an event does not imply, in any way, causation. God’s ability to know the outcome of an event does not mean He caused it or predetermined it; all it means is that he knows of it.
I know, for example that each time I hit 1+1 and then the = sign, that my calculater will display the numeral 2. I know in advance but I, no no way, predetermined or caused the result.

Good example. But if you have build that calculator, you know exactly why and how it calculates 1+1=2. You build it in a way, that it cannot produce 3 there,
And as God is supposed to have created the whole universe, my soul, and all of the rest, with full knowledge what happens if he creates all that in that way, all of my actions are predestined.

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

Obviously the universe had a beginning. The question is, whether that beginning needed a cause. There are quantum effects happing without a cause, eg radioactive decay or virtual particle production in a vacuum.
**From all we know, it just came into existence. **

That is btw very much different from “it created itself”. And very much like a god, who did not create himself, but just exists for no reason or cause, as proposed in the category A arguments.

Your critique of the alleged proofs for the existence of God was great! Thank you.
With respect to the bolded comments above I have this to say:
Is it really possible for us to know a particle came into existence without a cause? I say the answer to that is no and you appear to acknowledge this much with your preface"from all we know"…
The obvious problem is that we do not know all. Simply because we cannot account for the formation of a particle through our current state of knowledge in no way supports the concept that it appeared out of nowhere. It simply means we are incapable of currently recognizing it’s origin. This is an example of failing to recognize the limits of science and is, in a way, similar to the earlier misapplication (IMO) of mathematics to “prove” that God is not and can not be omni-anything.

Again, great post!

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Hi cheddarsox!
You said:

cheddarsox:

I already gave a lenthy post on this, you’ll find it if you bother to read the entire thread.

Sorry! I was posting in between seeing people at work - my fault…

cheddarsox:
I think that there are several Catholic concepts of God. I think there is one the mystics have, which accept God as being truly pervasive, awesome, immutable etc, and which I feel approaches the truth about the divine. Then there is the sort of Theological God, based on Catholic interpretation of the Bible, Father of Christ, Creator, The one who sits on the throne.
Then there is the way that many common Catholic parishoners have, A big Father in the sky , imposing lots of rules for our own good, sometimes petty, with angels, saints and others to keep a record book for him. Who went to church, was a sin missed at confession, did anyone have an impure thought etc. etc.

I think there is an element of truth in all of them, and none of what you describe contradicts the “catholic concept of God” I’m not trying to necessarily say that our concepts are the same either, simply that from what you have articulated so far I can’t discern anything that contradicts the “catholic concept of God”. I do understand that your concept is much broader than, say, the average rank and file catholic, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with the"catholic concept of god" as taught by the Church. Thats all I was getting at.

cheddarsox:
As far as defining divinity, I am providing my own working definition for the way I used the word in the sentenced you quoted. Divinity is that which is beyond our understanding, unchanging, which is the basis of all that happens, the cause and the source and the laws which govern everything and everyone.

I do not deny the existence of divinity. I am not an atheist. (did you miss that somewhere in your zeal to challenge me?)

Sorry again, I didn’t mean to be rude…

cheddarsox:
I do not believe in your “God”, I will not insult your belief or my own by pretending what I believe is parellel to yours. You don’t need to try to convince me there is something out there, I know it. But I also know that it is very different from what the church teaches.

Yea, I guess this is the problem I’m having. Every time you attempt to articulate what you actually believe about the divine and God none of it appears to contradict Catholic teaching (IMO) yet you continue to insist that your concept of God is “very different from what the Church teaches”. That’s what Im still confused about - no biggie. Im happy you recognize a being greater than that which can be thought of exists.

Phil

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

And as God is supposed to have created the whole universe, my soul, and all of the rest, with full knowledge what happens if he creates all that in that way, all of my actions are predestined.

They are predestined only in the sense that God knows they are going to happen and allows them to happen. If we are to have free will and to be responsible for our acts, that is the way it has to be. No other system would make sense. God cannot force us to love Him, and certainly does not force us to ignore Him. God does not force us to be saints or sinners. We do that on our own.

This is one of the peculiar oddities about the liberal philosophy. It wants all men to be free, but it does not see that God also wants all men to be free from slavery to sin. Liberalism wants the freedom to sin (without the rein of conscience) without realizing that what it really wants is bondage to lifestyles that destroy human dignity and our chances of salvation.

 

[psychemusic]

AnAtheist:

No, I do not believe in Him in the first place. I can hardly “accuse” something, that does not exist. But I am free to “judge” a mythical being for its supposed actions written down in some myths. Like I judge the actions of Apollo in the Illias.

You again ignored my two main questions to you. I wrote two (one fairly lengthy) posts in reply to you, and you can’t respond without butchering the context to your advantage; if you had a legitimate response, you wouldn’t have to manipulate my words by eviscerating most of them.

I think you don’t believe Him because you dislike your incomplete understanding of Him, not because of who He truly is. Moreover, He doesn’t just disappear because you decide not to believe in Him. But I have a feeling you will not understand, and will manipulate my words against me again. You seem to be like so many people who hear without hearing. Well, do your worst, this is my last attempt to have a reasonable and honest dialogue with you.

 

[bhlincoln]

Here’s some empirical evidence for the existence of God to add to the fun:

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/don’t_believe_in_god.htm

 

[Nan_S]

psychemusic:

I think you don’t believe Him because you dislike your incomplete understanding of Him, not because of who He truly is. Moreover, He doesn’t just disappear because you decide not to believe in Him.

psychemusic, here’s some more support for you. This little anecdote addresses the question why pain and suffering exists in the presence of our loving God.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: “I don’t believe that God exists.”

“Why do you say that?” asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!”

“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”

“Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”

“Exactly!”- affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

 

[AnAtheist]

Nan S:

psychemusic, here’s some more support for you. This little anecdote addresses the question why pain and suffering exists in the presence of our loving God.

And why should this anecdote not fit to Allah, Iuppiter, or any other god mankind has dreamed of, just to your particular god?

 

[AnAtheist]

psychemusic:

You never addressed two of my arguments to you, namely:

1. how you, as an admittedly finite being, can possibly know enough to be an authority on the non-existence of omnipotence, and 2) my assertion that your non-belief in the true God is because of your hatred for a false god that does not exist. Judging from the posts I’ve seen thus far, I haven’t seen a satisfactory answer from you on this.

1. I can make assumptions and I can reason upon them. It is mathematically possible to handle infinite things, even for a finite brain. You think, a god cannot be handles that way, ie mathematics cannot be applied to it, fine. But that is a different problem.
2. Firstly, I do not hate any true or false god. Gods are just mythical to me, I do not hate Saturn for eating his children nor do I hate your God for killing people by the scores. Now you think, I have a distorted image of your God, and therefore do not believe in the wrong god. My images of certains gods are derived from what people tell me about them. Then I use my brain to decide whether that image makes sense or not. And, pardon me, the Christian god gets only an average ranking in that process.

I know, that for you your God is the one and only true God, but other people have other one or more only true gods. And I can think of quite many possible and impossible gods, so the term “god” does cause the same chain reaction of associations in my mind as in yours. Most Christians seem to have a problem in understanding this. They do not need to agree, but they could at least try to understand.

 

[AnAtheist]

psychemusic:

You again ignored my two main questions to you. I wrote two (one fairly lengthy) posts in reply to you, and you can’t respond without butchering the context to your advantage; if you had a legitimate response, you wouldn’t have to manipulate my words by eviscerating most of them.

I answered your 2q in reply to the post, where you stated them, now.

 

[cheddarsox]

Philthy:

Yea, I guess this is the problem I’m having. Every time you attempt to articulate what you actually believe about the divine and God none of it appears to contradict Catholic teaching (IMO) yet you continue to insist that your concept of God is “very different from what the Church teaches”. That’s what Im still confused about - no biggie. Im happy you recognize a being greater than that which can be thought of exists.

Phil

Wow, that is pretty amazing! Because many people here read my profile, find out I am a pantheist and then dismiss anything I have to say, because I am full of new age mumbo jumbo, and clearly an enemy of the church.

My concept is very different. I do not believe the divine is a being. I believe it is impersonal. It not only does not care what we do, it is not capable of caring what we do. The rules set by religions are not rules set by the divine, they are made by people to help people live better lives, though they are subject to the natural laws and forces that exist due to the divine.

I do not believe in God, or the trinity. That is quite different from the Catholic concept of God.

I believe that the divine is love, that love is another word for the forces and laws in the universe that make every thing co operate the way that they do.

Not believing in God in the trinity, the need for a savior, and other anthropomorphic ideas about god and his personality clearly put me at odds with the teachings of the church.

cheddar

 

[Philthy]

cheddarsox:

Wow, that is pretty amazing! Because many people here read my profile, find out I am a pantheist and then dismiss anything I have to say, because I am full of new age mumbo jumbo, and clearly an enemy of the church.

My concept is very different. I do not believe the divine is a being. I believe it is impersonal. It not only does not care what we do, it is not capable of caring what we do. The rules set by religions are not rules set by the divine, they are made by people to help people live better lives, though they are subject to the natural laws and forces that exist due to the divine.

I do not believe in God, or the trinity. That is quite different from the Catholic concept of God.

I believe that the divine is love, that love is another word for the forces and laws in the universe that make every thing co operate the way that they do.

Not believing in God in the trinity, the need for a savior, and other anthropomorphic ideas about god and his personality clearly put me at odds with the teachings of the church.

cheddar

Thank you for having the patience to explain your concepts more fully - my intuition led me to believe you had much more to say but that you were either confused re Catholic teaching or you were holding back for some other reason. Now I understand that it was “some other reason”, namely that you were treated uncharitably by others. That’s too bad - everyone deserves to speak freely, and debate should be as non-confrontational as possible. I have been guilty of the same…
That much being said, you are correct: we have different concepts for God. All I will say further is that at some point we need proof for our beliefs. I won’t attempt to engage you in debate about proving yours, but I will encourage you to reflect more fully with the independent mind you have on the proof of the Catholic Church: The resurrection of Jesus Christ. Just when you are ready to dismiss it as folk lore or some other easy explanation, you will still have to deal with the reality of the otherwise sane individuals who witnessed this event and had their lives radically altered by it.
Rather than disbanding by the death of their leader, which is the longterm example throughout human history, they were emboldened by the reality of his resurrection, transformed by it and accepted death rather than renunciation of this reality.

Keep searching…and peace be with you,

Phil