Atheism and the Christian God.

[Knight4Christ]

First off why are you “AnAtheist” here? No not why your alive, We know that, it was The Christian God that put you here The God you do not believe in. Why do you “AnAtheist” talk with Christians who believe the Truth about The Christian God? Why do you “AnAtheist” conitune to come back time and time again to this Christian site? Why have you “AnAtheist” become a “senior member” you’ve been here since Jun-14-04 over a year and posted over 620 messages? To this a Christian site devoted to The Christian God.

Why did you "AnAtheist" even come in the first place, a Holy place devoted to The God of the Universe?  Could it be that you "AnAtheist", some where deep down doubt your "faith".  I believe this is the case or you whould have never come here, you would not conitune to return, and you would have never stayed a whole year.  

You must know no matter how many times you Post, repost, and respone that you will Never change our Faith in The True God, The Christian God.  Maybe you say "I'm here so you all will understand Atheism", sorry there is no need for that... understanding Atheism is easy!  Everyone take all the thoughts out of your head and think of nothing but a dark blank "nothing" and that is Atheism... no love because God is Love, God made love and if there is no God there is no Love.  Without God love or any kind of feeling is nothing more than a chemical reaction within the brain.  

No God no reason to live, without God we are nothing, nothing more than a blob of cells spinning around on a rock.   I can see how some one who whould have this "faith" this nothing, would come to a Christian Website that has everything, God aka The Christian God.  

Atheism has no logic, it is a belief in nothing, but nothing does not exist.  Atheism has no logic, it is a belief in nothing... the world came to be by chance... HA!  With that reasoning "by chance" I can take metal, glass and rubber and toss it up in the air and make a car, that runs!  Now how many times will take to make that happen?  Zero, none it will not happen ever!  But some how the whole universe made itself without God in one try... HA that truly has no logic!  Some one, ah GOD made the universe!

And I am sure you will respone using “big words” in a all worded letter to try to defend the “nothing” you believe. It will do nothing but prove me right, that your alone in your world of nothing. Atheism has no logic, it is a belief in nothing…

Dominus vobiscum,
David

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

I do that. But please note, omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive

Please note?!?!?!?! This is what I have been trying to tell you for four posts now!!!

AnAtheist:
But please note, omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive, if the one who is omniscient is just a non involved, outside observer. Even that is not entirely true, if he would be applicable to quantum physics (I explain later), but you will deny that anyway.

OK - enough already! Im not sure if the people you normally dialogue with listen to you when you speak like this, but they are doing you no favors if they do. You are all over the place. This response is borderline schizophrenic with some projection thrown in for good measure. You clearly are not up to the task of discussing an elementary topic: how does knowledge differ from causation, or you can’t simply admit that you made a mistake and meant to include omnipotence and simultaneous omniscience as contradicting free will.

AnAtheist:

But Christianity claims God is very much involved, more than that, He has created anything, and that combination of creation and foreknowledge of how this creation will develop, doesn’t allow for free will.

Finally a lucid thought from that quick mind of yours. Yes, this is what you meant to say 4 posts ago, that the COMBINATION of omnipotence and omniscience is mutually exclusive with man’s free will. Unfortunately, that is not what you have been saying. You have continued to maintain, despite my patient efforts, that omiscience alone is incompatible with free will, and that remains incorrect as I have repeatedly pointed out. Will you finally simply come clean and admit your error?
I said, "Do you see how you have made KNOWLEDGE of the outcome equivalent to CAUSATION? And you replied:

AnAtheist:
With good reason. SIDENOTE: Decisions we make are electrochemical reactions in our brains, thus they can (theoretically) be described using physics.

You have not even begun to address the issues with your “sidenote”. You need to learn to use the syllogism more effectively. You make a statement(decisions are chemical rxns) and jump to a weak conclusion (thus they can be described using physics) and somehow expect me to understand how that relates to the topic of knowledge and free will. Sorry but you will need to do better than that.

AnAtheist:
Actually knowledge does produce causality, shown with so-called “entangled photons”. See grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/.

The only thing entangled is your logic. I don’t need to read anything to tell that you can’t refute the concrete explanation I provided in my last post which clearly demonstrated that knowledge of (before or after) an event does not, in any way, cause the event. In addition, I am fully confident, based on our discussion so far, that you are incapable of applying whatever knowledge was meant to be communicated by the above link to the discussion at hand.

AnAtheist:
So, basically you say people are responsible for things they did not cause?

I appreciate your attempt at drawing a conclusion from the info I provided you, but I said no such thing.
I’ll leave you with something to think about:
Do you believe that, in a sense, you are responsible for all your accomplishments? Do you believe that, in a sense, your parents also are responsible for all your accomplishments since without them you would never have exercise any? If you find a way to answer yes to both of those questions, go back and read what I told you to put in your pipe and smoke and you will have something more substantial to discuss than that silly conclusion you reached.

Phil

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

I also have been following AnAtheist’s posts for many months now. He, and others like him, only smoke the dry tobacco of Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and other atheists/agnostics of that breed. What must be remembered is that they have arrested philosophical judgment based on the authority of their secular heroes. You never hear them pipe a fresh and original thought. This is because atheism is a kind of philosophical dead end. Once you say “NO” to God, there’s isn’t really much more to say, especially to those who say “YES.”

Atheism, like tobacco, stunts our growth. It is an eternally arid desert compared the the grace God rains down on us when we say “YES.”

But no atheist can understand that because he refuses to stand in the rain.

 

[francisca]

cheddarsox:

The experience of the divine that some Catholic mystics have, and that is beyond the theology makes some sense to me. But the image of “God” that appears on the screen of the teachings of the church is a very poor one indeed. He comes across as petty, limited and sometimes insane. He has been way too “humanized” to still be a God worthy of worship. Trying to fit divinity into a human like box is a fools effort, and will never result in a good product. The truth of the divine, is so much bigger that we must look much farther than ourselves to be able to even imagine it.

cheddar

Religion tends to difine God in mere “human language”. And many of us who believe sometimes got carried too far when we explain “definitions” in mere human language : for God is infinite, and we can’t make definite what is infinite.

However, when God Himself decide to become human, He-- in His own WORD-- define the infinite. Jesus is “the definition of God” in a man. His birth, His life, His death and resurrection is the figure that God give us so that we can know God. Jesus is God’s Word.

I agree with you when you say that “The truth of the divine, is so much bigger that we must look much farther than ourselves to be able to even imagine it.”

To attain the knowledge of the divine, human can’t do anything. Unless God Himself decide to reach out to human, human can never ascend to Him. Not with fasting, not with meditation, not with knowledge.

But when God decide to reachout to the mortals, the mortals becomes divine, only because of God’s action.

Religions and dispute of teachings are always in “doubt” about God who makes mortals become eternal. Some say that God is merciful, yet unless I can defeat sin, I will be damned.

The truth is, mortals has to humbly say “I cannot defeat sin”, and right then and there they will be given understanding why Jesus has to come.

May God bless you.

 

[Knight4Christ]

Albert Einstein may have not been a good church goer but he was no Atheist… here are some quotes of A.E. to prove it, in fact he seems to believe that atheism has no logic and the atheist have “weak minds”

“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”

“God is subtle but he is not malicious.”

“God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.”

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

• “Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds.”

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

You make a statement(decisions are chemical rxns) and jump to a weak conclusion (thus they can be described using physics) and somehow expect me to understand how that relates to the topic of knowledge and free will. Sorry but you will need to do better than that.

Sorry, that it is difficult to cramp complex thoughts into an internet forum reply. It helps to read a whole post first, or at least a whole sentence.
As for the weak conclusions, at least I am trying to draw conclusions from the facts, and do not try to bend the facts to the conclusion.

 

[Nan_S]

Hi, AnAthiest! Haven’t seen you in a few days.

Would you look at my post #119 and give me your thoughts?

Nan

 

[AnAtheist]

Nan S:

Hi, AnAthiest! Haven’t seen you in a few days.

Would you look at my post #119 and give me your thoughts?

Nan

Hi, I enjoyed the weekend, and didn’t turn on the computer

Basically you say, our will is free, ie not caused by God, as it is like us bound to time. While God is not, and can thus know every decision we make without really causing them. All the contradictions I pointed out are only contradictions to us but not to Him, as our mind is limited to time and the whole picture is not within our grasp. Right?

Now, what is the purpose of the universe then? Why should a god, knowing the outcome very well, bother with creating linear time, a universe, humans, free will, when he knows already how it all will turn out. That makes no sense to me.

So, getting back to the OP, when I look at the Christian God, He is either impossible or, with all the arguments you Christians have provided, I bend His attributes to a point, where they make no sense.

I guess this is where the faith kicks in. Christians compensate this missing sense with faith, but that is somewhat arbitrary to me, as “this you have to believe without explanation” can be applied to anything.

Do we agree, that when discussing Christianity we eventually reach a point, where faith is necessary without further explanation?

 

[Nan_S]

AnAtheist:

Hi, I enjoyed the weekend, and didn’t turn on the computer

Glad to hear it. This is a nice time of year to be in Germany.

Basically you say, our will is free, ie not caused by God, as it is like us bound to time. While God is not, and can thus know every decision we make without really causing them. All the contradictions I pointed out are only contradictions to us but not to Him, as our mind is limited to time and the whole picture is not within our grasp. Right?

That’s pretty much the way I see it. It was interesting to me that, after coming up with this on my own, I read Thomas Aquinas and was blown away that he said the same thing.

Now, what is the purpose of the universe then? Why should a god, knowing the outcome very well, bother with creating linear time, a universe, humans, free will, when he knows already how it all will turn out. That makes no sense to me.

So, getting back to the OP, when I look at the Christian God, He is either impossible or, with all the arguments you Christians have provided, I bend His attributes to a point, where they make no sense.

What is the purpose of the universe? That’s where the theologians say that God wasn’t content to be alone and wanted someone to love with whom He could share eternity. Lots of someones. God created the universe and linear time because He knew that it would produce this result. Not everyone would join Him, but the ones who did would do so willingly and not as mindless zombies.

It’s a little like asking why a man would bother getting married, if he knows ahead of time that he will have no end of grief from in-laws, kids, and bills. A man marries because he also expects (doesn’t always get, but still expects) a lifetime of love that will transcend the grief, and be far more fulfilling than living alone.

If there’s more to it than that, I hope to see God in person one day when I can ask Him.

I guess this is where the faith kicks in. Christians compensate this missing sense with faith, but that is somewhat arbitrary to me, as “this you have to believe without explanation” can be applied to anything.

Do we agree, that when discussing Christianity we eventually reach a point, where faith is necessary without further explanation?

Well, there are lots of things I believe - have faith in - without explanation, mainly because I don’t have the time or resources to research them. Yet I find that, as in the mention of Thomas Aquinas above, if I spend long enough asking questions and puzzling things through on my own I will eventually work out a reasonable explanation - only to discover that one of the great theologians of the Church came to the same reasonable explanation years ago.

So, I have become comfortable with knowing that if the Church takes a theological position, it’s because a bunch of someones who had the time to work out the solution, did. It’s not that I have to accept the lack of a solution. It’s simply that I don’t need to know the solution myself to have faith in it, to appreciate and respect the theology.

To answer your question directly: Inasmuch as I have limited resources and time, and can not possibly learn the answers to all the great mysteries of the universe in my own limited lifetime, there are just some things I do indeed have to accept on faith alone without explanation. But if I really wanted to find the answers, they are there.

I’m going to sign off now. It’s dawn here and I was foolish enough to stay up all night. But I’ll look forward to continuing this tomorrow.

Nan

 

[dennisknapp]

AnAtheist:

Do we agree, that when discussing Christianity we eventually reach a point, where faith is necessary without further explanation?

I would say that, in discussing anything which exceeds the limits of our knowledge, faith is always necessary for further explanation.

If only more Christians had the faith I have witnessed in many athiests.

Peace

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

So, getting back to the OP, when I look at the Christian God, He is either impossible or, with all the arguments you Christians have provided, I bend His attributes to a point, where they make no sense.
Of course they make no sense … not to a person who demands that God make sense to us in a way that we make sense to each other. You are demanding that the mystery of God be knowable to you, an atheist, without even making the effort to know God as He wishes to be known … by your trust and love. This is a hopeless case. You want to know God on your terms, not God’s. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

I guess this is where the faith kicks in. Christians compensate this missing sense with faith, but that is somewhat arbitrary to me, as “this you have to believe without explanation” can be applied to anything.

***No, it can’t be applied to anything. It can be applied to some things, but not to anything. It can be applied to a father who disciplines his child without the child being able to understand why it is being disciplined. It can be applied to the axioms and postulates of mathematics. The reason it must be especially appplied to God is that God is by definition Infinite; so how can the finite comprehend the Infinite? ***

*It is the atheist’s view that if he cannot comprehend something, it cannot be so. At least the agnostic, unlike the atheist, is not so arrogant since he admits possible realities beyond his own scope of understanding.

 

[AnAtheist]

dennisknapp:

I would say that, in discussing anything which exceeds the limits of our knowledge, faith is always necessary for further explanation.

Yes, but I see a difference between

“I do not know, but regard it as true.”

and

“This is the one only truth, and everyone else has to believe that too.”

 

[AnAtheist]

Nan S:

That’s pretty much the way I see it. It was interesting to me that, after coming up with this on my own, I read Thomas Aquinas and was blown away that he said the same thing.

Afaik, St. Augustine was the first bringing up this out-of-time thing. It answers a lot of questions, but raises a whole lot of new ones too, so it is not really satisfactory to me.

What is the purpose of the universe? That’s where the theologians say that God wasn’t content to be alone and wanted someone to love with whom He could share eternity. Lots of someones. God created the universe and linear time because He knew that it would produce this result. Not everyone would join Him, but the ones who did would do so willingly and not as mindless zombies.

That is something which puzzles me too. I guess, once in heaven the boundaries of time have vanished, otherwise the eternity could get quite long (and boring). That state of mind could hardly be called “human” any longer, so I am not sure if that’s so different from a mindless zombie.

Inasmuch as I have limited resources and time, and can not possibly learn the answers to all the great mysteries of the universe in my own limited lifetime, there are just some things I do indeed have to accept on faith alone without explanation. But if I really wanted to find the answers, they are there.

Yes, that is a shame, not to have enough time to learn everything one wanted to.

 

[Nan_S]

AnAtheist:

Afaik, St. Augustine was the first bringing up this out-of-time thing. It answers a lot of questions, but raises a whole lot of new ones too, so it is not really satisfactory to me.

It was unsatisfactory for me too, at first. I used to imagine that God, having created linear time was Himself bound by it, until I discovered that the Vatican II documents specifically stated otherwise. It took quite a while for the whole out-of-time idea to gel in my mind.

Later I discovered why the Church held this position, and that it was Augustine’s writings which played a significant part in the reason. The verbosity of Augustine’s writings make them very challenging to read, even for me and I have a graduate degree. So I have still only scratched the surface of what he wrote.

That is something which puzzles me too. I guess, once in heaven the boundaries of time have vanished, otherwise the eternity could get quite long (and boring).

In heaven not only have all boundaries of time vanished, but all our selfishness is gone, too, so boredom also doesn’t exist.

That state of mind could hardly be called “human” any longer, so I am not sure if that’s so different from a mindless zombie.

If I were advocating an eastern religion where one pursues “nirvana” - the complete extinction of the individual through a total union with the supreme spirit - I would agree with the zombie analogy.

I’ll agree with the ‘hardly be human any longer’ thought, but in a different context - It’s more like we become super-humans in knowledge and purity. Here’s why:

Judaism and Christianity speak of a God who has such concern for us as individuals that He has even “numbered every hair on our heads” (Mt 10:30). In Revelation we hear prophecies of the old heaven and old earth utterly passing away, but not the people of God. Instead of being a unified, indistinguishable mass (as one would expect of zombies) God’s people are described as a vast, uncountable multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language.

In heaven we are purified of selfishness, but we still maintain our individual identities.

We could probably get into an interesting sideline discussion on the difference between the Christian God and eastern religions, but I would suggest that be on a different thread. Someone’s probably already got a thread with that topic bookmarked, anyway.

Yes, that is a shame, not to have enough time to learn everything one wanted to.

And that’s one reason I look forward to heaven.

 

[Nan_S]

Oh, AnAthiest, one thing I forgot to tack on:

I’ve run across some of your posts on other threads recently, where you give very nice explanations of Catholic history to questioners. I’m impressed.

Nan

 

[AnAtheist]

Nan S:

Oh, AnAthiest, one thing I forgot to tack on:

I’ve run across some of your posts on other threads recently, where you give very nice explanations of Catholic history to questioners. I’m impressed.

Nan

Well, Catholicism has been part of our culture for 2k years. It influences at least indirectly everybody regardless of joining it or not. Therefore one should at least try to be informed. Besides, history is an interesting subject anyway.

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

Sorry, that it is difficult to cramp complex thoughts into an internet forum reply. It helps to read a whole post first, or at least a whole sentence.
As for the weak conclusions, at least I am trying to draw conclusions from the facts, and do not try to bend the facts to the conclusion.

Thank you for your efforts - despite my being slow (as you correctly pointed out) I can tell that you no longer wish to continue with the subject of free will. No problem. Your inability to articulate your position completely and subsequent failure of your position to withstand the rigors of logic I challenged them with should give you reason to pause and develop your ideas more fully before you cling to them - think about it.
As for your parting shot, which I presume was intended for me, I don’t criticize you for “trying to draw conclusions from the facts”. If I had a criticism, it would be that you continue to believe that science is the source of all truth and you attempt to draw non-scientific conclusions from scientific information. For example, you seem to have no problem taking the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and applying it to free will - that is simply untenable.

Thanks again-

Phil

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Well, Catholicism has been part of our culture for 2k years. It influences at least indirectly everybody regardless of joining it or not. Therefore one should at least try to be informed. Besides, history is an interesting subject anyway.
__________________
In a sense, atheism is older than Catholicism. It goes all the way back to Eve, who decided to believe the Serpent’s lie that she could be on a par with God, thereby negating the existence of a Supreme Being to whom she must give thanks and obedience.

This is still the problem of atheism … that it wants to regard the human will as supreme good and subservient to no other.

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

Now, what is the purpose of the universe then? Why should a god, knowing the outcome very well, bother with creating linear time, a universe, humans, free will, when he knows already how it all will turn out. That makes no sense to me.

So, getting back to the OP, when I look at the Christian God, He is either impossible or, with all the arguments you Christians have provided, I bend His attributes to a point, where they make no sense.

I guess this is where the faith kicks in. Christians compensate this missing sense with faith, but that is somewhat arbitrary to me, as “this you have to believe without explanation” can be applied to anything.

Do we agree, that when discussing Christianity we eventually reach a point, where faith is necessary without further explanation?

Hi AnAtheist - I thought I would repost this reply (from post #80 to cheddarsox) which addresses some of your concerns. God did give us something to base our faith on: an event in real time, outside the laws of Nature, predicted by the prophets, and testified to by countless lives…

Philthy:

…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 being disbanded 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

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

I can tell that you no longer wish to continue with the subject of free will. No problem. Your inability to articulate your position completely and subsequent failure of your position to withstand the rigors of logic I challenged them with should give you reason to pause and develop your ideas more fully before you cling to them - think about it.
Hm, it seems we have reached a point where further discussion is pointless. I wonder how my position should ever withstand your sense of logic, when at the same time you state that the thing in question can not be attained by logic or scientific methods.

If I had a criticism, it would be that you continue to believe that science is the source of all truth and you attempt to draw non-scientific conclusions from scientific information.

See? (And your critique is well placed here. I do believe that and intend to keep it that way.)

For example, you seem to have no problem taking the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and applying it to free will - that is simply untenable.

Why? If Free Will exists in realiter, it can be theorised about and must have some physical representation. 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).