Atheism Defined

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Wanstronian:

Erchomai Kyrios.:

It’s either that you unfortunately don’t see that the universe itself testisfies to the reality of God or, worse, that you refuse to consider it.

Or a third option, YOU are deluded. Based on observable evidence, Option 3 is the most likely

Why thank you Wanstronian I consider that slur a blessing based on my Lord’s words.
Mat 5:11; Luk 6:22

I read the rest of your post but am rushing out to work as we speak. Those are separate issues anyway regarding the integrity of your post so I’ll address them when I can. If I read the post correctly I’d have to say that your understanding of physics seems to be somewhat lacking but that will probably morph into a completely different discussion. I’ll think we’ll keep that on this thread, however, since it is still relevant, though tangential to the discussion. So my second response is on the queue but I must say its a prioritzed queue and not at the top of my list, since much of it will be a very secular discussion.

Ego precor ut Deus mos patefacio lumen of vestri intelligendo, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[wanstronian]

Why thank you Wanstronian I consider that slur a blessing based on my Lord’s words.
Mat 5:11; Luk 6:22

It was not intended as anything so personal as a slur. Just an observation

I read the rest of your post but am rushing out to work as we speak. Those are separate issues anyway regarding the integrity of your post so I’ll address them when I can. If I read the post correctly I’d have to say that your understanding of physics seems to be somewhat lacking

Not sure anything I said was based on physics - just logic - but as you say, you were in a hurry!

but that will probably morph into a completely different discussion. I’ll think we’ll keep that on this thread, however, since it is still relevant, though tangential to the discussion. So my second response is on the queue but I must say its a prioritzed queue and not at the top of my list, since much of it will be a very secular discussion.

I look forward to it!

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Erchomai Kyrios:

Hi Again Wanstronian
As you know I already did point out that individually your logic was flawed. Hopefully this will clear it up for you

Wanstronian:

No, you took my statements individually and then tried to show how each was not proof of illogicality. For example: “1. I fail to see how point #1 makes belief in God illogical.” Well, I never claimed it did in isolation. You then claimed that there was evidence that one was more true than any other, but then merely quoted from a book (which proves nothing). Then you challenged my assertion that all religions had equal validity (I later qualified these to 'major religions), but provided no evidence to support your challenge.

Hi Wanstronian,
Actually the above statement is incorrect as well. I was showing that indeed your proofs and arguments were either illogical or irrelevant to the conclusion you premised, and then gave you sufficient cause by means of an analogy by which your premise should be rejected, as it is not based on classic logic. I did not as you say, try to show how each was not proof of illogicality. That would be a double negative. I stated they are simply illogical.
EK:

I surmise then that you are now saying that collectively together then somehow, even though (your steps or arguments) by themselves have been shown to be flawed

WAN:

No they haven’t

So you are claiming that each one can stand by themselves? That is a flip flop from your previous post but that is okay with me because now I only have to a single syllogism is incorrect in order prove your entire premise is flawed. I have already done that but you do not accept it. In saying so then you are rejecting classic logic as I will illustrate I have used.

You say I haven’t but classic logic says I have.

One aspect of classic logic utiles syllogisms not to substantiate truth claims. Into these syllogisms then tou plug each premise (.e.g in your first conclusive premise step #5, you stated religion was illogical based on step #1 & step #2.
Classic logic syllogisms then take a form as below, In this form there are 256 permutations within the syllogistic set.
Example format:
Major Premise: All informative things are [A]useful.
Subordinate Premise: ** Some Books are not useful.
Conclusive Premise: Some Books are [C]not informative.
Which is in the format
Analogies are substitionary with regard to A B and C, as I stated before there are many forms this is just one example.
The Classic one that most begin with is stated below
Major Premise: All mortals die.
Subordinate Premise: All men are mortals.
Conclusionary premise: All men die.
In the case above the major term is “die”, the minor term is “men,” and the middle term is “mortals”
So let’s look at your post again from the first syllogy you have strung together namely steps 1, 2, and 5:**

Originally Posted by wanstronian

1. There is more than one religion. 2. They can’t all be right. 5. With reference to point 2 religion is illogical.

•
Your conclusinary premise does not validate with any logic I know of concerning your statement that “belief in God is illogical”
My preceeding example a few posts back perfectly fits into the same the sentence structure that you have used in your syllogy. I have just used variant with respect to 20 dollar bills in the place of Religion.

1. There is more than one religion (By itself I certainly admit to there being more than 1.)
2. They can’t be all right= All Religions cannot be right
   (Note: By itself this is not completely true unless it meets conditions within limits. If [N=all] then your premise is only satified if and only if N>1 AND if there is at least one, included in the set of religions that make up “All” religions, whose truths claims conflict with at least one major truth claim of another within that particular set. You have, however, integrated at least one other inference in this middle premise; that being the implication that the premise is made true by (N-1); in other words you only have to eliminate 1 religion according to your statement in order to fit your premise. I do agree with you that there are permutations with respect to each of their basic truth claims)
   (If you use only #2 then it a leap since, if N=1 (all religions = 1), then 2 is a plainly false statement.)
   From here let’s again go your your conclusionary premise:
   (CONT’D in next post)

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

LOGIC CONT’D
5. Therefore (based on 2) belief in any religion are illogical
One other thing
I believe, syllogically speaking therefore that you meant; if both 1 and 2 are true then 5 is true since #2 is dependent on #1 being more than 1.
(It is assumed that you meant any religion within the set of religions and not the entire set together since that would be a non-sensical statement given that they vary in their truth claims. Christianity isn’t looking to make one world religion out of a pantheon of world wide religions and belief systems. In fact for 2000 years it has not varied in it basic truth claims in spite of external pressure to do just that.
FORMAT

1. There is more than one A______________,
2. All A cannot be B .
3. Therefore since all A cannot be B all A is C .

This is a False premise and again I repeat: It does not validate any logic concerning your statement that “belief in God is illogical”
My example perfectly fits the sentence structure you have used. I have just used variant with respect to 20 dollar bills in the place of Religion.

1. There is more than one [A.]variant with respect to 20 dollar bills
2. All [A]variants with respect to 20 dollar bills cannot be ** right
3. Therefore since all [A] variants with respect to 20 dollar bills cannot be ** right all [A] variants with respect to 20 dollar bills are [c]false, irrelevant, illogical
   As I previously stated.

There are some 20 dollar bills in circulation within the US that were not printed and backed by the Federal government. We call these counterfeit bills, Some of these don’t even look close to real ones the government prints (by the way they are printing many more of them these days) others are more clever forgeries. Still that does not take away, though versions appear diverse & plentiful, that the ones printed by the Federal government are indeed the genuine article just because the others happen to be forgeries.

---

Gotta go - See ya!

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Back for a bit.
Hey Wanstroniam, I liked your little quip about my Worship practice - “you have to practice worship?”. It’s good to see you have a sense of humor. But yes, I’m on a Worship Team and I should have said ‘Worship team rehearsal’. Although we do arrangements and practice, it is still Worship because even in the act of rehearsal we are praising God.
EINSTEIN
So then we have been trading quotes about Einstein. Let’s continue on that vein. I know Einstein did not believe in a personal God or the God of the Bible. Still He hated being called an atheist, as my post showed. I have read enough of him to say he absolutely saw a divine hand in the universe and argued quite stridently over the move over to the statistical physics of quantum mechanics over what could be termed deterministic and discovery based on logical truths. I agree he did not believe in institutionalized religion or the Bible. I only said you could not lump him in with the atheists and I still stand on that.

#6 as I already stated in my last post Is a Patently false statement about Einstein, who was certainly not an atheist

To which you replied:
Wanstroniam:

Some quotes from Einstein himself then:
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
“During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.”
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being""It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere… Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. "
I’ve had to leave some out because I want to keep this to just one post. By the way, I never said Einstein was an atheist, I said he didn’t believe in God. This was in response to Charlemagne’s disingenuous post earlier in this thread.

So I emboldened a quote within your own quote above that makes my original point - that being he was NOT an atheist - actually truth be known he disdained them! The word “GNOSTIC” in Greek means “KNOWLEDGE” A-GNOSTIC literally means ‘without knowledge’ or in other words He just didn’t know - that does NOT mean he rejected the notion of God it just means He did not know. Did you really just cut the quote short to save Catholic forums a few bytes? Because here’s the rest of that story! It is somewhat interesting that you decided to leave the rest of this out - Einstein continues:

Einstein:

With regards the “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - no date or placement given

A noteworthy decision cutting things off where you did. For the most part you included the part that helped make your point, with the 1 exception I noted. But the above makes my point! Are you really after truth? And how Einstein thought of Science and Religion and God or are you just pulling the string of your personal Einstein puppet for a buck three eighty. -whirrr… 'Whatever Dawkins said, awk whirrr… science needs more atheists like him… I’m sure Einstein would have appreciated that one! NOT! "God does not play dice with the universe but it would appear the Atheist’s claim to him is especially dicey.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

EK:

I read the rest of your post … there are separate issues regarding the integrity of your post so I’ll address them when I can. If I read the post correctly I’d have to say that your understanding of physics seems to be somewhat lacking

Wan.:

Not sure anything I said was based on physics - just logic - but as you say, you were in a hurry!

Then you must have forgotten this:
Ek:

Take a step back and consider
There was no such thing as time before the birth of the physical universe - Agree or disagree?

Wan.:

That’s a **tricky **one! Stephen Hawking says, “Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory (1), and say that time began at the Big Bang (2).” -Hawkins
But on the basis that the Big Bang happened, there must have been a ‘before’. By which logic, we can reasonably deduce that time existed before the big bang, even if it had nothing upon which to act.
Why do you say must? It is more than plausible it was not a “before” but an always that contains both before & after. You are looking at pre big bang with a marginal understanding of the physics but the laws of the physical universe do not apply when there is no physical universe - no time, no space, no matter, no measure. Something greater than what the universe is cannot be factored out! There simply is no such thing as time before the universe began. Time is a physical quantity and is inseperable from space. You really need to read Einstein not just listen to the talking heads.

Ek:

…Time itself, or rather space/time to be correct with respect to relativity, must be an induced subset from a superset of something that is both timeless and non physical - else it could be measured in time & physics. (Agree/Disagree)

Disagree. Space-time does not have to be a subset of something else, it could just be an altered state. No smaller or larger than that which preceded it. I’d caveat both ‘timeless’ and ‘non-physical’ as I have done above.

An altered state of what??? That’s a very vague answer indeed if you do not even understand that time is non existent before the creation of the universe! You then go on to say that the universe needs no “cause” but we clearly see “effect” & the Cobe satelite proved that effect. So, in effect, you have trampled upon one of sciences truest foundations that goes all the way back to Bacon, Galileo and Newton - Cause & effect. Can you name 1 effect in the observable universe that does not have a cause? The earlier point I made is that time, or rather space/time is the fabric of the physical universe. They are inseparable. Since time started with the advent of the universe aka the big bang I propose a hypothesis of causation knowing it had to come from outside the domain of time. Even now the universe is expanding. Did you ever wonder what it is expanding into? It is expanding into NOTHING. Nothing is not space or a vacuum - NOTHING is devoid of time, space, mass and energy. When the universe expands into what was nothing it begins to exist. Think of a great balloon filling up non existence with existence - what is filling that balloon Wanstronian? Think, think, think! Do we have abstract examples? Why is the set of all numbers infinite. We know the infinite exists but do not grasp it - it grasps us! Why do we not want to go there? Clearly finite sets are subsets of infinite sets. How then can one then just dismiss that as a possibility? Why exclude then that space/time, which is temporal, could also be a subset of the infinite which contains not only all the subsets of the known universe but all that is to come as well as things beyond all the laws of physics that were established at the universe’s conception?
From a previous post of mine
EK:

I don’t know why some of the scientific community has gone away from looking at how God designed the universe. Some would literally do everthing they can to extricate God out of the picture entirely. In order to do so some pursue a legion of hypothesis’ that appear so utterly fantastic that they almost defy rational sensibility. When Dawkins was cornered about this he actually started talking about space aliens but even that is a circular argument for who created the space aliens? There is a deep grain of intellectual dishonest in much of their community. They have a question to answer that gnaws at every one of them - which in all our understanding of physics is inexplicable to them! How did space/time and the universe begin? Even if they succeed in recreating some of the original conditions that existed pre t=10^-43 seconds post big bang they still will not be able to answer the question of what caused it in the first place. It’s a circular argument to presuppose that something physical & temporal gave birth to the temporal universe in which we now live. Since space/time was non existant at t=0 the initial conditions have to be satisfied from outside of the domain of time itself. The logical conclusion, at least for myself, is that the domain of space/time must be a natural subset of a greater domain. It seems completely logical that domain is eternity. The intellectual dishonesty among some of these self proclaimed heroes of truth is amazing. It wasn’t always like this with scientists We had Christians like Newton, Bacon, Occam,Vesalius, Da Vinci, Mendel, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal, Ohm, Ampere, Faraday, Kelvin, Lavoisier, Dalton, Priestly, Carver, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Pasteur, Lister and more who absoluely believed in design. In today’s scientific community they’d be expelled.

 

[wanstronian]

Erchomai

Pretty busy over the weekend but will respond on Monday. Have a good weekend.

W

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Erchomai

Pretty busy over the weekend but will respond on Monday. Have a good weekend.

W

You too Wanstronian. I’ve been enjoying God’s sunshine with my family and swimming. I hope you, and your family too all have a great weekend.
EK

 

[wanstronian]

Erchomai,

I’ve just realised that your latest response is four posts long! I can’t hope to maintain both the thread of conversation and my insightful and irrefutable responses!

So I’ll keep this short, and apologies if there’s anything I haven’t answered - feel free to point out anything for which you were waiting for a response with bated breath…

Regarding my 5-step illogicality argument.
Step 1. There is more than one religion.** Irrefutable.**
Step 2. They can’t all be right. Irrefutable.
Step 3. There’s no evidence to suggest that any one is more valid than any other (or indeed, that any of them are valid at all, in terms of reality). **Irrefutable. Please don’t quote the bible or the wonder of a drop of rain or some other such baloney. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Any god. Therefore by extension, no evidence to show that any religion is valid. Any claimed ‘validity’ is purely subjective and the followers of each religion are, I’m sure, convinced that their religion is the right one. So objectively, none is more valid than another.
Step 4. Therefore all religions hold equal validity. In the absence of any evidence showing one to be more valid than any other.
Step 5. Therefore religion is illogical. Irrefutable. Nothing to show one religion more valid than another, nothing to show any religion valid at all. So belief is illogical.

Your rebuttal of this is based on set logic, which is not applicable in this case.

I can boil it all down to two steps if you like, which does away with the ‘truth claim’ aspect of your rebuttal (although it must be said, ‘claim’ does not equal ‘evidence’):

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. Therefore a belief in God is illogical.

Regarding Einstein - you introduced him to the thread with reference to his theory of relativity (well in fact Charlemagne introduced him earlier in an attempt to add credibility to her point of view). I made no comment on him at this point, you then piped up in your next post that he was not an atheist. I simply responded with a selection of quotes. I never said he was an atheist, I’m not trying to claim him. I suggest we just drop him. However, the quotes ended where they ended - there was no intent at disingenuity.

Regarding the cause of the Universe - you claim " You then go on to say that the universe needs no cause." What I said was, “Cause, yes. Purpose, no.” You wasted a lot of finger skin on that paragraph, but clearly hadn’t read my response properly!!

Regarding the birth of the Universe. Nobody knows what happened. I’m not a physicist, but it seems silly to me to assume that nothing happened before the birth of the Universe. However, the point of this was not to do with the properties of time, but of where the Universe came from. You proposed that it was spawned from something superior, I simply pointed out that it could have come from something equivalent but in a different state. What that different state might have been is irrelevant.

And finally:

Think, think, think!

Er - you’re the one who believes in something for which no evidence exists! I’m thinking, you’re just conjecting.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Erchomai,

Regarding my 5-step illogicality argument.
Step 1. There is more than one religion.** Irrefutable.**
Step 2. They can’t all be right. Irrefutable.
Step 3. There’s no evidence to suggest that any one is more valid than any other (or indeed, that any of them are valid at all, in terms of reality). Irrefutable. Please don’t quote the bible or the wonder of a drop of rain or some other such baloney. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Any god. Therefore by extension, no evidence to show that any religion is valid. Any claimed ‘validity’ is purely subjective and the followers of each religion are, I’m sure, convinced that their religion is the right one. So objectively, none is more valid than another.
Step 4. Therefore all religions hold equal validity. In the absence of any evidence showing one to be more valid than any other.
Step 5. Therefore religion is illogical. Irrefutable. Nothing to show one religion more valid than another, nothing to show any religion valid at all. So belief is illogical.

Your rebuttal of this is based on set logic, which is not applicable in this case.

Happy Monday to you Wanstronian, I’m off to work but quickly:
By your original post steps 3 and 4 were peripheral, which is why I asked for a clarification.
This because your original syllogisms were 2. (#1, #2, & 5) and (#3 & 4)

wanstronian:

1. There is more than one religion.
2. They can’t all be right.
3. With reference to point 2 religion is illogical.

I think everyone here can see your conclusionary premise did not depend on 3 and 4, which is why I showed from mathematical logic #5 does not compute! forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5428404#post5428404

We can go round on #3 and #4 but it will have to wait until I’m available. However, if you wish to debate I will have to insist on using the Bible and referencing its truth claims, since it is much of what my religion is based on. It has stood for over 3400 years and far more people have put credence in what it has to say than any other book. It is the all time best seller so I am not about to factor it out of the discussion. If you do not accept the precondition that all books that support truth claims are open to us then we might as well not carry the discussion further. It would be as senseless as a trial where I was disallowed from showing any evidence.

Wanstronian:

Regarding Einstein - you introduced him to the thread with reference to his theory of relativity (well in fact Charlemagne introduced him earlier in an attempt to add credibility to her point of view). I made no comment on him at this point, you then piped up in your next post that he was not an atheist. I simply responded with a selection of quotes. I never said he was an atheist, I’m not trying to claim him. I suggest we just drop him. However, the quotes ended where they ended - there was no intent at disingenuity.

Actually I asked the question, “do you believe Einstein was illogical?” That was certainly germane to the discussion. I think the post above stated that science & religion are complementary - foundational science was propogated by many men who were solid Christians - I think what you say is a slur on their accomplishments.

Have to leave - more tonight.

 

[SHW]

I prefer to be Christian.

I know where I came from: God created me in His own image and likeness because He loves me.

I know why I am here: To know, love, and serve God on earth so that I will be able to be happy with Him in heaven for eternity.

I know where I hope to be going: Heaven, where there is no sorrow, only joy; no sickness or death, only eternal life; and no loneliness, only loving fellowship forever.

Atheists however do not know with certainty where they came from, don’t know why they are here, and don’t know where they are going, if anywhere, after physical death. Too depressing for me.

Archeological evidence proves many events in the Bible. Take Sodom for instance which was rediscovered using satellite photos:

bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

I prefer to be Christian.

I know where I came from: God created me in His own image and likeness because He loves me.

I know why I am here: To know, love, and serve God on earth so that I will be able to be happy with Him in heaven for eternity.

I know where I hope to be going: Heaven, where there is no sorrow, only joy; no sickness or death, only eternal life; and no loneliness, only loving fellowship forever.

Atheists however do not know with certainty where they came from, don’t know why they are here, and don’t know where they are going, if anywhere, after physical death. Too depressing for me.

Archeological evidence proves many events in the Bible. Take Sodom for instance which was rediscovered using satellite photos:

bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm

In addition to this there is the moral argument, which has not yet been put forward. Jesus told us to be salt and light,; to go into the world and preach God’s love and mercy made complete through the Cross of Christ that we might live forever in Him who joins us by His grace to the Father. He still calls us, as He has been doing for 1979 years, to a lost and dying generation. The real question is not does He exist for He surely does and even devils believe and tremble. The real question He asks us is, "Will we go?"

youtube.com/watch?v=XwzquHf5z2A&feature=related

If they will not accept our arguments from prophecy or from the persepctive of the moral paradigm there can be no debate and I shake the dust from my sandals.

 

[wanstronian]

I’m sorry, but this has gone beyond reasoned argument and arrived at evangelism. Some of the statements that have been presented as fact and knowledge are nothing of the sort. I’m out of here.

Erchomai my friend, I’ve enjoyed our little contretemps and I’m sure we’ll meet again soon!

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m sorry, but this has gone beyond reasoned argument and arrived at evangelism. Some of the statements that have been presented as fact and knowledge are nothing of the sort. I’m out of here.

Erchomai my friend, I’ve enjoyed our little contretemps and I’m sure we’ll meet again soon!

That was the most charitable way to say it. I am glad you posted, because had I done so, it may not have been as charitable.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That was the most charitable way to say it. I am glad you posted, because had I done so, it may not have been as charitable.

BOOO!!!

 

[StrawberryJam]

BOOO!!!

I see you!

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

I’m sorry, but this has gone beyond reasoned argument and arrived at evangelism. Some of the statements that have been presented as fact and knowledge are nothing of the sort. I’m out of here.

Erchomai my friend, I’ve enjoyed our little contretemps and I’m sure we’ll meet again soon!

Hi Wanstronian,
I really was not trying to quarrel with you but trying to reason with you in a Christian way. Thios verse was quoted to me years ago.

Isa 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.

So I hope one day you will think better of all this since there was a day when I was once a skeptic too & know life can change the way we view the universe, as well as other people. I hope then that someday you will look more favorably upon our past discussions. Take care until we meet again. I will pray for you and your family.
In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios