Atheism is irrational

[Suat]

Adventisnomore,
Thank you for the response.

You’ve missed the entirety of Aquinas’ argumentation if you cannot understand the necessity of an uncaused cause.

No, the problem I have with Aquinas’ argument is that it is fundamentally flawed . Aquinas makes the argument that everything we observe is caused, but since you cannot have an infinite regression of causes, there must have been an uncaused cause to start the chain of events. Or to put that into 3 propositions:

1. 
   *]Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
   *]Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
   *]Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.
   
   Agreed?
   
   My problem with the argument is that it make a further assumption: Whatever proceeded to universe must have had a cause, therefore, it cannot be the uncaused cause. I do not see how this is a valid assumption, especially when we do not even have the level of knowledge yet to understand what existed before the big bang.
   
   I also take issue with the assumption that anything natural or anything that can be explained through science and reason must have a cause, whereas the supernatural is exempt from this requirement. If you can explain why the supernatural does not have to have a cause, I would be much obliged. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that there is no real reason for this distinction.
   
   Why does the first uncaused cause have to be a supernatural being? Why does it have to be only one? What if it is a natural force or an unintelligent, impersonal one?
   

   let’s return to our diagram and deny that an “uncaused cause” can exist, so that “A” is also caused, just like all the other boxcars:

   Let us make the assumption that I do not deny that an uncaused cause can exist. Instead, let us go with the assumption that I do not think that only God can be that uncaused cause. That is my main issue, the assumption that only supernatural beings can be uncaused. Why is it even valid to think that they are uncaused in the first place?
   

   An infinite regression of causes is no answer in all. Rather than provide us an answer to our question, it postpones it indefinitely. Thus, it is an insufficient answer.

   The same reasoning can be applied to supernatural beings though. Gods are used to answer the question “why is there a universe rather than nothing” or “what caused the universe?”, but now the questions becomes “why is(are) there god(s) rather than nothing?” and “what caused gods?”. I see no reason for arbitrarily not asking these questions. The fundamental question being asked by both arguments is “why is there something rather than nothing?” and “what caused X”. These questions remain the same regardless of whether or not there is a god. Therefore, I fail to see how the gods can be a sufficient answer to the questions.
   

   We cannot divorce the concept of “movement” from the relations between the boxcars. Therefore, we cannot state that the universe itself is sufficient to explain the cause-effect relations constituting the universe (that would be the true “cop-out” answer).

   I am not, nor have I ever, stated that the universe as we know it today is the uncaused cause. In fact, we know for certain that something, singularity, proceeded the expansion of the universe. It existed ‘prior’ to the universe and the natural laws we know break down shortly before the expansion of this singularity to form our universe. Since it exists outside of our universe, can it be an uncaused cause? Keep in mind that space, time, matter, energy etc did not exist prior to the singularity. And because time did not exist, can we even talk about a ‘prior’ or a ‘beginning’ or a ‘first cause’. Probably not.
   
   Also, is not the engine that pushes the boxcars a part of the train and not separate from it? It is not something that exists outside of the train, nor does it have any effect beyond pushing over the rest of the cars. If we really want to nitpick , the engine requires outside objects, ie fuel, to help push the cars, a lot of times that fuel is carried on some of the boxcars themselves. In that case, the analogy fails to show that the prime mover is something that exists outside of and independent of the boxcars.
   

   The observation that we live in a universe of dependent (caused) events compellingly argues for the existence of an independent (uncaused), prime mover.

   Let us assume that I agree with the existence of an uncaused cause at the beginning. No one has yet demonstrated that there was only one uncaused cause, or that it was something supernatural, let along something intelligent and personal and concerned with the lives of humans.
   

   This is “why the universe needs a first cause but God does not.”

   My apologies, but I am still not convinced that the first cause can only be something supernatural.

 

[Mirdath]

I like your analysis. I’ve printed it out so that I can present it to my atheist daughter as one more ‘proof’ that her claim of atheism is an irrational dodge.

It isn’t the question being asked, and I’m not her mother, but please, I strongly advise against this. It won’t work, and not just because Aquinas’ argument is deeply flawed (and does not ‘prove’ that the prime mover is the Abrahamic God anyway). Faith cannot be proven through logic; that sort of thing must be believed, not known empirically.

If you want to show her that her atheism is a cop-out (something I disagree with, but no matter), you’d do far better by setting an example than by trying to prove her wrong. She’ll only resent the latter; the former she can sympathize with and perhaps be inspired by.

My first answers to the enormous wheel are:
“Where did it come from in the first place” and “How was it set into motion to begin with?”

Why does it have to be on a wheel anyway? Perhaps the boxcars are merely in a ring floating in the void. And perhaps they aren’t really in motion – the viewer is moving but only perceives it as the boxcars moving. Really, we could go back and forth on this forever, getting loopier and pettier every pass. Already the counters are practically at the same level as scuffing your feet on the carpet and zapping someone before running away. This doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the workability of Aquinas’ argument.

The universe will have a “last cause” therefore it also had to have a “first cause.”

I’m not so sure the universe will truly come to an end – certainly entropy will rule over all, but all that means is we’re dead and everything’s the same lukewarm temperature. But once again, I’m no physicist

Ultimately, atheism is not about proving or disproving the existence of God at all. Atheism is all about accountability and self. The atheist rejects the existence of God so that he does not have to acknowledge the authority of God. The atheist is accountable only to himself and those persons or organizations he chooses to acknowledge.

Atheism can’t be about proving or disproving the existence of a deity. It’s impossible to prove a negative, after all. Atheism is about belief or disbelief, faith or lack of faith in divinity. Having to be personally accountable to oneself and others instead of being able to say ‘the devil made me do it’ is merely a side effect.

The same applies to God. Deny the existence of God and - ta dahhh - you get to live by your own rules. For now, anyway…

Not so much your own rules as by the rules of society. Your garden-variety atheist is hardly Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov. As to ‘for now’ – we’ll see, I guess, unless I’m right and death is only oblivion

 

[Atreyu]

No, the problem I have with Aquinas’ argument is that it is fundamentally flawed . Aquinas makes the argument that everything we observe is caused, but since you cannot have an infinite regression of causes, there must have been an uncaused cause to start the chain of events. Or to put that into 3 propositions:

1. 
   *]Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
   *]Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
   *]Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.
   
   Agreed?

1. 
   This sounds ok to me.
   

   My problem with the argument is that it make a further assumption: Whatever preceeded the universe must have had a cause, therefore, it cannot be the uncaused cause. I do not see how this is a valid assumption, especially when we do not even have the level of knowledge yet to understand what existed before the big bang.

   Why is that? If the Big Bang was not the first thing that ever happened in the Universe, then there were other things happening before that. What caused them?
   

   I also take issue with the assumption that anything natural or anything that can be explained through science and reason must have a cause, whereas the supernatural is exempt from this requirement. If you can explain why the supernatural does not have to have a cause, I would be much obliged. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that there is no real reason for this distinction.

   Basically, we have no evidence to answer the question. We have plenty of evidence and knowledge of the Universe, and so we can figure out certain things about it. The only knowledge we have of the supernatural we have through revelation. As far as Christian revelation goes, if you accept it, then we still have no knowledge of the why of God’s existence. And so, it is an impossible question to answer. But for the Universe, this is not an impossible question, as we have sufficient evidence to answer it.
   

   Why does the first uncaused cause have to be a supernatural being?

   What else would or could it be?
   

   Why does it have to be only one? What if it is a natural force or an unintelligent, impersonal one?

   This is all off-topic. I don’t care about the characteristics of God, just about the existence of God (or Gods). You can call Him whatever you like, but it doesn’t matter whether or not He is intelligent or personal for the scope of this thread.
   
   cont…

 

[Atreyu]

Let us make the assumption that I do not deny that an uncaused cause can exist. Instead, let us go with the assumption that I do not think that only God can be that uncaused cause. That is my main issue, the assumption that only supernatural beings can be uncaused.

What else could possibly be an uncaused cause? There is nothing natural that could be an uncaused cause, therefore if there is an uncaused cause, it must be supernatural. Unless you think there is a natural uncaused cause?

Why is it even valid to think that they are uncaused in the first place?

Because it is the best explanation (and the only one that I can think of) that fits the evidence! Occam’s Razor.

The same reasoning can be applied to supernatural beings though. Gods are used to answer the question “why is there a universe rather than nothing” or “what caused the universe?”, but now the questions becomes “why is(are) there god(s) rather than nothing?” and “what caused gods?”. I see no reason for arbitrarily not asking these questions. The fundamental question being asked by both arguments is “why is there something rather than nothing?” and “what caused X”. These questions remain the same regardless of whether or not there is a god. Therefore, I fail to see how the gods can be a sufficient answer to the questions.

They are both valid questions, but one of them is impossible to answer. Why reject the former question - which is possible to answer - because we can’t answer the latter? If we can answer the former, then we should answer it!

I am not, nor have I ever, stated that the universe as we know it today is the uncaused cause. In fact, we know for certain that something, singularity, preceeded the expansion of the universe. It existed ‘prior’ to the universe and the natural laws we know break down shortly before the expansion of this singularity to form our universe. Since it exists outside of our universe, can it be an uncaused cause? Keep in mind that space, time, matter, energy etc did not exist prior to the singularity. And because time did not exist, can we even talk about a ‘prior’ or a ‘beginning’ or a ‘first cause’. Probably not.

Where did this singularity come from? Why did it “exist” (whatever that means for a singularity) in the first place? What caused it to go bang? These are not questions of physics (except for possibly, the last question).

Also, is not the engine that pushes the boxcars a part of the train and not separate from it? It is not something that exists outside of the train, nor does it have any effect beyond pushing over the rest of the cars. If we really want to nitpick , the engine requires outside objects, ie fuel, to help push the cars, a lot of times that fuel is carried on some of the boxcars themselves. In that case, the analogy fails to show that the prime mover is something that exists outside of and independent of the boxcars.

No analogy is perfect. I really do think that this is nit-picking and it really misses the point of the analogy. I don’t feel that this paragraph adds anything to the discussion.

Let us assume that I agree with the existence of an uncaused cause at the beginning. No one has yet demonstrated that there was only one uncaused cause, or that it was something supernatural, let along something intelligent and personal and concerned with the lives of humans.

These are off-topic. If you agree with the existence of an uncaused cause, then that is all I’m asking from this thread.

My apologies, but I am still not convinced that the first cause can only be something supernatural.

OK then. What is it?

 

[Atreyu]

It isn’t the question being asked, and I’m not her mother, but please, I strongly advise against this. It won’t work, and not just because Aquinas’ argument is deeply flawed (and does not ‘prove’ that the prime mover is the Abrahamic God anyway). Faith cannot be proven through logic; that sort of thing must be believed, not known empirically.

If you want to show her that her atheism is a cop-out (something I disagree with, but no matter), you’d do far better by setting an example than by trying to prove her wrong. She’ll only resent the latter; the former she can sympathize with and perhaps be inspired by.

You’re right with showing her by example. Yet I feel that it would be well worth showing her daughter this argument. You’re also right that it doesn’t show that the prime mover is the Abrahamic God - this argument is a refutation of atheism, not a proof of Catholicism. I feel that it is a very compelling argument. Ultimately, it shows that it makes a lot more sense for there to be a God (or Gods), and so it shows the position of the theist makes more sense than the position of the atheist. Why would she not want to demonstrate this to her daughter?

I’m not so sure the universe will truly come to an end – certainly entropy will rule over all, but all that means is we’re dead and everything’s the same lukewarm temperature. But once again, I’m no physicist

Not even physicists know what will happen to the Universe, ultimately. Personally, I like the idea of a “Big Crunch” (kind of opposite to the Big Bang), yet this idea has gone out of fashion recently. We’ll see what happens…

Atheism can’t be about proving or disproving the existence of a deity. It’s impossible to prove a negative, after all. Atheism is about belief or disbelief, faith or lack of faith in divinity. Having to be personally accountable to oneself and others instead of being able to say ‘the devil made me do it’ is merely a side effect.

Lack of faith in divinity is agnosticism, not atheism. Faith in non-divinity is atheism. This should surely be possible to show if atheism were true. Well, if I were an atheist, I would want to be pretty sure about this argument.

 

[Atreyu]

Is not the creator more perfect than the creation (outside of sci-fi movies)? If God created everything that then includes logic. And if God is infinite, he is beyond human comprehension and thus human reason.

We’re kind of moving towards the characteristics of God rather than the existence of God with this, but I feel it is worth responding to anyway. Did you read the Pope’s recent speech at Regensburg (the controversial one)? It was actually a brilliant speech, and it was ultimately about this very topic. Christians believe that God does not transcend reason. That is, God does follows the rules of reason that He has created. Skeptics ask questions such as “could God create a rock that is too big for Him to lift?” thinking that Christians will therefore have to deny the omnipotence of God. However, Christians will happily say “no” to this question, because we believe that God can do anything except for contradicting Himself. God may be beyond human reason in that humans cannot fully understand Him. Yet God does not contradict His own reason.

Now back to the topic…

 

[Suat]

Atreyu,
If you wish, I will respond to your posts point by point. However, we are never going to agree with each other, so I fail to see the point.

I do not know all the answers. I stated this at the very beginning of the discussion. I am fine with not knowing everything, provided that we continue searching. It is my opinion that God is being used to fill in a gap in our knowledge and understand of the universe. I disagree with doing that, you do not.

In addition, I have listened to and read all the arguments for using God to answer those questions and find them wanting. Obviously you have come to a different opinion. Neither of us are going to change our opinions anytime soon.

 

[Mirdath]

You’re right with showing her by example. Yet I feel that it would be well worth showing her daughter this argument. You’re also right that it doesn’t show that the prime mover is the Abrahamic God - this argument is a refutation of atheism, not a proof of Catholicism. I feel that it is a very compelling argument. Ultimately, it shows that it makes a lot more sense for there to be a God (or Gods), and so it shows the position of the theist makes more sense than the position of the atheist. Why would she not want to demonstrate this to her daughter?

Because going directly up against her daughter’s beliefs like that will only make her resent Catholicism. Trust me on this one, okay – I was raised Catholic, and am not Catholic now, but I have no desire to see people harming each other over faith or losing it.

Additionally, for reasons I’ve explained (and more I’m sure I haven’t, but I can only remember so much ), the argument from first cause is not a compelling refutation of anything. You may think it states your case quite well – but note that neither Suat nor I have given an inch on Aquinas’ core postulates. Were it so compelling, we’d have no choice but to do so. Waving any argument for the existence of divinity at someone will not magically ‘cure’ them of atheism – in fact, it’s likelier to set them in their ways.

Lack of faith in divinity is agnosticism, not atheism. Faith in non-divinity is atheism. This should surely be possible to show if atheism were true. Well, if I were an atheist, I would want to be pretty sure about this argument.

Granted; however, atheism remains the negative position. Theism is the positive, and it’s there that the burden of proof lies. Not proof that atheism is the ‘less rational’ position to hold – if you want to make your case you’re going to have to directly and incontrovertibly prove God. Best of luck

Christians believe that God does not transcend reason. That is, God does follows the rules of reason that He has created. Skeptics ask questions such as “could God create a rock that is too big for Him to lift?” thinking that Christians will therefore have to deny the omnipotence of God. However, Christians will happily say “no” to this question, because we believe that God can do anything except for contradicting Himself. God may be beyond human reason in that humans cannot fully understand Him. Yet God does not contradict His own reason.

There’re two different things here. I believe that the Christian God plays loosely by his own rules – ie, acts generally in accordance with physical laws and logic. The answer to the rock question is ‘God could start, but the rock would collapse on itself before it got there’ (response: ‘if he holds it together?’; then it does not possess the nature of a rock anymore). The exceptions to this are what people call miracles, where God suspends or alters physical laws temporarily.

But the actions of God are not God himself. God’s nature existed before logic and does not have to answer to it. Internal consistence would be up to him – we can’t see into his mind.

 

[Atreyu]

Atreyu,
If you wish, I will respond to your posts point by point. However, we are never going to agree with each other, so I fail to see the point.

I do not know all the answers. I stated this at the very beginning of the discussion. I am fine with not knowing everything, provided that we continue searching. It is my opinion that God is being used to fill in a gap in our knowledge and understand of the universe. I disagree with doing that, you do not.

In addition, I have listened to and read all the arguments for using God to answer those questions and find them wanting. Obviously you have come to a different opinion. Neither of us are going to change our opinions anytime soon.

Well, my goal in this thread was to try to demonstrate that theism is more reasonable than atheism. You second paragraph above says to me that it is like you are waiting for physicists to answer these questions that you don’t know how to answer. Trust me when I say this - it will never happen. I can say that with absolute confidence because they are not scientific questions.

But you still don’t feel that it is an important enough question to even ask. Therefore, I want you to consider something - just meditate on it for 5 minutes or something. Consider there were nothing in existence - no God, no Universe, nothing. Just try to imagine what this would be like (of course, the question of what “nothing” is “like” doesn’t make any sense). It’s easy enough to picture existence without life, but it’s pretty much impossible to imagine nothing (short of watching The Neverending Story, of course! Or reading the book, but I wouldn’t recommend the book too highly…) Does life exist for a reason? Christians would say yes, but this is definitely a question that atheists can respond to by saying “no”, and that too makes sense. It could just be that natural forces brought into being the first amino acid, then some of them combined to form proteins, then DNA and so on.

On the other hand, existence itself must have a reason for being. If there were no God, then we should fully expect there to simply be nothing. If you respond to my post, I would ask you to respond to this last statement of mine and tell me if you agree to it. It just doesn’t make one iota of sense for the Universe to exist without an uncaused first cause.

If I haven’t convinced you yet, then that’s ok and I’m happy to leave it at that. All I am trying to show is that the position of the theist is more reasonable. Hopefully - if nothing else - I may have provided you with some motivation to looks into things a bit further, and I suppose that is the main goal of this thread!

 

[Atreyu]

Because going directly up against her daughter’s beliefs like that will only make her resent Catholicism. Trust me on this one, okay – I was raised Catholic, and am not Catholic now, but I have no desire to see people harming each other over faith or losing it.

Well, I think it depends on how it is done. All apologetics should be practised with charity uppermost in one’s mind. Also, the apologist should make it his goal to show that his position is either

• 
  *]Reasonable, or
  *]more reasonable than the counter-position.
  
  It should never be the goal of the apologist to prove anything, as that is pretty much impossible. So long as one’s goal is to show that the Catholic position is reasonable, then this is a point that the opponent should hopefully be able to concede. That is, if they are rational.
  

  Additionally, for reasons I’ve explained (and more I’m sure I haven’t, but I can only remember so much ), the argument from first cause is not a compelling refutation of anything. You may think it states your case quite well – but note that neither Suat nor I have given an inch on Aquinas’ core postulates. Were it so compelling, we’d have no choice but to do so. Waving any argument for the existence of divinity at someone will not magically ‘cure’ them of atheism – in fact, it’s likelier to set them in their ways.

  Possibly. I’m hoping it will provide some motivation to search further. If I’ve set you in your way, then I have done you harm. But if you are a reasonable person, then I doubt I could sway you that much.
  

  Granted; however, atheism remains the negative position. Theism is the positive, and it’s there that the burden of proof lies. Not proof that atheism is the ‘less rational’ position to hold – if you want to make your case you’re going to have to directly and incontrovertibly prove God. Best of luck

  No, not really. By making my case, I show that the existence of God is more reasonable than His non-existence. If theism has to directly and incontrovertibly prove God, then atheism has to directly and incontrovertibly disprove the existence of God. Remember, this thread is against atheism, not agnosticism. And of course, I cannot directly and incontrovertibly prove the existence of God, as that is impossible. All I can do is to show the evidence, which is why I encourage apologetics. If I can “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, then I have made the full case for theism. But that is not the goal of this thread; the goal was to simply show that theism is more reasonable than atheism.

 

[Suat]

Well, my goal in this thread was to try to demonstrate that theism is more reasonable than atheism.

But you have not demonstrated it is more reasonable, only that people use it when they do not know the answer or when they cannot imagine anything else. Positing a supernatural being to answer a question of ‘how’ is not any more rational than saying ‘I do not yet know’. Nor is it any more honest.

You second paragraph above says to me that it is like you are waiting for physicists to answer these questions that you don’t know how to answer. Trust me when I say this - it will never happen. I can say that with absolute confidence because they are not scientific questions.

I do not expect physics to answer questions of ‘why’ we are here, that is in the bounds of the metaphysical, not physical. I do expect the answers to ‘how’ eventually, likely not before I die though.

But you still don’t feel that it is an important enough question to even ask.

You can ask it all you want, but there might not be an answer.

Therefore, I want you to consider something - just meditate on it for 5 minutes or something. Consider there were nothing in existence - no God, no Universe, nothing. Just try to imagine what this would be like (of course, the question of what “nothing” is “like” doesn’t make any sense). It’s easy enough to picture existence without life, but it’s pretty much impossible to imagine nothing

I find many things difficult to conceive. I noticed you are a physicist, ever study nuclear physics? That is my field of research and I can tell you that I am continually amazed at what goes on at the subatomic scale. Especially considering that no of this has any real practical use in my day to day life (i.e., I do not walk around wondering when the next radon atom will disintegrate or about the effects of temperature and pressure on nuclei). Tell what we know now to people 500 years ago and they would not believe you, even now I sometimes have difficulty conceiving everything that is going on, even though I know it well.

Does life exist for a reason? Christians would say yes, but this is definitely a question that atheists can respond to by saying “no”, and that too makes sense. It could just be that natural forces brought into being the first amino acid, then some of them combined to form proteins, then DNA and so on.

On the other hand, existence itself must have a reason for being. If there were no God, then we should fully expect there to simply be nothing.

Why? I know you believe this to be a defining proof, but I cannot see the logic in the statement. I do not see why a reason must exist or why I would expect to see nothing if there were no God. And yes, you can point to the prime mover argument again, and I still will not be convinced .

If you respond to my post, I would ask you to respond to this last statement of mine and tell me if you agree to it. It just doesn’t make one iota of sense for the Universe to exist without an uncaused first cause.

Well, you found it difficult to conceive of nothing, but that may be what existed before the universe, right ? That is my problem, human beings are not yet capable of conceiving of all possibilities, or of fully understanding life on this universe. Just because we cannot conceive of something does not mean it is false. Truthfully, I do not know if there is a first cause, I may never know. If there is, then I strongly disagree that an uncaused cause must be supernatural. In which cause is it not more rational to believe in a God.

If I haven’t convinced you yet, then that’s ok and I’m happy to leave it at that. All I am trying to show is that the position of the theist is more reasonable. Hopefully - if nothing else - I may have provided you with some motivation to looks into things a bit further, and I suppose that is the main goal of this thread!

No, I am not convinced. If a person wants to believe in god though faith or belief of personal connections, then I have no problem with that. If you want to believe in a God in order to give reason to you life, then I also have no problem. However, I do not think that the case can be made for using Gods to explain the existence of natural causes. Especially considering you only seem to believe God is more rational because you define God to be uncaused. You cannot define something as uncaused and then say it is a more rational starting point because it is defined that way. It is cheating .

 

[Suat]

Well, my goal in this thread was to try to demonstrate that theism is more reasonable than atheism.

But you have not demonstrated it is more reasonable, only that people use it when they do not know the answer or when they cannot imagine anything else. Positing a supernatural being to answer a question of ‘how’ is not any more rational than saying ‘I do not yet know’. Nor is it any more honest.

You second paragraph above says to me that it is like you are waiting for physicists to answer these questions that you don’t know how to answer. Trust me when I say this - it will never happen. I can say that with absolute confidence because they are not scientific questions.

I do not expect physics to answer questions of ‘why’ we are here, that is in the bounds of the metaphysical, not physical. I do expect the answers to ‘how’ eventually, likely not before I die though.

But you still don’t feel that it is an important enough question to even ask.

You can ask it all you want, but there might not be an answer.

Therefore, I want you to consider something - just meditate on it for 5 minutes or something. Consider there were nothing in existence - no God, no Universe, nothing. Just try to imagine what this would be like (of course, the question of what “nothing” is “like” doesn’t make any sense). It’s easy enough to picture existence without life, but it’s pretty much impossible to imagine nothing

I find many things difficult to conceive. I noticed you are a physicist, ever study nuclear physics? That is my field of research and I can tell you that I am continually amazed at what goes on at the subatomic scale. Especially considering that no of this has any real practical use in my day to day life (i.e., I do not walk around wondering when the next radon atom will disintegrate or about the effects of temperature and pressure on nuclei). Tell what we know now to people 500 years ago and they would not believe you, even now I sometimes have difficulty conceiving everything that is going on, even though I know it well.

Does life exist for a reason? Christians would say yes, but this is definitely a question that atheists can respond to by saying “no”, and that too makes sense. It could just be that natural forces brought into being the first amino acid, then some of them combined to form proteins, then DNA and so on.

On the other hand, existence itself must have a reason for being. If there were no God, then we should fully expect there to simply be nothing.

Why? I know you believe this to be a excellent proof, but I cannot see the logic in the statement. I do not see why a reason must exist or why I would expect to see nothing if there were no God. And yes, you can point to the prime mover argument again, and I still will not be convinced .

If you respond to my post, I would ask you to respond to this last statement of mine and tell me if you agree to it. It just doesn’t make one iota of sense for the Universe to exist without an uncaused first cause.

Well, you found it difficult to conceive of nothing, but that may be what existed before the universe, right ? That is my problem, human beings are not yet capable of conceiving of all possibilities, or of fully understanding life on this universe. Just because we cannot conceive of something does not mean it is false. Truthfully, I do not know if there is a first cause, I may never know. If there is, then I strongly disagree that an uncaused cause must be supernatural. In which cause is it not more rational to believe in a God.

If I haven’t convinced you yet, then that’s ok and I’m happy to leave it at that. All I am trying to show is that the position of the theist is more reasonable. Hopefully - if nothing else - I may have provided you with some motivation to looks into things a bit further, and I suppose that is the main goal of this thread!

No, I am not convinced. If a person wants to believe in god though faith or belief of personal connections, then I have no problem with that. If you want to believe in a God in order to give reason to you life, then I also have no problem. However, I do not think that the case can be made for using Gods to explain the existence of natural causes. Especially considering you only seem to believe God is more rational because you define God to be uncaused. You cannot define something as uncaused and then say it is a more rational starting point because it is defined that way. It is cheating .

 

[pagan_soul]

I think engaging in logical discussions about spirituality is a waste of time. Atheism is no more or less rational or logical then any other religion.

Spirituality is experiencial, non-linear and does not require logic in order to be effective. Science requires logic in order to be effective. The two do not need to be connected. Using the rigid rational thinking of science to prove the validity of someone’s beliefs is like using a scapel to shave your armpits. Its just not meant for the job.

No person’s experience of an event is the same as another. We cannot record reality, we can only record what we experience through our senses. Therefore most people’s spiritual experiences are personal to them and very true for them. People can have similar experiences, but not all people can have the same experiences.

Personal spiritual experience is valid on its own merit and does not need to be rational. Science does not need to prove the existence of god or soul in order to people to benefit from religion and spiritual development.

Go ahead and say Atheism is irrational. They’ll say your religion is irrational. Guess what? In one way everyone’s right.

 

[Atreyu]

I think engaging in logical discussions about spirituality is a waste of time. Atheism is no more or less rational or logical then any other religion.

Spirituality is experiencial, non-linear and does not require logic in order to be effective. Science requires logic in order to be effective. The two do not need to be connected. Using the rigid rational thinking of science to prove the validity of someone’s beliefs is like using a scapel to shave your armpits. Its just not meant for the job.

No person’s experience of an event is the same as another. We cannot record reality, we can only record what we experience through our senses. Therefore most people’s spiritual experiences are personal to them and very true for them. People can have similar experiences, but not all people can have the same experiences.

Personal spiritual experience is valid on its own merit and does not need to be rational. Science does not need to prove the existence of god or soul in order to people to benefit from religion and spiritual development.

Go ahead and say Atheism is irrational. They’ll say your religion is irrational. Guess what? In one way everyone’s right.

I most strongly disagree with this post. I believe it is a defining characteristic of God that he is entirely and utterly reasonable. There are plenty of religions in the world that are not reasonable; Islam would be one. I say this, because they think God can contradict Himself (and this is said with a very naive knowledge of Islam so hopefully I haven’t misrepresented it). Christianity - and in particular, Catholicism - claims she is entirely reasonable. That is why people such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo are so important in Catholicism. These people are philosophers of the highest degree. I would highly recommend you look into why the Catholic Church claims such a thing. I would also recommend reading some of the writings of Augustine and Aquinas.

 

[Atreyu]

But you have not demonstrated it is more reasonable, only that people use it when they do not know the answer or when they cannot imagine anything else. Positing a supernatural being to answer a question of ‘how’ is not any more rational than saying ‘I do not yet know’. Nor is it any more honest.

I didn’t believe I was doing that. I was positing a supernatural answer to a question of why, not how.

I do not expect physics to answer questions of ‘why’ we are here, that is in the bounds of the metaphysical, not physical. I do expect the answers to ‘how’ eventually, likely not before I die though.

And I entirely agree.

You can ask it all you want, but there might not be an answer.

Well, I think it is more reasonable that there is an answer. Like I said before, I don’t think the Universe came into existence “just because”. To me, this is what this sentence of yours is saying. Again, I think it is a much more reasonable position to hold that the Universe came into existence for a reason, rather than believing it exists just because. Therefore theism is more reasonable than atheism.

I find many things difficult to conceive. I noticed you are a physicist, ever study nuclear physics

…

Tell what we know now to people 500 years ago and they would not believe you, even now I sometimes have difficulty conceiving everything that is going on, even though I know it well.

I know what you mean. There came a time when I was learning quantum mechanics when I just had to give up on trying to picture what was going on, and I just had to go along with it. I was much happier when I made that jump I don’t know who it was but I remember one of the fathers of quantum mechanics saying something like “if you truly understand quantum mechanics then you must be nuts”.

Why? I know you believe this to be a defining proof, but I cannot see the logic in the statement. I do not see why a reason must exist or why I would expect to see nothing if there were no God. And yes, you can point to the prime mover argument again, and I still will not be convinced .

How could there not be a reason for the existence of the Universe? You would agree with me I am sure that there could be a why as to the existence of the Universe. Yet you seem to think that there is a possibility that there is no why as to the existence of the Universe. I disagree with you because I cannot understand how this could possibly be.

Well, you found it difficult to conceive of nothing, but that may be what existed before the universe, right ? That is my problem, human beings are not yet capable of conceiving of all possibilities, or of fully understanding life on this universe. Just because we cannot conceive of something does not mean it is false. Truthfully, I do not know if there is a first cause, I may never know.

Well, how could there not be?

If there is, then I strongly disagree that an uncaused cause must be supernatural. In which cause is it not more rational to believe in a God.

But it is more reasonable for the uncaused cause to be supernatural than for it to be natural. Why? Because there is no natural uncaused cause! If there is no natural uncaused cause, then any uncaused cause must be supernatural. Agreed?

No, I am not convinced. If a person wants to believe in god though faith or belief of personal connections, then I have no problem with that. If you want to believe in a God in order to give reason to you life, then I also have no problem. However, I do not think that the case can be made for using Gods to explain the existence of natural causes. Especially considering you only seem to believe God is more rational because you define God to be uncaused. You cannot define something as uncaused and then say it is a more rational starting point because it is defined that way. It is cheating .

I believe in God because I hold it to be the most reasonable explanation for the evidence that I have seen. This includes much more evidence than I have listed in this thread. I asked you to picture something for me before, and I’m going to ask it of you again. Imagine for a moment, that the Abrahamic God really exists, and is actually the Prime Mover. Imagine that everything that the Catholic Church teaches about this God is true. Would an uncaused characteristic of this God contradict anything in any way of your new-found knowledge of God?

Do you see why I’m asking you this? Of course my ultimate goal is to show that the uncaused first cause is the Abrahamic God. So why would an uncaused characteristic of this God cause me to be alarmed at all? It fits in perfectly with what I understand of God! Before the existence of the Universe, God is.

 

[Nan_S]

Originally Posted by Mirdath

I appreciate the concern you are showing for me and my daughter. Thus far, knowing that I am a well-educated apologist, she has declined to share her reasons for rejecting the Catholic faith she was raised in. She has decided to lump Jesus in with other unproven pagan myths, and has turned down the opportunities I have offered to show her the proofs of Christianity through the writings of Josephus and the Early Church Fathers.

I think she doesn’t want her bubble to be burst, so that she can continue living an immoral life with a minimum of guilt. But she has admitted that if she does return to church, it will most likely be to the Catholic church.

My tactic at this point is to keep her talking to me, and when the opportunity arises to give her a nagging little question that will make her go “hmmm.”

Quote:

I’m not so sure the universe will truly come to an end – certainly entropy will rule over all, but all that means is we’re dead and everything’s the same lukewarm temperature. But once again, I’m no physicist

Not even physicists know what will happen to the Universe, ultimately. Personally, I like the idea of a “Big Crunch” (kind of opposite to the Big Bang), yet this idea has gone out of fashion recently. We’ll see what happens…

Regarding the end of the universe, the point is that if there is an end which is reasonable to project, than we can also reasonably say that the universe is not eternal after all. And being non-eternal, what will have an end must have had a beginning.

We know this much:

1. The passage of time is fixed relative to us, here on earth, at 186,000 miles per second. But to someone on a rocketship accelerating to a speed greater than the motion of the earth, the passage of time they experience is less than what we experience. An astronaut traveling at, say, half the speed of light for a few months, would return to earth to find that thousands or even millions of years had passed here.
2. If a person or an object could accelerate to the speed of light, their experience of the passage of time would completely cease.
3. The universe is flying apart, and the rate that it is expanding is accelerating.
4. At some point, the rate of expansion of the universe will reach the speed of light. When that happens, time ceases for everything and the universe as we know it comes to an end.

Therefore, it is reasonable to project that the universe will have an end.

Nan

 

[Mirdath]

Well, I think it depends on how it is done. All apologetics should be practised with charity uppermost in one’s mind. Also, the apologist should make it his goal to show that his position is either

• 
  *]Reasonable, or
  *]more reasonable than the counter-position.
  
  It should never be the goal of the apologist to prove anything, as that is pretty much impossible. So long as one’s goal is to show that the Catholic position is reasonable, then this is a point that the opponent should hopefully be able to concede. That is, if they are rational.

• 
  I favor apologetics as purely an informative exercise – present your view, then allow people to make their own informed choices. Antagonizing someone’s current viewpoint is not likely to make them happier to listen to the rest of what one has to say.
  

  Possibly. I’m hoping it will provide some motivation to search further. If I’ve set you in your way, then I have done you harm. But if you are a reasonable person, then I doubt I could sway you that much.

  If I do search further, it’s not going to be in attempts to prove God through logic. That’s a dead end, and antithetical to the concept of faith. It makes a fun intellectual exercise to prove, disprove, rebut, ad infinitum, but no more than that.
  

  No, not really. By making my case, I show that the existence of God is more reasonable than His non-existence.

  This has not been shown. A flawed logical argument for the existence of a deity has been presented; it does not make belief any more or less reasonable.
  

  If theism has to directly and incontrovertibly prove God, then atheism has to directly and incontrovertibly disprove the existence of God.

  Atheism is the negative position. One cannot prove something’s absence; one can only attempt to prove the positive exception, existence, beyond doubt or rebuttal – which we agree is impossible. It really only happens in math. And if the positive is impossible to prove, that leaves us with the negative as the simpler, more reasonable position by Occam’s Razor. The question ‘how did we get here?’ remains intact without introducing an unprovable, potentially infinite variable, deity; therefore the Razor cuts divinity out, leaving us with a less complex (if only barely) problem.
  

  Remember, this thread is against atheism, not agnosticism.

  I’m well aware of that.
  

  And of course, I cannot directly and incontrovertibly prove the existence of God, as that is impossible. All I can do is to show the evidence, which is why I encourage apologetics. If I can “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, then I have made the full case for theism.

  If all you have presented is this naturally unprovable argument, what evidence have you brought to the table? None.
  

  But that is not the goal of this thread; the goal was to simply show that theism is more reasonable than atheism.

  So far, it hasn’t.

 

[Suat]

I didn’t believe I was doing that. I was positing a supernatural answer to a question of why, not how.

See, I would think that saying a first cause created the universe would be ‘how’. ‘Why’ would be something like ‘because he was bored’.

Well, I think it is more reasonable that there is an answer. Like I said before, I don’t think the Universe came into existence “just because”. To me, this is what this sentence of yours is saying.

Yes, I am saying that not everything has to have a reason.

I know what you mean. There came a time when I was learning quantum mechanics when I just had to give up on trying to picture what was going on, and I just had to go along with it. I was much happier when I made that jump I don’t know who it was but I remember one of the fathers of quantum mechanics saying something like “if you truly understand quantum mechanics then you must be nuts”.

See, we can agree on some things . I remember something similar from Feynman:

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics

Absolutely fascinating subject though. What field are you in?

How could there not be a reason for the existence of the Universe? You would agree with me I am sure that there could be a why as to the existence of the Universe.

Yes, I will agree with you that there could be a why. While I do not believe in a God, I have been wrong before.

Yet you seem to think that there is a possibility that there is no why as to the existence of the Universe. I disagree with you because I cannot understand how this could possibly be.

Well, how could there not be?

This is a surprisingly complex question. I can conceive that a why exists, and emotionally that would be a very nice thing to have. On the other hand, I can think about the size of the universe and the infinitesimally small role that we have in it. This leads me to wonder if this ‘why’ we all search for actually has any answer, and I can conceive that it does not. Or better, that there is not universal ‘why’ and that each person must answer this question for him/herself.

But it is more reasonable for the uncaused cause to be supernatural than for it to be natural. Why? Because there is no natural uncaused cause! If there is no natural uncaused cause, then any uncaused cause must be supernatural. Agreed?

We are not going to agree on this point. Ever, I think.

Imagine for a moment, that the Abrahamic God really exists, and is actually the Prime Mover. Imagine that everything that the Catholic Church teaches about this God is true. Would an uncaused characteristic of this God contradict anything in any way of your new-found knowledge of God?

If I were to belief in the Abrahamic God, then I think that I would take his uncaused characteristic on faith, because I believe it to be true based upon the writings in the Bible, but I cannot demonstrate that it is true.

Do you see why I’m asking you this?

Yep.

Of course my ultimate goal is to show that the uncaused first cause is the Abrahamic God. So why would an uncaused characteristic of this God cause me to be alarmed at all? It fits in perfectly with what I understand of God! Before the existence of the Universe, God is.

Great, it seems that you are happy with your belief, and I am happy with mine .

 

[Suat]

1. The universe is flying apart, and the rate that it is expanding is accelerating.
2. At some point, the rate of expansion of the universe will reach the speed of light. When that happens, time ceases for everything and the universe as we know it comes to an end.

Therefore, it is reasonable to project that the universe will have an end.

As an atheist, I highly caution you against using this line of thinking. Number 4 only holds if you assume that the rate of expansion will continue to increase. No scientist is claiming this. There are some ideas of what will happen:

Big Chill: The acceleration will slow and eventually stop. Galaxies, stars, planets and everything else will die a slow heat death.
Big Crunch: The acceleration will slow, stop and then gravity will take over and begin to collapse everything back into a singularity.

No scientist believes that the acceleration will continue until the speed of light is reached. If your daughter is interested in science, then presenting these arguments will not help.

 

[Suat]

As an atheist, I highly caution you against using this line of thinking. Number 4 only holds if you assume that the rate of expansion will continue to increase. No scientist is claiming this. There are some ideas of what will happen:

Big Chill: The acceleration will slow and eventually stop. Galaxies, stars, planets and everything else will die a slow heat death.
Big Crunch: The acceleration will slow, stop and then gravity will take over and begin to collapse everything back into a singularity.

No scientist believes that the acceleration will continue until the speed of light is reached.