Atheistic Meme re: Good Friday--Your Thoughts?

[KnowtheSilence]

If there would be a powerful incorporeal agent, then it would be “something”, and as such it would negate the existence of “nothing”.

But it’s not a physical something. The idea of it creating a physical anything out of physically nothing still flips my" something from nothing" trigger and strikes me as absurd.

 

[MichaelP3]

I simply get overjoyed when secular humanists acknowledge the existence of objective morality.

It’s a tacit acknowledgement of the existence of an Objective Good.

Merger

Maybe I am just really ignorant or uninformed or just stupid. But please explain to me how someone can’t just think murder is “not right” and be an Atheist? Or maybe they can, I don’t know as it seems you know and I don’t even understand the “principle”. I’d like to know for myself.

 

[MichaelP3]

1–Every Friday can indeed be good for atheists, because their idea of good differs from yours and does not follow the doctrine you follow.

2–Many atheists indeed have satisfactory answers to their kids’ queries about death. They may not be satisfactory to you, but they are to many.

3–He had to die that day to make the “greatest story ever told” work.
Of course, he could have died on a Tuesday instead. But then…all Tuesdays can be good for atheists, too!

.

Yup! We all have our ideas…

 

[PRmerger]

But it’s not a physical something. The idea of it creating a physical anything out of physically nothing still flips my" something from nothing" trigger and strikes me as absurd.

Yes. You have an intellectual honesty which is refreshing.

 

[PRmerger]

But please explain to me how someone can’t just think murder is “not right” and be an Atheist?

Of course he can.

No one here has posited that an atheist can’t think murder is “not right”.

Or, to put it without all the negatives: an atheist, without any succor to religion, can declare murder to be wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

What would an example of supernatural forces in the world look like to you?

Would you mind addressing this, KnowtheSilence?

And to expound…how would one know that it’s supernatural and just not some sort of (natural) phenomenon we haven’t yet discovered?

 

[PRmerger]

Another reason to reject the idea of creatio ex nihilo, in my opinion.

This would require you to reject the consensus of science.

To an extent, yes, but I’m curious how you’d characterize that consensus since whatever consensus there is doesn’t support theism over and above naturalism.

True. But it does declare that the universe began to exist.

Checkmate.

This is probably another case that just boils down to conflicting intuitions, so if you don’t see it already I’m not sure I’d be able to explain it sufficiently. The idea of something suddenly popping to existence literally from absolute nothingness is absurd to me;

Yes. It’s contrary to logic, contrary to any of our known experiences, and, as you say, contrary to our intuition.

the idea of something popping into existence from absolute nothingness because a powerful incorporeal agent thought/willed/commanded it into existence is simply equally absurd.

It’s only absurd because you wish to cling to your secular humanism.

What would it mean for you to embrace the logic here, KtS?

 

[PRmerger]

For example, I have a brother who is a believer in what I perhaps uncharitably refer to as “magic rocks.” He thinks that certain crystals give off energy that can effect mood, health, whatever, and that he can sense the energy coming from these crystals. I can devise some experiments that would tell if he was onto something or if, as I suspect, it’s just psychological. Let’s say he did pass the test; if there really is some kind of energy coming from the crystals, it’s either natural or supernatural. If it’s natural, then we should be able to detect it and fit it in to our current understanding of physics. If we couldn’t do that, I’d say it was supernatural.
I’d also be convinced by something like somebody praying for me and my eyesight or teeth being immediately fixed. I know there are stories out there of stuff like that happening, but the stories have not been convincing.

I find this interesting.

“These are examples of supernatural events that might convince me”…but how would you know that these aren’t simply natural events that haven’t an explanation?

Heck, there’s even examples of limbs growing spontaneously in nature, so were an amputee to be cured “miraculously”, wouldn’t that just be another example of a natural event?

youtube.com/watch?v=TsC-pkaVbA8

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree, obviously, that the “first cause” or “creator” or whatever you want to call it must be an agent.

This is just basic definitional logic, KtS.
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23880&stc=1&d=1492698997

 

[KnowtheSilence]

This would require you to reject the consensus of science.

No. The consensus of science isn’t “the universe was created ex nihilo.”

True. But it does declare that the universe began to exist.

Checkmate.

Have you heard many physicists say that, and are you sure you’ve understood what they meant by it? I’m hard-pressed to think of any physicists who think that the Big Bang constitutes an absolute beginning of all physical existence.

It’s only absurd because you wish to cling to your secular humanism.

What would it mean for you to embrace the logic here, KtS?

Nope. It stuck me as absurd even before I became an atheist.

 

[PRmerger]

Have you heard many physicists say that, and are you sure you’ve understood what they meant by it? I’m hard-pressed to think of any physicists who think that the Big Bang constitutes an absolute beginning of all physical existence.

Does Stephen Hawking count?

hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

 

[KnowtheSilence]

This is just basic definitional logic, KtS.

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23879&d=1492698747
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=agent

My mistake. I thought that agency denoted personhood, but definition #2 says "person or thing. So, disregard my saying that the first cause isn’t/doesn’t have to be an agent, but instead understand me as saying the first cause isn’t/doesn’t have to be a person.

 

[PRmerger]

My mistake. I thought that agency denoted personhood, but definition #2 says "person or thing. So, disregard my saying that the first cause isn’t/doesn’t have to be an agent, but instead understand me as saying the first cause isn’t/doesn’t have to be a person.

Yep.

It requires some tremendous obfuscation and mental gymnastics to deny that there is an agent in the creation of the universe

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Yep.

It requires some tremendous obfuscation and mental gymnastics to deny that there is an agent in the creation of the universe

Or, in my case, the misunderstanding of a word.

 

[PRmerger]

Or, in my case, the misunderstanding of a word.

So we are agreed that obeisance to logic, science, reason demands that we acknowledge an agent in the creation of the universe.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t really need one because I don’t take the historicity of the empty tomb as a given.

Do you believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

That is, a man named Jesus walked this earth 2000 years ago and was crucified under Pontius Pilate?

(Let me preface by saying that if you are a Jesus Myther then I will have to respectfully decline any further dialogue with you. I put Jesus Mythers in the same category as anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers, Young Earthers…and I usually refrain from discourse with these folks.)

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Do you believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

That is, a man named Jesus walked this earth 2000 years ago and was crucified under Pontius Pilate?

(Let me preface by saying that if you are a Jesus Myther then I will have to respectfully decline any further dialogue with you. I put Jesus Mythers in the same category as anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers, Young Earthers…and I usually refrain from discourse with these folks.)

Yes. I’m not a mythicist.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Does Stephen Hawking count?

hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

In paragraph 6 he brackets out “events before the big bang.” When he continues to talk about the beginning of time and beginning of the universe, he’s talking about this expanse of spacetime we find ourselves in, not necessarily all of physical reality.

He also nowhere alludes to a creatio ex nihilo situation, which was the bigger issue.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

So we are agreed that obeisance to logic, science, reason demands that we acknowledge an agent in the creation of the universe.

I wouldn’t go that far. I think it’s the option that makes the most sense, is, out defensible, and is therefore the one I believe. But I wouldn’t say that someone who believes in, say, infinite regress is being illogical or unreasonable.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I find this interesting.

“These are examples of supernatural events that might convince me”…but how would you know that these aren’t simply natural events that haven’t an explanation?

Well, I didn’t say anything quite so question-begging as what have have in quotation marks there, but I’ll try to explain.

In the case of my brother and his “magic rocks,” if the energy that is supposedly radiating from the crystals really is something that he and others can detect and has some sort of physical effect on them, it would have to be some kind of energy that we already know about and be able to detect; any sort of ‘new’ energy that it might be would not be able to have such an effect (Sean Carroll talks about this sort of thing here). So, if there is actually something going on, if my brother was able to reliably demonstrate that he was in fact sensing something, either our view of physics is very, very wrong (which isn’t likely; more Sean Carroll goodness here) or there is something supernatural going on. I’d view the supernatural explanation as being more likely.

Heck, there’s even examples of limbs growing spontaneously in nature, so were an amputee to be cured “miraculously”, wouldn’t that just be another example of a natural event?

youtube.com/watch?v=TsC-pkaVbA8

We do have some examples of regeneration in humans, but nothing as substantial as an amputated limb. If there was a case where it was confirmed to have happened, we could study to see what sort of regeneration was occurring and, if we have identified the genes responsible for that sort of regeneration in other animals, we could check the patient’s DNA for something similar. If it was there, then it’s probably natural.

But let’s say that the DNA wasn’t there, and we can’t find any genetic component to correspond with what was going on. That would start to tip the scales towards something supernatural, but there would be plenty of room for doubt. But what if it wasn’t just this one patient, but a slew of them, all connected to a particular faith healer traveling around the country? Then I’d say we had a bona fide miracle and naturalism is false. This would also be the case if instead of a slow, steady regeneration like we see in animals, we saw something like instantaneous regrowth.