atheists : this is the best way to determine if god exists or not , a new way , see if it is right for yourselves dear friends ...

[You]

This is just commentary, but if you removed the word “cloud” then you will find that some people do say that “God is energy.” I see it more frequently from people that see God as having more of a panentheistic view of the world.

energy is created. eternal spirit is better. spirit is beyond and before and after created things.

 

[You]

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is a law, what makes God an exception to this law? And if he can “break” the law, then it is not really a law; if the law can be broken by God, then assuredly nature can do the same as well, for the only thing certain in nature are death and taxes.

Thats why its called a law of nature not a law of God. Nature cannot break a law of nature itself, but He can because it is not a law of God.

 

[ishii]

Been there, done that. I spent slightly over a year going to Mass regularly; praying the rosary and novenas; regular confession; reading about the lives of the saints; even went on the World Youth Day just over a month ago - ultimately to the conclusion that there is no God.

So I’m not searching for what does not exist, and I speculate that’s the same for a lot of other atheists that roam these boards.

Been there done that, eh? Your comments bring to mind A Man For All Seasons in which Thomas More responds to Roper (who wants to marry Thomas More’s daughter) :

" Roper. Two years ago you were a passionate Churchman; now you’re a passionate-Lutheran. We must just pray that when your head’s finished turning, your face is to the front again."

Changed to suit the times, it could read: “two years ago you were a devout Catholic; now you’re a devout atheist. We must pray that when your heads finished turning, your face is to the front again.” Two years I can understand, but just over a month ago? Was there some pivotal event that changed your mind so suddenly? Some kind of “aha” moment?

Ishii

 

[Perplexity]

The scientific law of conservation of mass and energy. There is no physical process by which matter or energy are either created or annihilated.
Logical conclusion: They were created by a process on the supernatural order.

I can’t discern an argument here. I mean, I understand that you take these laws of physics to support supernatural creation; but, I’m not sure why.

These laws only apply in isolated systems, you’d need to show that the universe is an isolated system. Further, you’d need to show that it began to exist. Your comments above do neither. Even if you were able to accomplish these, the atheist can still say it’s possible the universe began to exist without a cause.

 

[tonyrey]

1. The argument from Design
2. The argument from Causality
3. The argument from Morality
4. The argument from Development
5. The argument from Love

It is a respnse to the assertion that " trying to understand and know and believe in god through intellectual knowledge is rather flimsy"!

But, a quick point…I highly doubt Vatican 1 had in mind anything other than Thomas’ five ways.
I have no idea which arguments of the kinds you mentioned above you have in mind. From design there is the alleged signature in the cell, or Collins’ bayesian approach, or WLC’s disjunctive argument etc. From causality there are any number of the kalam’s, leibnizian’s, thomistic’s etc. From morality…don’t even get me started on how many axiological arguments there are lol. etc. Remember I was speaking about Vatican 1 .

Vatican 1 didn’t specify which arguments but in any case one is the First Cause and another is the Teleological Argument…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

energy is created.

Makes me think of the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[Perplexity]

It is a respnse to the assertion that " trying to understand and know and believe in god through intellectual knowledge is rather flimsy"!

Vatican 1 didn’t specify which arguments but in any case one is the First Cause and another is the Teleological Argument…

Sorry, which ones?

 

[You]

Makes me think of the first law of thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics relates to our universe, if I am correct. But what about all those infinite number of multiverses when energy does not have these particular laws. Or what of the state of being before the big bang when there was no universe, matter, time, energy - E=MC2 - but if there is no C and no M where is the E?

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry, which ones?

The argument from Design and the argument from Causality! Different names but basically the same reasons - that purpose implies an intelligent cause and an infinite regress of causes is an inadequate explanation.

 

[Jeffe]

Just read the original post, I liked it.

I’ll sit out of the argument side…this time

 

[Perplexity]

The argument from Design and the argument from Causality! Different names but basically the same reasons - that purpose implies an intelligent cause and an infinite regress of causes is an inadequate explanation.

wow

 

[tonyrey]

The argument from Design and the argument from Causality! Different names but basically the same reasons - that purpose implies an intelligent cause and an infinite regress of causes is an inadequate explanation.

I’m not sure what that implies…

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

These laws only apply in isolated systems, you’d need to show that the universe is an isolated system. Further, you’d need to show that it began to exist. Your comments above do neither. Even if you were able to accomplish these, the atheist can still say it’s possible the universe began to exist without a cause.

I’ve always wondered this as well. What is the opinion of physicists here? Is the universe a closed system or not? Isn’t it strongly suggested that it is, given the fact that the universe is undergoing entropy?

 

[Perplexity]

I’m not sure what that implies…

Well, what the theist wants is at least a sound argument for theism. That’s the goal of these arguments. So first, the theist needs to give his argument a logically valid form such that if its premises are true then its conclusion must also be true. Then, the theist will try and show that the premises are true.

Each of the many different arguments under the headings ‘teleological arguments’ and ‘arguments from causality’ can take different forms and employ different premises. Therefore, the soundness of these arguments don’t necessarily stand or fall together.

e.g., You seem to think arguments from causality need to reject infinite regression; but, there are arguments from causality that don’t touch on that issue: they employ different premises.

 

[Luke_K]

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is a law, what makes God an exception to this law? And if he can “break” the law, then it is not really a law; if the law can be broken by God, then assuredly nature can do the same as well, for the only thing certain in nature are death and taxes.

It’s not a metaphysical law. A non-existing thing does not have properties, such as the inability to be created or destroyed. Creation ex nihilo doesn’t violate any physical law because there was nothing existing to prevent itself from being created. To say that energy could prevent itself from being created is like saying I could have stopped my parents from conceiving me.

Thermodynamics seems to be applied more haphazardly than any other scientific idea in philosophical discussions. They are NOT metaphysical laws. They are mathematical, empirical, physical laws, with simple, practical, historical origins. The First law is already simply known by everyone, whether they realize it or not. It’s just the more rigorous formulation for why eating a Snicker’s bar won’t make you gain 10 pounds or putting 1 gallon of gas in your SUV won’t let you drive 500 miles.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

… it seems a lot of atheists come here and seem all too oft to really want to know if god exists , so i thought of a new way for them to test the water that can work , trying to believe in god on an intellectual basis is usually inadequate and they and oft believers have trouble with this more or less …

… but there is a better way to find the answer , and i believe those relying on the purely intellectual proofs don’t know it , i’m proposing a way of discerning if god is real or not based on experience , stick with me and let me explain …

{snip}

… but the man through thick and thin stuck by the girl , and through the passage of time began to love her , but the man wanted to know if the girl loved him too , so he asked her if she did , and she said yes , i’ve always loved you , did you not know that ??? , the man asked her to prove it as he was not sure , the man pointed out all the bad things that happened in the relationship and enquired why ??? ,

After reading your OP, I was considering responding to it directly. However, reading through the thread, I noticed that Touchstone has already eloquently laid down the objections that I would have mentioned:

On your method, I say to you it’s self-defeating. To take your approach is to evade the question entirely, and to become credulous at the outset, forfeiting the most important tools you have available to you in trying to apprehend the world around you and discern what is real from what is not.

{snip}

The very problem we are looking at initially is whether we have a reasonable basis to even think God exists in the first place. Your recommendation completely corrupts that, suggesting I assume its true, and see if I can contextualize everything that happens in my life in light of that.

Well, of course I can. That is facile, and tells me nothing. That’s what Christianity (and other forms of religion are designed (er, socially evolved) to do: provide an anodyne metanarrative that is at once gratifying, simplifying and utterly unfalsifiable.

On a similar note, your argument is an equivocation that starts with the assumption that a god exists. The equivocation is in comparing a claim about something inside one’s mind (whether the girl loves him) and whether something outside the mind that is in the real world if it exists (a god).

However, your response to him is something that I want to address:

… i cannot comprehend why one would disbelieve in god

Would lack of evidence be a good reason for not believing in a god?

but if you say your atheist it is choice and a faith you cannot prove

Beliefs are compulsory, not volitional. One’s belief or non-belief in a god is not a choice just like one’s belief or non-belief that he is Napoleon is not a choice.

Also, non-belief such as a-theism, by definition cannot be faith, which is the belief in something without evidence.

i should not have to prove god exists at all , i struggle to understan why it must be done

Actually, the philosophic burden of proof is on those who make the claim, not on those who do not accept the claim. In other words, the burden of proof is on those who claim that a god exists, not on those who don’t accept the claim that a god exists. Imagine if people claimed that fairies without evidence!

no god = nothing exists

Atheism is not nihilism.

… i write how i do because i believe it a better way to write

I think a better way to write would be to use proper punctuation.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism is not nihilism.

What values does it have?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;8404706:

John Russell Jr;8399333:

no god = nothing exists

Atheism is not nihilism.

What values does it have?

You have a knack for asking irrelevant questions that you seem to think are relevant.

Atheism (lack of belief in a god) is by itself neutral with regard to values, just like not believing in entities such as fairies, unicorns, or leprechaun is neutral with regard to values. One can have many values as an atheist. On the other hand, nihilism, in the context in which is was discussed, is the belief that nothing exists.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dearest friends ,

… i’ll reply to some soon , but especially when i disprove all atheistic arguments from the philosophy of religion www i mention , but also at times elsewhere it is vital you understand , and i’m especially speaking to good catholics , that my whole time in the holy catholic church has been one of striving to be the most orthodox catholic that ever lives , but much of my theory will seem to contradict this and our holy cathollic faith , it is vital you try and understand none of my beliefs in anyway contradict or oppose the teachings of holy mother church , but my understanding of some topics will seem strange and even unorthodox and this , i hope , is only because my understanding of certain truths has evolved to a higher understanding foe me …

… when understood as a whole my faith is perfectly catholic , i have just striven to remove as much contradiction , inconsistency , misunderstanding ,mystery and incompleteness from our holy faith in my own head , so if at times i seem in fairy land i am not , just bear this in mind , and perhaps just look at me as a philosopher / theologian trying to gain a deeper understanding of the beyond infinite mysteries of all the teachings of our most holy catholic faith , ultimately i am and will always be that catholic striving for orthodixy supremacy , just know this dear friends please , and bear with me as misunderstandings occur , that is all i ask dearest friends …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[ThinkingSapien]

TruthSeeker60;8404706:

Atheism is not nihilism.

What values does it have?

That’s an inapplicable question . The term “atheist” is a label for those that don’t hold a belief in a “god.” The term “god” itself is ambiguous by itself so there’s a number of other terms that are used to label how many gods one thinks exists and the relationship that the god or gods have with the universe. None of these labels (atheist, deist, monotheist, theists, polytheist, pandeists, so on) imply a specific value system. People to which the same label is applied may have different value systems. People to which different labels are applied may have similar value systems.

I’m of the opinion that the only way to get to know some one’s values is to get to know the person. Even if the person declares a religion to which you associate certain values a person may not conform to those associations. You would have to get to know the person to know what in what he or she finds value.