Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[I_Leatherman]

I think you need to cut that second line by 2 syllables, and add 3 to the third. Isn’t the pattern 5-7-5?

free style …

 

[freesoulhope]

Good for you.

I see things differently.

Yes, thats fine, but are you seeing things in light of whats is logical? Cause thats all that matters in the long run.

I suppose in the end, its your belief system, and according to some athiests (more specifcally Richard Dawkins), belief is not rational, therefore you do not need to give me a rational explanation for your belief, such as the ones i have given you for the existents of God.

Its been nice talking, we all have got a lot to learn; good luck on your lifes journey, and forgive me if i have had an arrogant tone to my writing through-ut this debate.

See ya later.
Peace.

 

[Mirdath]

Let’s see if I can pull this off:

1. A fool thinks of God
   The greatest thing must exist
   Ontological

A. Can we really trust
An avowed idiot
To think properly?

B. Must the greatest thing
Exist in truth, a snowflake
On a summer’s day?

1. All things have a cause
   No infinite regression
   Something isn’t made

A. Infinity, strange
But we don’t know everything
Never say never

B. A thing is uncaused
But does that make it divine?
Maybe by some lights

1. Don’t believe in God
   If I’m right you go to hell
   If you’re right who cares?

A. A laughing wager
It was funny the first time
Even Pascal nods

B. Seriously, stop
I can’t pretend to believe
Give me faith, not bets

 

[MerryAtheist]

Mirdath, you clearly have time on your hands…

 

[Suat]

If that were true, i doubt that we would exist. If one creates something, nomatter how small, and on top of that, give us awarness above mere animals to such an extent that we can concieve of a concept such as God, I would think that we would have at least some importance to God, since we are more then just mere matter; we have “person”. Thats just common sense.

Depends on what you think the odds are. I bet we disagree on that. By the way, I can conceive of many things that do not exist, so I do not think that mankind’s ability to imagine should dictate reality.

Breaking from the poetry posts because it is simply not where my talents lie.

 

[freesoulhope]

Depends on what you think the odds are. I bet we disagree on that. By the way, I can conceive of many things that do not exist, so I do not think that mankind’s ability to imagine should dictate reality.
.

If the odds that God does not exist are based on illogical or false factors, and i can demonstrate through logical arguement that they are false, then, its a very high probability that i will disagree with you.

By the way, I can conceive of many things that do not exist, so I do not think that mankind’s ability to imagine should dictate reality.

I never said that imagining God, is proof of Gods existents. Im not quite sure why you have said that. In any case, how would we concieve of atoms, if we could not imagine and apply are imagination to the real world? These things are not visible.

 

[freesoulhope]

Let’s see if I can pull this off:

1. A fool thinks of God
   The greatest thing must exist
   Ontological

A. Can we really trust
An avowed idiot
To think properly?

B. Must the greatest thing
Exist in truth, a snowflake
On a summer’s day?

1. All things have a cause
   No infinite regression
   Something isn’t made

A. Infinity, strange
But we don’t know everything
Never say never

B. A thing is uncaused
But does that make it divine?
Maybe by some lights

1. Don’t believe in God
   If I’m right you go to hell
   If you’re right who cares?

A. A laughing wager
It was funny the first time
Even Pascal nods

B. Seriously, stop
I can’t pretend to believe
Give me faith, not bets

What the hell are you on?!!! Chill out dude.

 

[Mirdath]

What the hell are you on?!!! Chill out dude.

Right now, beer. Delirium Tremens label, I highly recommend it. I was, believe it or don’t, cold sober when I wrote that.

And to MerryAtheist: what can I say, I love my job I like being me in general

 

[cpayne]

All right; I know it’s very anal-retentive to criticize the theological point of a haiku, but—to Mirdath:

According to the ontological argument, the greatest thing does not necessarily have to exist.

The greatest POSSIBLE being—now that’s different.

This is why Anselm argues with Gaunilo that his ontological argument can apply ONLY to God’s existence, not to anything else, no matter how great, that could possibly be instantiated in the physical realm.

 

[Mirdath]

All right; I know it’s very anal-retentive to criticize the theological point of a haiku, but—to Mirdath:

According to the ontological argument, the greatest thing does not necessarily have to exist.

The greatest POSSIBLE being—now that’s different.

This is why Anselm argues with Gaunilo that his ontological argument can apply ONLY to God’s existence, not to anything else, no matter how great, that could possibly be instantiated in the physical realm.

A being than which nothing greater can be conceived – Anselm’s wording – blurs the line between ‘greatest’ and ‘greatest possible’, for it seeks to prove that the latter and the former are one.

Or you could just wreck the syllabic structure and read ‘possible’ after each ‘greatest’

 

[Suat]

If the odds that God does not exist are based on illogical or false factors, and i can demonstrate through logical arguement that they are false, then, its a very high probability that i will disagree with you.

I think we disagree on what is ‘illogical or false’ though. At least I can never seem to understand your ‘logic’ and vice versa.

I never said that imagining God, is proof of Gods existents. Im not quite sure why you have said that. In any case, how would we concieve of atoms, if we could not imagine and apply are imagination to the real world? These things are not visible.

No, I suppose you did not. Instead you started with the premise that God does exist and that he created us with the capacity to ‘know’ him. Then used the fact that some believed as reasoning for us being important to God. However, that line of reasoning completely leaves out the fact that we evolved and that there is a nicely high chance that our ability to envision a being that we call ‘God’ is a result of natural processes and not supernatural ones.

 

[cpayne]

A being than which nothing greater can be conceived – Anselm’s wording – blurs the line between ‘greatest’ and ‘greatest possible’, for it seeks to prove that the latter and the former are one.

Hmm. I’m not sure. The latter and the former are one, IF God exists.

If God does not exist and (let’s say) the universe is the greatest existing entity, that still doesn’t make the universe God. Nor would the universe be the greatest possible being.

If God does exist, then God is the greatest being and also the greatest possible being.

It seems Anselm is out to prove the existence of a greatest possible being, not a greatest being. However, at that point I would acknowledge what you said: Proving the existence of the greatest possible being also proves the existence of the greatest being. Just not vice versa.

 

[freesoulhope]

However, that line of reasoning completely leaves out the fact that we evolved and that there is a nicely high chance that our ability to envision a being that we call ‘God’ is a result of natural processes and not supernatural ones.

I believe that we are biological, just as much as we are spirit; I believe we use are brains in order to identify and interact with the material world. Whether we evolved or not, is not relevant to why we have a capacity to know God, or why we would want to know. Evolution, more specifically natural selection, does a very good job explaining why some bennificail mannerism and desires have survived, and i believe in natural selection; on the other hand, it does not, in my mind, explain the conceptual desires in man or the mannerisms that have survived. It does not add up to me, to think that your “personal self” is a product of unconcious atoms; arrange in a particulor mathmatical pattern. Atoms do not have that nature of conscience, as in to “think”, so why should they produce creatures that think? Matter, by itself, can explain unconcious things that are guided by enviromental forces; but when you go up to the level of conciousness; you are transending the flesh; Why should matter become Personal. Something like that should encourage you to think that there is something more to it then matter.

Natural selection definetly explains why a spiders web has survived as a manerism, but it doesn’t explain why it weaved the web; one can say there was a mutation that gave it silk, but why would it weave a web to catch its pray and regonise it as benificail, when it doesn’t “think” to level that we can regognise something to be bennificial. Im not sure if thats a good arguement for God, but i do think that natural selection and mutation, doesn’t fully explain the mannerisms themselves; and even if it does, it does not exclude Gods existents. Nature may well be a closed system that works by itself, however, we still have to account for the existents of that system.

Evolution only explains the processes, the mechanisms and the variety of biological organisms; it does not explain the existents of the universe, and cannot be used as an explanation for it. You have to look at the bigger picture, the whole; if you look at the bits that pleases you, such as evolution, then what reason is there for you to think that there is a God? But if you look at the whole, then God makes absolute sense, and becomes a nessesity if we are to think that the universe and all it intricate mechanisms makes any sense at all.

The world poping out of nothing just doesn’t add up. Im not just saying that to justify my belief, im saying it because it really doesn’t add up, and if the universe has a nature that makes sense, then its reasonable to expect the cause to make rational sense a well; otherwise, who are we to say what is rational belief or what is normal, or what is right and what is wrong—upon what do we measure truth? We cannot advocate science as a revealer of truth, if we believe in logical contradictions such as the world poping out of nothing.

 

[freesoulhope]

Continued…

The empirical evidence should suggest to your commonsense, that the “cause” of the universe, transends time space and matter, because that makes more sense of the evidence, rather then the world poping out of nothing; a logical impossiblity.

I just dont understand why somebody can’t see the logic of that?

There is enough common-sense proof, for anybody who is willing to except the existence of God.

Peace.

 

[MerryAtheist]

The world poping out of nothing just doesn’t add up. Im not just saying that to justify my belief, im saying it because it really doesn’t add up, and if the universe has a nature that makes sense, then its reasonable to expect the cause to make rational sense a well; otherwise, who are we to say what is rational belief or what is normal, or what is right and what is wrong—upon what do we measure truth? We cannot advocate science as a revealer of truth, if we believe in logical contradictions such as the world poping out of nothing.

Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis presents a rational, scientific, response to the claim that the creation of matter can only have happened through the actions of a divine creator (a la miracle).

To summarize:

Einstein theorized that matter can be created out of energy, and can also disappear into energy. His equation E=mc2 essentially states that even at rest, matter still contains energy. Stenger, a respected physicist, goes on to state that nuclear and chemical interactions can convert kinetic energy into rest energy, which is equivalent to generating mass. Additionally, nuclear and chemical reactions can also convert mass or rest energy into kinetic energy.

Essentially, mass can come from energy. The question then, is where does the energy come from? Stenger presents the law of conservation of energy (aka the first law of thermodynamics) that requires energy to come from somewhere. If it can be shown by direct observation, or theoretical proofs that the conservation of energy was violated at the time of the Big Bang, then one would have a good case for a creator.

But in point of fact, there is no evidence that the law of conservation of energy has been violated. The law permits energy to convert from one form to another as long as the total energy of the universe remains at zero. He quotes Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time: "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.”

Stenger sums up the argument thusly: “In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occured. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.”

I guess if you still think it just “doesn’t add up” you might want to take up the issue with most physicists, who see things a bit differently. They present a very reasonable explanation that doesn’t need the existence of a creator being.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis presents a rational, scientific, response to the claim that the creation of matter can only have happened through the actions of a divine creator (a la miracle).

To summarize:

Einstein theorized that matter can be created out of energy, and can also disappear into energy. His equation E=mc2 essentially states that even at rest, matter still contains energy. Stenger, a respected physicist, goes on to state that nuclear and chemical interactions can convert kinetic energy into rest energy, which is equivalent to generating mass. Additionally, nuclear and chemical reactions can also convert mass or rest energy into kinetic energy.

Essentially, mass can come from energy. The question then, is where does the energy come from? Stenger presents the law of conservation of energy (aka the first law of thermodynamics) that requires energy to come from somewhere. If it can be shown by direct observation, or theoretical proofs that the conservation of energy was violated at the time of the Big Bang, then one would have a good case for a creator.

But in point of fact, there is no evidence that the law of conservation of energy has been violated. The law permits energy to convert from one form to another as long as the total energy of the universe remains at zero. He quotes Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time: "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.”

Stenger sums up the argument thusly: “In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occured. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.”

I guess if you still think it just “doesn’t add up” you might want to take up the issue with most physicists, who see things a bit differently. They present a very reasonable explanation that doesn’t need the existence of a creator being.

Are you saying that in the beginning, (who cares where that was), that there was just infinite energy to infinity in every infinite direction.
And then energy decided without any prompting or poking to create a finite material space in infinity. Do the scientists say that the universe contains all the energy there is or that its just using a small portion of the infinite kenetic energy … which is everywhere to infinity?..

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirdath forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
‘We don’t know (yet)’ doesn’t require faith of any sort.

Who would have thought that such a simple concept is that difficult to understand?

“God is absolute love!” – Who would have thought that such a simple concept is that difficult to understand?



But to the actual statement that, “We don’t know (yet)’ doesn’t require faith of any sort.” …

To know that we don’t know something that we may think may be very important and then have the ability to “move on to other things”, having FAITH that we can do so and not have to “worry” about not knowing for certain, is the essence of faith.

Knowing God is knowing that we are limited critters, and that God will take care of us as is best for us, such that we can leave at least some things up to Him to take care of while we do those things that we CAN do from what we DO know.

You show your faith in the fact that you are willing to not have to know everything right now, when you “agnosticize” your belief in God.

That is your faith.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis presents a rational, scientific, response to the claim that the creation of matter can only have happened through the actions of a divine creator (a la miracle).

To summarize:

Einstein theorized that matter can be created out of energy, and can also disappear into energy. His equation E=mc2 essentially states that even at rest, matter still contains energy. Stenger, a respected physicist, goes on to state that nuclear and chemical interactions can convert kinetic energy into rest energy, which is equivalent to generating mass. Additionally, nuclear and chemical reactions can also convert mass or rest energy into kinetic energy.

Essentially, mass can come from energy. The question then, is where does the energy come from? Stenger presents the law of conservation of energy (aka the first law of thermodynamics) that requires energy to come from somewhere. If it can be shown by direct observation, or theoretical proofs that the conservation of energy was violated at the time of the Big Bang, then one would have a good case for a creator.

But in point of fact, there is no evidence that the law of conservation of energy has been violated. The law permits energy to convert from one form to another as long as the total energy of the universe remains at zero. He quotes Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time: "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.”

Stenger sums up the argument thusly: “In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occured. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.”

I guess if you still think it just “doesn’t add up” you might want to take up the issue with most physicists, who see things a bit differently. They present a very reasonable explanation that doesn’t need the existence of a creator being.

Ummm…

That all boils down to having a bag of rocks, which, if it remains a bag of rocks, proves that the bag of rocks is indeed a bag of rocks.

This “theory” doesn’t even address the question of where the bag of rocks came from, much less answer it.

Comments?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[cpayne]

Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis presents a rational, scientific, response to the claim that the creation of matter can only have happened through the actions of a divine creator (a la miracle).

To summarize:

Einstein theorized that matter can be created out of energy, and can also disappear into energy. His equation E=mc2 essentially states that even at rest, matter still contains energy. Stenger, a respected physicist, goes on to state that nuclear and chemical interactions can convert kinetic energy into rest energy, which is equivalent to generating mass. Additionally, nuclear and chemical reactions can also convert mass or rest energy into kinetic energy.

Essentially, mass can come from energy. The question then, is where does the energy come from? Stenger presents the law of conservation of energy (aka the first law of thermodynamics) that requires energy to come from somewhere. If it can be shown by direct observation, or theoretical proofs that the conservation of energy was violated at the time of the Big Bang, then one would have a good case for a creator.

But in point of fact, there is no evidence that the law of conservation of energy has been violated. The law permits energy to convert from one form to another as long as the total energy of the universe remains at zero. He quotes Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time: "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.”

Stenger sums up the argument thusly: “In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occured. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.”

I guess if you still think it just “doesn’t add up” you might want to take up the issue with most physicists, who see things a bit differently. They present a very reasonable explanation that doesn’t need the existence of a creator being.

A problem with this is the problem of “conversion,” not conservation. Anything that changes, even if only in form, is contingent—that is, it requires a cause to move it from one state of being to another. Logically the cause must exist for the effect (the conversion in states of being) to take place. This is why (I think I’ll put this in capital letters) AQUINAS DID NOT DEPEND IN HIS ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING. In fact, he assumed for the purposes of his logical arguments that it did NOT, in fact, have a beginning in time.

So even if the scenario played out exactly as you described, even though this might affect some versions of the cosmological argument, it would not affect Aquinas’s version at all. The contingent universe would still require a Creator.

 

[Suat]

“God is absolute love!” – Who would have thought that such a simple concept is that difficult to understand?

I have no problem understanding that statement. You do seem to have a problem demonstrating that it is true though…

To know that we don’t know something that we may think may be very important and then have the ability to “move on to other things”, having FAITH that we can do so and not have to “worry” about not knowing for certain, is the essence of faith.

I cannot speak for the rest of the non-theists here, but this is not the reason why I ‘move on to other things’.

You show your faith in the fact that you are willing to not have to know everything right now, when you “agnosticize” your belief in God.

That is your faith.

That is not quite the definition of faith. Which definition are you using? I prefer Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. In case you missed it, there was no ‘I do not know’ in that verse