Atheous

[tonyrey]

?

1. One assumption!
2. Does everything have a cause?
3. If so how do you know everything has a cause?
4. I**f not **second assumption!
5. Do you have teleological goals?.
6. If so what physical causes do they have?
7. If not how do they originate?

8.Assuming there is no teleology and lack of divine guidance is a colossal claim to make considering the immense number of teleological goals in the world.
The immense number of teleological goals in the world is abundant evidence - for those who are not deeply entrenched in physical causality .

An equally facile statement would be

“All you are doing is atheist apologetics”…

An equally facile statement would be

“(and to be so, you must have a source of infallible knowledge)” (I’m not Scottish!)
An equally facile statement would be
“then pray to yourself and tell us exactly how you obtain the power to make plans and purposes? By magical incantations?”

If you are a brute fact your opinion is certainly not of dubious value. It is utterly valueless!

An evasion of the truth - in which you don’t seem to be the slightest bit interested if it conflicts with your preconceived ideas…

Thank you for confirming that the brain is a marvel of design for which fortuitous combinations of molecules and random mutations are a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

As far as I’m aware there is no such thing as “causealogy”! You have overlooked the immense probability that the extreme complexity of the marvels of design in the universe are due to directed development rather than the aimless meanderings of irrational forces - from which your “rational” arguments are supposed to be derived!

We are back to blind forces steering the lump of tissue in your skull - which is propounding the hypothesis that your hypothesis is caused by blind forces steering the lump of tissue in your skull… A most fascinating phenomenon! There is certainly no homunculus nor a brain that is inexplicably capable of explaining itself. Perhaps you would let us have the secret of its ingenious mechanism…

Sometimes our posts are never read by their intended recipient but that doesn’t detract from their value (if any!) or the fun (undoubted!) we had writing them.

 

[cornbread_r2]

[snip]

At age 71 it may not be too late for you to reconsider, before you meet your Maker whom you so ferociously, and obviously without sufficient reason, deny.

If you don’t mind entertaining a question from the peanut gallery: How big a role, if any, does fear play in the construction and/or maintenance of your world view?

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you don’t mind entertaining a question from the peanut gallery: How big a role, if any, does fear play in the construction and/or maintenance of your world view?

None. I am not afraid of going to hell, and if I decided that God probably didn’t exist I would not spend a minute thinking about an afterlife. Actually, I don’t think much about it presently because I am busy lliving my life, even though of course I am thankful for the prospect of experiencing God’s glory.

 

[JDaniel]

Wads: Certainly I can agree that everything has an underlying mathematical structure, because of still deeper underlying Logical Necessity. But that does not produce strict determinism. Don’t tell me you are a determinist surely?-that’s not allowed in Christian apologetics; you are supposed to believe in the gift of freewill. Different thermodynamic systems all have a logcal/mathematical underpinning, but there are still multiple causes and multiple effects. What looks like freewill is just a big pile of causal events, governed by the same mathematics, but not part of the same sum,and is therefore illusory.

Wads:

What is the difference between “randomness” and “chance?”

You must have notuced that the proliferation of causes and effects over time is in fact Evolution?

Let’s find out what you believe the aforementioned two words mean, then we’ll go from there.

God bless (I hope you don’t mind),
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I have been re-checking the astronomer whom you cite,- Luke Barnes, and his article “debunking” Stenger appears to have been posted in “Nature” in April 2010.
As Victor Stenger himself says in one of the comment sections, his book “The Fallacy of Fine-tuning” was set to come out the following year. Checking my own copy which I purchased about 2 months ago, I see it was indeed published in May 2011.
Perhaps Barnes critique was a bit premature and is now out-dated?
However,even if Stenger was to be debunked generally, it would only be on scientific/mathematical grounds, and a replacement naturalistic model would have to be found. It would certainly not make a default argument for Intelligent Design by the Christian God. To propose that scenario would be to commit yet another fallacy: “The Argument from Ignorance”.

Wads:

This is not the point at which an argument for the “Christian God” should be conflated in. But, this is the point where most of the the significant real cosmologist physicists and astrophysicists concur: cosmological fine tuning is clearly the most plausible answer to be found on the right side of the equals sign, upon careful consideration of all of the parameters on the left. That that transcendent cause is the Christian God, is for other arguments, indeed.

It is also interesting that the mechanism for the bubble-formation of multiverse universes, is Albert Einstein’s equation from his Theory of General Relativity, which was, I’m sure, unintentional. Thus, one after the other, the inflationary theories and ekpyrotic theories fall victim to the requirement of (1) a beginning, and (2) a transcendent cause. In this, I am in alignment with Bruce L. Gordon, Ph.D.

Additionally, each one of the proposed theories to overcome fine tuning requires fine tuning, with some to such a fine degree that the fine tuning we see in the Big Bang is far easier to accept as plausible and realistic. The maths of each of the fine tuning variables are so fine, that even the slightest deviation from any one of them will produce not only a non-anthropic universe, it is hard to envision any universe of any kind. You’d better trust what All is telling you. In fact, that would be by far the most adult course of action. Instead, you should focus your attentions on the other problem you mentioned, that the transcendent cause is, or, is not, our God. Al suggested that you avert your eyes from reading bogus science and I concur. (My background: I was a biologist that also taught Biology, at - get ready, here it comes - the High School level - among other things.)

Without much doubt, the jury’s out on the issues of fine tuning, a beginning of the universe, and a transcendent cause. So, let’s see what you’ve got left.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I have had quite a bit of experience on forums like this one, and it is always the same. When you find that atheists are not the push-over you anticipated, you get cross and start up the Ad Hominems and general abuse. I always try to give reasoned evedential comments; sorry if it is more than you can stomach.

Wads:

You do not want me to go back through your many, disrespectful posts, to show you where you are wrong, do you? If you had originally come here to learn, you would learn. If you came here to practice your debating skills - at any cost - you will not, and might get your feelings hurt. I, for one, am not here to convert you. I have no power to do that. Only God’s free gift of efficacious grace can do that. And the moment you receive it, you will know that you have received it! There’s nothing we can do by our exquisite selves.

God bless,
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

Do you believe in brute facts?

Not in the sense of things falling outside divine providence, no. However, in the sense that some contingent things could have been otherwise, certainly, there are brute facts. For example, it is a brute fact that virtually all amino acids in living beings, including our bodies, are left-handed, and that almost all sugars in living beings are right-handed. It could have been the other way around, probably without making any significant difference. Or our genetic code could have been a 5-letter code instead of a 4-letter code, or our proteins could be built from 21 amino acids instead of 20. But if God allowed for such randomness and chance in the emergence of such facts, then it is because it falls under His providence.

I have written a post that may shed more light on my way of thinking on these issues:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7893029&postcount=523

 

[Al_Moritz]

I have been re-checking the astronomer whom you cite,- Luke Barnes, and his article “debunking” Stenger appears to have been posted in “Nature” in April 2010.
As Victor Stenger himself says in one of the comment sections, his book “The Fallacy of Fine-tuning” was set to come out the following year. Checking my own copy which I purchased about 2 months ago, I see it was indeed published in May 2011.
Perhaps Barnes critique was a bit premature and is now out-dated?

This just came out, very timely:

arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647

An extensive critique by Luke Barnes of Stenger’s most recent book, “The Fallacy of Fine-tuning”. I will read it over the holidays.

From the article:

“Let’s be clear on the task that Stenger has set for himself. There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. Stenger, on the other hand, claims that the universe is not fine-tuned.”

Interesting is also the presence of Dawkins in this long and not even exhaustive list. It is true, see The God Delusion.

 

[tonyrey]

If you don’t mind entertaining a question from the peanut gallery: How big a role, if any, does fear play in the construction and/or maintenance of your world view?

An argumentum ad hominem which is not even related to the topic!

 

[Al_Moritz]

An argumentum ad hominem which is not even related to the topic!

I didn’t mind answering it above

 

[tonyrey]

If you can’t stand the heat of informed people systematically picking apart your arguments and statements one by one, that’s too bad.

The heat seems to have been excessive…

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t mind answering it above

You’re more charitable than I am - but a little correction may not be amiss.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The heat seems to have been excessive…

I guess so

 

[cornbread_r2]

I didn’t mind answering it above

Thanks for responding. I also apologize for asking the wrong question and thereby giving my question the sense of an ad hom attack I did not intend. Sometimes my intentions are obscured by my tendency not to show all of my work.

As you’ll note, my question was attached to a statement you made to another poster advising him to reconsider the rationale for his unbelief before he met his Maker. In doing so, you seemed to me to be, rather incongruously, raising the element of fear into the discussion.

So my thinking went something like this: If Al Moritz thinks that fear should be a legitimate motivator for this unbeliever, I wonder how much of a role fear played in his own journey. Rather than jumping to asking you about yourself, I should have just asked: How much of a role do you think fear should play in anyone’s consideration of these matters? So again, I apologize for making it about you.

I also think, contrary to another poster’s objection, that question is on-topic in that I think that any discussion of the probabilities of God’s existence might legitimately include, somewhere in the calculation, the possible prior of a god who just might punish someone for being too stupid. For someone such as myself, perhaps you can appreciate why that might be a concern.

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for responding. I also apologize for asking the wrong question and thereby giving my question the sense of an ad hom attack I did not intend. Sometimes my intentions are obscured by my tendency not to show all of my work.

As you’ll note, my question was attached to a statement you made to another poster advising him to reconsider the rationale for his unbelief before he met his Maker. In doing so, you seemed to me to be, rather incongruously, raising the element of fear into the discussion.

So my thinking went something like this: If Al Moritz thinks that fear should be a legitimate motivator for this unbeliever, I wonder how much of a role fear played in his own journey. Rather than jumping to asking you about yourself, I should have just asked: How much of a role do you think fear should play in anyone’s consideration of these matters? So again, I apologize for making it about you.

I also think, contrary to another poster’s objection, that question is on-topic in that I think that any discussion of the probabilities of God’s existence might legitimately include, somewhere in the calculation, the possible prior of a god who just might punish someone for being too stupid. For someone such as myself, perhaps you can appreciate why that might be a concern.

Cornbread:

God doesn’t punish the invincibly ignorant. “Invincible ignorance” is that state of a person, or, people, when he/they do not know, nor have ever been in a position to learn of God. But, does invincible ignorance actually exist? If it does, it probably only exists in the newborn that immediately dies, or, the unborn that is miscarried or killed. Now, in your case, you have found yourself in this forum, you know of God and are capable of making that final determination to reject, or receive Him. The rejection of God is the path to Hell.

The above is not the only example of real invincible ignorance, but it is the one appropriate to the scenario you presented. Refusal to learn and willful negligence are the same as rejection.

God bless,
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks for responding. I also apologize for asking the wrong question and thereby giving my question the sense of an ad hom attack I did not intend. Sometimes my intentions are obscured by my tendency not to show all of my work.

As you’ll note, my question was attached to a statement you made to another poster advising him to reconsider the rationale for his unbelief before he met his Maker. In doing so, you seemed to me to be, rather incongruously, raising the element of fear into the discussion.

So my thinking went something like this: If Al Moritz thinks that fear should be a legitimate motivator for this unbeliever, I wonder how much of a role fear played in his own journey. Rather than jumping to asking you about yourself, I should have just asked: How much of a role do you think fear should play in anyone’s consideration of these matters? So again, I apologize for making it about you.

I also think, contrary to another poster’s objection, that question is on-topic in that I think that any discussion of the probabilities of God’s existence might legitimately include, somewhere in the calculation, the possible prior of a god who just might punish someone for being too stupid. For someone such as myself, perhaps you can appreciate why that might be a concern.

Don’t worry, no need to apologize. I took your question as being based on the good intentions of thought process that you mentioned, so I had no problem with it. However, I agree with most of what JDaniel said in his reply to your post; the issue is serious. The quest for truth must be a completely honest and exhaustive one, and in my case it lead me to retaining my faith after a crisis a few years ago. My quest for truth was so exhaustive that I know all the arguments in favor of atheism better, and I have weighed them far more thoroughly, than probably most atheists will do in their lifetime. I suppose that if, after thoroughly considering everything, you decide with a fully clear conscience that you do not find any reasons to believe, God might have understanding, but again, the quest for truth cannot be taken lightly.

But no, fear of hell as such did not play a significant role in my considerations of the arguments during my crisis. The knowledge that the quest for truth must be serious did.

 

[tonyrey]

I guess so

It’s amusing how every few weeks most of them arrive brimming with confidence and then after a brief skirmish retire without a word… except for one or two who resort to abuse and nitpicking…

 

[JDaniel]

It’s amusing how every few weeks most of them arrive brimming with confidence and then after a brief skirmish retire without a word… except for one or two who resort to abuse and nitpicking…

It’s also interesting that some atheists have been respectfully here for years - and I count many of them as friends. I have been to some of the hate-filled atheist forums. There was nothing in them to entice me to stay beyond the first few posts that I read, much to my weak-stomach dismay. (I felt that I needed to take a shower after going to them! Ugh!)

Catholic Answers Forum is the forum-of-forums from what I have seen. Wads might be back. He’s just a kid. He’ll grow a thicker skin sooner or later. Actually, I thought we were all pretty gentle with him.

God bless, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
jd

 

[Perplexity]

So, I’ve been thinking…this argument may not be dead after all. If you recall, the problem was with material conditionals. I tried to justify the argument on their basis, and it turned out the theist could use them against me just as easily.

But, why use material conditionals?

I propose we examine the argument as it is but without reference to material conditionals.

This means I’ll have to do some work for motivating my premises (which I feel I can do), but, it also means the theist has to as well.

Can anyone think of an argument that would show that the probability of inscrutable suffering given theism is 1.0, not involving material conditionals?

I think Atheous might be resurrected

 

[tonyrey]

It’s also interesting that some atheists have been respectfully here for years - and I count many of them as friends. I have been to some of the hate-filled atheist forums. There was nothing in them to entice me to stay beyond the first few posts that I read, much to my weak-stomach dismay. (I felt that I needed to take a shower after going to them! Ugh!)

Catholic Answers Forum is the forum-of-forums from what I have seen. Wads might be back. He’s just a kid. He’ll grow a thicker skin sooner or later. Actually, I thought we were all pretty gentle with him.

God bless, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

jd

A belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, jd! I haven’t been following this thread and have just noticed your post.

Sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind. Otherwise we give the impression we’re a bunch of meek and mild nitwits instead of followers of a courageous Master who didn’t mince words but attacked falsehood at every opportunity even though it cost Him His life.

I agree with you about this forum. It’s the cream of the cream which has transformed my life for the past three years! To be banned would give me further insight into the nature of hell…