ATTENTION ATHEISTS: Your argument is weak! [edited title]

[eddydenton]

One could look God in the face and not see Him if they refuse to do so.

Humans have an uncanny ability to see what they what to see. Just as one could look God in the face and not see Him if they refuse to do so, one could also look at a blank wall and see God if they are determined enough. People determined to justify their beliefs are too quick to interpret everyday coincidences as signs from God because it is all they are looking for.

God wants you to search, but with an open mind and heart. The search and journey is what is important.

This is a good way of looking at it but it needs to be reciprocal. You have to be willing to search as objectively as possible and be open to this possibility that there is no God. If that is a non-negotiable part of your philosophical practice then you not truly searching with an open heart and mind.

Do you desire to experience God?

Yes. And if He presented himself to me in such a way that I could be satisfied of his existence. I would take it on as a subject truth but never assume that it was the ultimate truth. One should always be open to the possibility that one may have been deceived eg. taken too much cough medecine and have hallucinated the whole experience. We can have the most convincing evidence but ultimately there is no “proof” that we can have to claim we know the “truth” about God’s existence (or anything else for that matter).

 

[Leela]

Atheists are arrogant. That is one reason they cannot experience God.

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

 

[eddydenton]

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

Well said. However do not assume science can provide the “truth” either. It too is a self-referential system. The validity of science is only proven by science. A bit like saying 2 equals 2. All we have is appearances of truth.

 

[Leela]

Hi Eddy,

Any system of though that professes to reveal the absolute, undying, irrefutable objective truth is inherently flawed. This applies to Catholics as much as Atheists. You can’t know the truth. You can’t really know anything for sure, for that is assuming you already know what true knowledge is.

As a pragmatist, I see truth as a species of good. It is that which is good by way of belief. To believe in the existence of true knowledge is just to say that some beliefs are better than others and doesn’t require that we be in possession of any particular truths.

All you have is subjective experience and rational thought.

As an empiricist, I start with experience. To say that experience is subjective is an inference from experience. It comes from recognizing that the experiences of others are not the same as yours. We also infer objectivity from experience as we recognize that the experiences of others are in some ways very similar to ours. Experience always comes first, then comes the building of a collection of analogues upon analogues for experience that form what we know as reality. Culture is a shared set of analogues.

Though this too is not unquestionable because reason too is a system of thought that professes to be a method of determining truth.

I don’t see reason as a method but rather as a compliment we pay to good rationales. Logic is a codification of reason to express rules that result in truth. It is a method but is only a subset of reason.

Hence we are limited to creating systems of thought that most appeal to our sensibilities, whilst being aware that they are not irrefutable truths. They are an appearance of the truth.

I don’t think a distinction between Truth and appearances of the truth are necessary if truth is a property of sentences rather than an essence.

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

Humans have an uncanny ability to see what they what to see. Just as one could look God in the face and not see Him if they refuse to do so, one could also look at a blank wall and see God if they are determined enough. People determined to justify their beliefs are too quick to interpret everyday coincidences as signs from God because it is all they are looking for.

This is a good way of looking at it but it needs to be reciprocal. You have to be willing to search as objectively as possible and be open to this possibility that there is no God. If that is a non-negotiable part of your philosophical practice then you not truly searching with an open heart and mind.

Yes. And if He presented himself to me in such a way that I could be satisfied of his existence. I would take it on as a subject truth but never assume that it was the ultimate truth. One should always be open to the possibility that one may have been deceived eg. taken too much cough medecine and have hallucinated the whole experience. We can have the most convincing evidence but ultimately there is no “proof” that we can have to claim we know the “truth” about God’s existence (or anything else for that matter).

Faith and reason cannot be opposed. So therefore the truthts of science support the truth of God.

Catholics do not see everything as a “miracle”. We see natural events that sometimes are coincidental. God acts and can act in nature and outside. We cannot call everything miraculous. So I pretty much agree with what you are stating.

Many faithful have been open to there not being a God at some point in time. For a brief flicker or many years. St Paul said we should search all things. (paraphrasing)

We desire to know God. We cannot desire what we cannot know.

Many Catholics will identify with what the following:

When we attained the age of reason 7 or so, most have reeived the sacraments of penance and Holy Communion. In this innocent stage, not yet influenced by age and experience, I experienced God in an utmost way. I hope I can have that feeiling of God again, but I am a sinner and and not as innocent, nor humble.

Believe me this overwhelming feeling of communion with God is big time.

 

[Sarpedon]

My friend, we are still talking past each other. What is the meaning of “transcendant” you use here?

Transcendant means being outside of the empirical order.

Sure, but my personal preference is to avoid harm and pain. And so is yours. And so is everyone else’s, including the animals.

Okay, but you can’t really criticize someone who disagrees with us because your personal preference is no more important than theirs.

Of course atoms don’t care. But we are more than just the collection of atoms. We are collections of atoms in a certain order. It is not “transcendant” in any meaning that I am aware of. Three line segments, which form a triangle are more than just “three” line segments.

In the meaning that you seem to use, the triangle is “transcendant”, because it is more than just 3 line segments. When you speak of “in front of”, “to the right”, “temporarily before”, you speak of “transcendant” arrangements. But the word “transcendant” is usually reserved for something “supernatural”, and there is nothing supernatural here. Just patterns, arrangements, places.

I would not consider a triangle transcendant, because it is derived from the empirical order. Patterns, arrangements, and places are not necessarily transcendant. Think about what those three things are. They are simply emergent attributes of matter, nothing more, nothing less.

Consider ethical obligations. How can they emerge from matter? How can matter be arranged in such a way as to result in “you must do this”? How can an obligation emerge from matter?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

one doesn’t have to pretend to know there is a G-d, you can reason it out the same way that scientists have reasoned the ‘big bang’ theory, or that darwin reasoned evolution, they did it by looking at the observable universe.

that is an accepted method of scientific inquiry, if you accept evolution, or the big bang theory that is.

there isn’t a logical reason under the sun that one should start the chain of events at the big bang,

after all the big bang theory says that there is a moment after the explosion when no time or physical laws existed,

so an explosion happened in the absence of time, if they are right then causality and time have no relationship to each other than what we assign them for our convenience.

further if neither time, nor space existed at the time of the big bang than than the matter that constituted the big bang existed outside time and space.

that means that something did exist outside of time and space prior to the big bang, that something is the matter of the universe itself.

if there were no time or space then and only matter existed, what caused the big bang?

aha, the First Cause!

see i didn’t pretend to know anything, i used theories that you accept as true and guess what i found?

G-D!

Why do you dislike religion so bad? always worried about our humility, and what we claim to know?

as you see from the above argument, accepted principles and arguments scream to the high heavens that there is an existent G-d.

you already have my arguments as to why G-d is the Judeo-Christian G-d.

but i can always recap those if you want.

the fact of the matter is that any conjecture from atheists or agnostics that doesn’t fit the observable universe must be, by dint of that universe, false

we did not pop out of nothing and to think so is ridiculous

so one can know if there is a G-d and it does matter.

 

[ateista]

Transcendant means being outside of the empirical order.

But everything is empirical first. Then we can make deductions and extrapolations based upon our experiences.

Okay, but you can’t really criticize someone who disagrees with us because your personal preference is no more important than theirs.

Why not?

In the greater scheme of things, not all behavioral patterns are equal. Besides, those people who intentionally seek pain (self-flagellants, for example) deliberately shorten their own life-span so they will “Darwin-themselves-out” of the gene pool.

It is simply our biological imperative to propagate our genes, and make this life as good, pleasurable as possible. Behavior contrary to this is “aberrant” and self-defeating.

I would not consider a triangle transcendant, because it is derived from the empirical order. Patterns, arrangements, and places are not necessarily transcendant. Think about what those three things are. They are simply emergent attributes of matter, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly!

Consider ethical obligations. How can they emerge from matter? How can matter be arranged in such a way as to result in “you must do this”? How can an obligation emerge from matter?

No difference. They are emergent from the fact that we are both indivuduals and social beings - also a biological fact. We must compromise, due to lack of abundant resources, we cannot sefilshly pursue our own goals, because it is also a self-defeating behavior.

Of course some people can show some success on the short run, if they try to “walk over” other people, but only on the short run. The long term optimal strategy is to find a proper balance between individual goals and social obligations. Sheer biology, sociology, economics. There is nothing that cannot that cannot be explained by these disciplines. There is no need to invoke something “supernatural”.

Part of mathematics is called “game theory”. It is a very broad subject (not something like winning in poker, for example). It deals with competing goals, and finds optimal strategies in a complex environment. Obligations, “ought-to” behaviors can be arrived at in a purely mathematical fashion. Very interesting stuff, indeed.

 

[JDaniel]

Humans have an uncanny ability to see what they what to see. Just as one could look God in the face and not see Him if they refuse to do so, one could also look at a blank wall and see God if they are determined enough. People determined to justify their beliefs are too quick to interpret everyday coincidences as signs from God because it is all they are looking for.

This is a good way of looking at it but it needs to be reciprocal. You have to be willing to search as objectively as possible and be open to this possibility that there is no God. If that is a non-negotiable part of your philosophical practice then you not truly searching with an open heart and mind.

Yes. And if He presented himself to me in such a way that I could be satisfied of his existence. I would take it on as a subject truth but never assume that it was the ultimate truth. One should always be open to the possibility that one may have been deceived eg. taken too much cough medecine and have hallucinated the whole experience. We can have the most convincing evidence but ultimately there is no “proof” that we can have to claim we know the “truth” about God’s existence (or anything else for that matter).

So, your real problem is that you are experiencing “hurt” and “sadness”: for presenting Himself to pre-alive people but not to YOU. It’s simply not good enough that He did present Himself to historical persons, you want Him at YOUR beck and call like some little highschool bimbo (no sexism intended) that jumps at your every command so as to receive your sweet gift of attention, or, dare I say, LOVE!

It’s sad that you preceive God’s motives that way - and yet, you say you believe?

All a consummate theist will ever say is, “Stop being such an anthropomorphic hard-head!” All you have is the ICPK therefore YCPK argument. Quit demanding from God. Embrace a little humility, in His presence. Otherwise, come up with a convincing argument the He doesn’t exist.

JD.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, your real problem is that you are experiencing “hurt” and “sadness”: for presenting Himself to pre-alive people but not to YOU. It’s simply not good enough that He did present Himself to historical persons, you want Him at YOUR beck and call like some little highschool bimbo (no sexism intended) that jumps at your every command so as to receive your sweet gift of attention, or, dare I say, LOVE!

It’s sad that you preceive God’s motives that way - and yet, you say you believe?

All a consummate theist will ever say is, “Stop being such an anthropomorphic hard-head!” All you have is the ICPK therefore YCPK argument. Quit demanding from God. Embrace a little humility, in His presence. Otherwise, come up with a convincing argument the He doesn’t exist.

JD.

yeah brother,

pride is a killer

lucifers pride, was his down fall

adam and eves pride brought death to us

pride has always been the killer

put it aside and accept that an all powerful G-d may not act as you wish.

take that leap of faith, fall into your creators arms and in the end you will not be dissapointed.

 

[ateista]

All a consummate theist will ever say is, “Stop being such an anthropomorphic hard-head!”

Total nonsense, and the usual cop-out.

Jesus said: “Whatever you ask in my name, I will fulfill, because I will go the Father”. This is not asking for the lottery jackpot (even though that is included in the “whatever”). Just the same proof that was - supposedly - given to Doubting Thomas. Why did Jesus say: “whatever” you ask, if he did not intend to deliver? What do you call someone, who promises, and does not fulfill his promise?

 

[JDaniel]

Total nonsense, and the usual cop-out.

Jesus said: “Whatever you ask in my name, I will fulfill, because I will go the Father”. This is not asking for the lottery jackpot (even though that is included in the “whatever”). Just the same proof that was - supposedly - given to Doubting Thomas. Why did Jesus say: “whatever” you ask, if he did not intend to deliver? What do you call someone, who promises, and does not fulfill his promise?

I might call him someone who has a better idea of my best interests than I do! How can you assert (I know, with your mouth) that what you are asking for is not the lottery? My friend (if you will), it is much larger than the lottery.

Paraphrased: “Blessed is he who believes and has not seen me.”
I like this. I, for one, don’t want it taken from me.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Total nonsense, and the usual cop-out.

Jesus said: “Whatever you ask in my name, I will fulfill, because I will go the Father”. This is not asking for the lottery jackpot (even though that is included in the “whatever”). Just the same proof that was - supposedly - given to Doubting Thomas. Why did Jesus say: “whatever” you ask, if he did not intend to deliver? What do you call someone, who promises, and does not fulfill his promise?

it’s not a cop out, from our view, the claim that G-d must act in accordance with human reason is anthropomorphic.

one can’t expect even our closest genetic relatives, the apes, to act in accord with our expectations. how much less can we expect G-d to act in ours?

as to the scripture you quote, the Church teaches that Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the entire Gospel

though i am no biblical scholar, i suggest that there are a great many other factors that play into the interpretation of Scripture

further, in previous conversations you have denied the validity of the Scripture as a source of truth, yet now you place it forth in favor of your argument.

have you changed your mind concerning the validity of scripture?

if not then you can no more quote the Scripture to us as a source of authority than we may quote it to you as a source of authority.

aside: how was your trip?

 

[ateista]

I might call him someone who has a better idea of my best interests than I do!

That is not the point. If he saw it that this problem will come up, all he had to do is not promise it. As it is, it is an unkept promise. And that cannot be explained.

How can you assert (I know, with your mouth) that what you are asking for is not the lottery? My friend (if you will), it is much larger than the lottery.

Why so? Many people ask for the jackpot, and that is not delivered either. Some only ask for their daily bread, and it is not fulfilled. Is that also too much to ask for?

Paraphrased: “Blessed is he who believes and has not seen me.”
I like this. I, for one, don’t want it taken from me.

Well, I respect your opinion, but that does not alleviate the fact, that Jesus promised, and did not keep his promise.

 

[ateista]

as to the scripture you quote, the Church teaches that Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the entire Gospel

Sorry. A simple, straighforward promise is not too “complicated” to understand.

further, in previous conversations you have denied the validity of the Scripture as a source of truth, yet now you place it forth in favor of your argument.

And why shouldn’t I? I don’t believe in the validity of the Bible, but you do. I am merely pointing out the unteneble positon of the believers. An unkempt promise (which was not intended to be kept) is a lie - at best.

aside: how was your trip?

Thanks for asking… it will commence the day after tomorrow… but we are done with the packing.

 

[JDaniel]

That is not the point. If he saw it that this problem will come up, all he had to do is not promise it. As it is, it is an unkept promise. And that cannot be explained.

Well, by taking it out of context, you have removed the statement from the sublime and relegated it to the mundane.

“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.” (Isaiah 59:2 NIV)

“We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing , and does His will, He hears him.” (John 9:31 NAS)

Why so? Many people ask for the jackpot, and that is not delivered either. Some only ask for their daily bread, and it is not fulfilled. Is that also too much to ask for?

See above. (another cop-out)

Well, I respect your opinion, but that does not alleviate the fact, that Jesus promised, and did not keep his promise.

In your humble opinion?!

JD

 

[Sarpedon]

In the greater scheme of things, not all behavioral patterns are equal. Besides, those people who intentionally seek pain (self-flagellants, for example) deliberately shorten their own life-span so they will “Darwin-themselves-out” of the gene pool.

It is simply our biological imperative to propagate our genes, and make this life as good, pleasurable as possible. Behavior contrary to this is “aberrant” and self-defeating.

Why should we obey our biological imperative? Why is it better to pass on our genes? Natural selection and evolution are simply processes that occur in nature, with no purpose per atheism. I don’t see how an empiricist could argue that they “ought” to occur or that we “ought” to further our own species.

When all that exists is STEM, STEM is the only reality. Therefore, things which are not STEM or not immediately emergent from it do not exist. Can you explain how an obligation (ought) can emerge from STEM (is) without resorting to some “higher” transcendant ideal, as you did in your example above?

 

[KingAlfred]

Every atheist I’ve known has been a ‘Man-worshiper’ – that is, someone who idolizes human achievement to the extent of practicing elitism. This in turn makes atheists mean-spirited, often even cruelin the their judgments of others and understanding of the meaning of life.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sorry. A simple, straighforward promise is not too “complicated” to understand.

And why shouldn’t I? I don’t believe in the validity of the Bible, but you do. I am merely pointing out the unteneble positon of the believers. An unkempt promise (which was not intended to be kept) is a lie - at best.

Thanks for asking… it will commence the day after tomorrow… but we are done with the packing.

i am saying that what you see as a straight forward promise is interpreted in the “full light of scripture” because many other things were said or done that impacted on that “promise” for instance you certainly couldn’t ask to murder some one, it violates earlier commandments, nothing occurs in a vacuum so to speak. this touches on one of the major reasons for a Universal Church, a consistent interpretation of Holy Scripture.

as to why you shouldn’t use the Scripture. its for the same reason you don’t accept it’s authority from us.

you don’t have that consistent interpretation that Catholics use to lend your arguments from Scripture that authority.

aside: took a week to pack? you must be going to antartica

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why should we obey our biological imperative? Why is it better to pass on our genes? Natural selection and evolution are simply processes that occur in nature, with no purpose per atheism. I don’t see how an empiricist could argue that they “ought” to occur or that we “ought” to further our own species.

When all that exists is STEM, STEM is the only reality. Therefore, things which are not STEM or not immediately emergent from it do not exist. Can you explain how an obligation (ought) can emerge from STEM (is) without resorting to some “higher” transcendant ideal, as you did in your example above?

sorry but could someone tell me what STEM is?