Belief... or lack thereof

[Randy_Carson]

Or we understand that, in order to live in a society, certain rules are required.
They’re not difficult rules, for most of us… but a few feel them to be a bit more challenging, so it’s better to keep those rules in a centralized code, so we can easily identify those who disobey the rules and apply the appropriate correction…
Oh, the correction that’s implemented is far from corrective, but hey… it’s what we have.

I don’t think the rules come from some objective source… they’re just what we, humanity, have found, after successful trials, that works better to maintain the society running.
Perhaps there are some sets of rules that are better than others, we can’t tell exactly which… but we can see different sets of rules implemented in each country and most seem to work up to a point.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot…these men followed their atheism to its logical conclusions. If there is no God, there is no objective morality and no ultimate accountability.

They created their own rules for society that did not include God. When life is ultimately meaningless, it is also cheap.

Have there been “Christians” who did bad things in the name of God? Sure, but we recognize them to have been bad practitioners of a faith that teaches love, and it is precisely because of their hypocrisy that atheists love to parade their names in the public forum.

No one claims that Stalin was a bad atheist. He was a bad man, but his commitment to atheism is never questioned.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So… Warner Wallace is also saying that space must have a start point, an origin, or else we’d never get here, to where we are now… right?

Is THAT what he said?

You can sit in one spot in space forever. You can go to a new spot. You can return to where you were before.

You cannot sit in one moment in time forever. Nor can you go forward or backward in time at will.

But suppose we did examine the current paths of all the galaxies in the universe. COULD we determine the spot from which all of them are moving away?

Sure.

So, yeah…everything in space had a point of origin from which it is now moving.

Big Crunch proponents envisioned a final end point, also…though I think that notion has lost favor among scientists.

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOL!

No one has proposed that the deaf can hear music.

Beethoven did. It was playing in his head.

 

[pocaracas]

Oh, it was indeed satisfactorily explained to you.

And I know that you weren’t able to refute it.

How do I know this?

Because you deflected to a nonanswer:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13362350&postcount=407

with a sudden and convenient inability to understand analogies.

Perhaps that’s because time is not at all analogous to marbles… ?

 

[pocaracas]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot…these men followed their atheism to its logical conclusions. If there is no God, there is no objective morality and no ultimate accountability.

They created their own rules for society that did not include God. When life is ultimately meaningless, it is also cheap.

Have there been “Christians” who did bad things in the name of God? Sure, but we recognize them to have been bad practitioners of a faith that teaches love, and it is precisely because of their hypocrisy that atheists love to parade their names in the public forum.

No one claims that Stalin was a bad atheist. He was a bad man, but his commitment to atheism is never questioned.

errrr… not sure how that follows from where we were, but ok… it was bound to get there.
Yes, those people had “ultimate power” in their countries and, without the psychological barrier provided by the fear of consequence in an afterlife, had little problem ordering certain things done to their people.
Others with equivalent “ultimate power” did similar things.
It just shows that they were humans and we all know the saying: power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately.

Still, that has little bearing on the factual existence of any deity… only on the potential for harm in a society where people feel there’s no ultimate consequence to their actions.
Again, it’s people and their minds that we’re dealing with.
The kings of old did despicable acts, on occasion, too. Perhaps, those was mostly done by kings who had some inbreeding related defect. But, in theory, a king, raised since very young to be responsible for an entire people, can be less prone to such despicable actions. While a president is usually a politician, first, hence, a backstabbing, double-crosser, no-good, self-centered person.

 

[pocaracas]

Is THAT what he said?

You can sit in one spot in space forever. You can go to a new spot. You can return to where you were before.

You cannot sit in one moment in time forever. Nor can you go forward or backward in time at will.

Yep… space and time are different, at least from our perspective.
But mathematically they are very similar.

Sitting in one moment in time forever is an oxymoron, huh?
How about… you cannot be at the same time in all of space? That would be more equivalent to the sitting in one place forever, but we lowly humans can’t do that either.

But suppose we did examine the current paths of all the galaxies in the universe. COULD we determine the spot from which all of them are moving away?

Sure.

So, yeah…everything in space had a point of origin from which it is now moving.

However, the Big Bang theory claims that, back then, all space-time in the Universe was simultaneously in one single point… The Universe was itself a point.
To answer your question, to which you answered “sure”, no. They’re moving away from each other. No matter where in the Universe you stand, you’ll see the same… so, in a way, if you want, we are at the center of the Universe. But so are the Andromedans, and so is every galaxy.

How did that point, from where the Universe sprang, come about? I know not.
Could the space-time that was compacted in that point have been pre-existent? it could…
And that event set our Universe’s time t=0.

Big Crunch proponents envisioned a final end point, also…though I think that notion has lost favor among scientists.

Yeah… Big-Crunch has lost favor with the unveiling of measurements that put the Universe at an accelerating rate of expansion… a Big-Crunch would require the rate to decelerate until it stop expanding and then start contracting.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps that’s because time is not at all analogous to marbles… ?

Really.

I suppose you could also say that an earlobe is not at all analogous to a Christmas tree.

But then you’d be demonstrating a really bad ability to understand analogies.

Because this is the most basic analogy that is irrefutable:

Christmas tree: ornament :: earlobe :: earring.

But you go ahead and assert that an earlobe is not at all analogous to Christmas trees…because that way you can continue to assert that marbles aren’t analogous to time.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps that’s because time is not at all analogous to marbles… ?

At any rate, let’s just examine this scenario:

Imagine that you want to display your marble collection. You want to display them when you’ve counted all of them.

So if you have 12 marbles, you will display them pretty quickly.

If you have a million marbles, it will take quite a long time to get to the day when you can display them. But you would, eventually, get to the day.

But if you have an infinite number of marbles, you will never get to the day when you display your marbles. There will always be one more marble to count.

But I see your marble display. (That is, in this parallel, equal to “TODAY”. Today is happening, therefore that means you’ve displayed your marbles).

Therefore, I can conclude that you didn’t have an infinite number of marbles.

Can you accept the truth that is demonstrated here, (leaving aside the question of time), poca?

 

[Bradski]

I see what you’re saying.

We seem to be having 2 separate threads floating around.

What is God? Who is God?
And then there’s a discussion about the definitions of God.
We all need to agree that God, if he exists, is NOT just like a superhero, only more awesome.
God, if he exists, is that which no greater can be conceived.

And then there’s the discussion: how did the universe come about? Did it appear from nothing, like MAGIC, or did a creator cause its existence?

Which one do you want to address right now?

They are both tied together. You’ve asked what could cause the universe that wasn’t eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. I’ve suggested that whatever it was doesn’t have to be any of those things.

If that holds, then either God didn’t do it or God doesn’t have to be all those things to have created it.

So why does the universe’s creator have to be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent?

 

[pocaracas]

At any rate, let’s just examine this scenario:

Imagine that you want to display your marble collection. You want to display them when you’ve counted all of them.

So if you have 12 marbles, you will display them pretty quickly.

If you have a million marbles, it will take quite a long time to get to the day when you can display them. But you would, eventually, get to the day.

But if you have an infinite number of marbles, you will never get to the day when you display your marbles. There will always be one more marble to count.

But I see your marble display. (That is, in this parallel, equal to “TODAY”. Today is happening, therefore that means you’ve displayed your marbles).

Therefore, I can conclude that you didn’t have an infinite number of marbles.

Can you accept the truth that is demonstrated here, (leaving aside the question of time), poca?

ok… let’s play.
Does each marble get a chance to be counted, or not?

(don’t forget that you’re still assuming that there is a first marble, so that you could start counting… that’s why the analogy fails)

 

[davidv]

ok… let’s play.
Does each marble get a chance to be counted, or not?

How does this have any impact on the analogy?

(don’t forget that you’re still assuming that there is a first marble, so that you could start counting… that’s why the analogy fails)

If there was no first marble, there is nothing to count and this situation is not one for which the analogy is meant. A red herring in other words.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . So why does the universe’s creator have to be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent?

Something that does not exist cannot possibly bring itself into existence.
If something comes into being, there has to be a cause other than itself.

Ultimately, everything must have as its source a Cause that is uncaused.

There are two scenarios:

If the universe always existed, which is not presently supported by science, the cause would lie in every moment of its existence.
The universe comes into being in every time, like being awake, where it would otherwise all be asleep/dead.
The Cause then would be eternal (outside of time, creating all time), omniscient (in everything as its cause) and omnipotent (by virtue of its bringing everything into existence).

Since the universe has a beginning, its cause is not a form of the universe, and (as above) must lie outside of time and be omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[pocaracas]

How does this have any impact on the analogy?

If there was no first marble, there is nothing to count and this situation is not one for which the analogy is meant. A red herring in other words.

There are infinite sets of numbers which are countable… but there are also those that are not countable.
Time seems to be a continuum, but it also seems to be sliced up in pieces of Plank time. This makes it countable.
If time is countable, then what’s the problem?

Each piece of time gets its chance to be counted. Each one is arrived at, no matter how much time it takes to get there. Each and every one gets their chance to shine. Each and every instance is instantiated, is realized.
You don’t need to get to the end of infinite time to get to any element of time.

 

[pocaracas]

Something that does not exist cannot possibly bring itself into existence.
If something comes into being, there has to be a cause other than itself.

Ultimately, everything must have as its source a Cause that is uncaused.

I have no problem with that.

There are two scenarios:

If the universe always existed, which is not presently supported by science, the cause would lie in every moment of its existence.
The universe comes into being in every time, like being awake, where it would otherwise all be asleep/dead.
The Cause then would be eternal (outside of time, creating all time), omniscient (in everything as its cause) and omnipotent (by virtue of its bringing everything into existence).

If we go by what some journalists write about the LHC… we’d think that it could be the case…

Since the universe has a beginning, its cause is not a form of the universe, and (as above) must lie outside of time and be omniscient and omnipotent.

With you up to half the sentence!
The cause is not a form of the Universe… it lies outside of the Universe, yes.
What can we say about whatever lies beyond the Universe?

Omniscient and omnipotent seem to apply to sentient beings.
Could whatever it is that lies beyond the Universe be capable of creating the Universe, while not being sentient at all? Is this not a possibility?

 

[eddie_too]

only if you believe non-sentience to be a superior quality to sentience. if not, then you are believing that the lesser produced the greater. since anyone can believe virtually anything, go for it. just believe that non-sentience is a greater attribute of existence than sentience. i will not be joining you in such a belief because it is irrational to me.

 

[MPat]

Hence the moniker agnostic atheist.
Knowing that the information is far from perfect, it’s better to withhold judgement.

MPat;13447047:

Oh, but are you really withholding judgement?

Let’s see:
pocaracas;13444856:

The intuitive likelihood that Catholicism is true, given the origin of the information that is held as true, is low.
The same applies for all other religions, for they all share the same sort of shady origins.

Doesn’t look like withholding judgement to me…

So, where does the information come from?

Ilia: Kirk unit. Why do you not disclose the information?

Huh? OK, I think I know what happened: could it be that you are expecting me to have a goal to persuade you that Catholicism is true, God exists etc.? But you didn’t initiate a thread about that - you initiated a thread asking us to point out problems with your (specifically your) atheism.

And that’s what I’m doing. You have claimed that you are withholding judgement. Then you said that atheism is far more likely to be true - and I am pointing out that that’s a judgement. If you were truly withholding judgement, you would be saying that you have no idea what is more likely to be true. As you can see, this my point does not really require your judgement to be wrong, thus your answer doesn’t work.

So, now I’d expect you to revise at least one of your claims to avoid this self-contradiction.

Oh, I’m interested in finding out the truth… but I’d like to avoid “false truths”.

Things that lead to belief in God typically rely on something that’s very similar to self-delusion, so of course I’ll avoid them.

It is very nice to see that stated so clearly.

So, now let’s move on to examining the reason you have given for this “double standard”.

Thus, first, what other steps are you taking to defend against “self-delusion”? Have you tried thinking of some tests to detect it in yourself or others?

Second, is there some other example of “self-delusion” we could examine? For example, would you say that conspiracy theorists are often deluding themselves?

The opposite direction things are accepted uncritically? Perhaps my “would” “could”, “may”, “can”, etc. seem certainties to you, but they tend to be used with care.
No doubt, I may have written something a bit more strongly than I really feel it is, but… oh well… I’m only human.

OK, let’s look at those:

Those speculations have as much going for them as any actual religion…

Sadly, the only sort of access that seems available relies on exploiting some features of how your brain works. And those work equally well for any religion, any God, any belief… even the belief that my wife is not cheating on me.

I do not see any “‘would’ ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘can’, etc.” here (of course, feel free to revise those claims, if you’d like to). So, you are saying that:

1. 
   *]Every single religion is supported by very similar evidence.
   *]This evidence is very similar to evidence for wild and untested speculations by physicists.
   
   Now, those are very strong claims. Atheism would only need a claim that evidence for all religions is inadequate. So, if you are trying to avoid all false beliefs, you shouldn’t have accepted those claims without evidence. Let’s investigate further.
   
   Thus, first, what investigation did you personally perform to find out if those claims are correct?
   
   Second, if you really did investigate evidence for different religions personally, how do you explain the fact that you cannot list many miracles for non-Christian religions?
   

   You’re comparing my knowledge of particular religions miraculous claims with the general methodology employed to convince people that they must believe in those religions?..

   No, I am pointing out that your claim is not a result of a thorough investigation of evidence for different religions.
   

   There is indeed…
   What do we do if someone mistakes fiction for a claim?
   e.g. The Atlantis claim by Plato

   Um, you have done so and I have pointed that out. So, I guess, that’s what “we” do about that…

 

[PRmerger]

ok… let’s play.
Does each marble get a chance to be counted, or not?

I don’t know. Why is that relevant?

(don’t forget that you’re still assuming that there is a first marble, so that you could start counting… that’s why the analogy fails)

Why do you have to *assume *there’s a first marble?

We know that you wouldn’t display your marbles until they are all counted.
Your marbles are displayed.

Therefore we know that you have counted all your marbles.

And that means you didn’t have an infinite number of them.

 

[PRmerger]

Huh? OK, I think I know what happened: could it be that you are expecting me to have a goal to persuade you that Catholicism is true, God exists etc.? But you didn’t initiate a thread about that - you initiated a thread asking us to point out problems with your (specifically your) atheism.

And that’s what I’m doing. You have claimed that you are withholding judgement. Then you said that atheism is far more likely to be true - and I am pointing out that that’s a judgement. If you were truly withholding judgement, you would be saying that you have no idea what is more likely to be true. As you can see, this my point does not really require your judgement to be wrong, thus your answer doesn’t work.

Yep.

So, now I’d expect you to revise at least one of your claims to avoid this self-contradiction.

 

[PRmerger]

They are both tied together. You’ve asked what could cause the universe that wasn’t eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. I’ve suggested that whatever it was doesn’t have to be any of those things.

If that holds, then either God didn’t do it or God doesn’t have to be all those things to have created it.

So why does the universe’s creator have to be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent?

Let’s take your first “either”: God didn’t do it. Some other (really, really powerful) Entity did.

But this Entity also needs an explanation for its existence.

Otherwise, it’s…

eternal.

And that is…

God.

That’s why God has to be, by nature, Eternal.

And not contingent.

God is the only Entity that exists as a result of his own nature.

 

[Bradski]

Something that does not exist cannot possibly bring itself into existence.
If something comes into being, there has to be a cause other than itself.

Ultimately, everything must have as its source a Cause that is uncaused.

I think that we’re going with this whether it is right or wrong (it appears to be correct because it appears to be illogical if it wasn’t the case – but then we would have to say that all other things which appear illogical do not occur…which is not correct).

There are two scenarios:

If the universe always existed, which is not presently supported by science, the cause would lie in every moment of its existence.
The universe comes into being in every time, like being awake, where it would otherwise all be asleep/dead.
The Cause then would be eternal (outside of time, creating all time), omniscient (in everything as its cause) and omnipotent (by virtue of its bringing everything into existence).

That it would be eternal is not a given. Whatever caused the universe (and I’ll use E for ‘the Entity which caused it’ to save typing) might have lived outside of time if time did not exist as we know it before E created it. But why can’t we surmise that E ceased to exist in the act of creation? Another scenario might be E becoming the universe, so is then in time and not eternal.

I’m not exactly what you mean by ‘in everything as its cause’ but I don’t think it means omniscient. Omniscient is knowing all things and just because you have created something, you don’t necessarily know how it will turn out. You might if you knew every path of every particle that ever existed (although the laws of quantum mechanics might argue differently) and that might describe God, but we aren’t describing God. Quite possibly E lit the blue touch paper and watched it unfold, as surprised at each stage of creation as we would be.

Maybe E isn’t the slightest bit interested in us, but if he did check us out, he might be surprised at how things were going. There is no requirement whatsoever that E should know everything and no necessity that he should. There may be for God, but we are not talking about God.

And omnipotent doesn’t mean ‘bringing everything into existence’. It means an ability to do anything and everything that is logically possible (but be careful – some things that appear to be logically impossible are not). Making the universe may have been the party piece to end all party pieces but there is no requirement whatsoever that once created, E has power over everything. And there is no necessity that he should either. Perhaps for God, but then…