Can an Atheist Answer These?

[liquidpele]

Apparently gone. You can smash a guitar into smithereens but the guitarist remains unscathed. You can destroy the brain but how do you know the mind ceases to exist? Have you ever seen a mind? Or a thought? Or a decision? Where are they located?

Not sure about those, but you should check out the dragon in my garage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We could, of course, say the same for a good number of things. The assumption that objects exist is one such thing, the existence of other consciousnesses another, and so on. But it seems reasonable to conclude that if there was a time when only God existed, he would be the only thing to exist forever onward. We can’t start with God and end up with less or more according to the law of identity.

You’ll have to explain to me how God creating violates the law of identity. The law of identity says that A=A, in this case, God=God. The law of identity does not say nothing can be created or destroyed; that is a law of physics. The Christian says that the laws of physics are created, but the laws of logic are not. To say that God creates *ex nihilo * perhaps approaches the point of being paradoxical, but it is by no means contradictory.

And if you get over your issue with *ex nihilo * creation, the objection about water becoming wine becomes – logically, at least – moot. This does not make it easy to believe in miracles, just possible.

 

[tonyrey]

Not sure about those, but you should check out the dragon in my garage.

Don’t you have any ideas of your own?

 

[liquidpele]

Don’t you have any ideas of your own?

Of course, but linking to things saves me from having to type a lot.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **Oreoracle**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5641598#post5641598)                 
             *You misunderstand. See, Tony and I have a history: He claims that God is omnipotent but is limited by certain laws, and I remind him that God supposedly performed miracles, which are, by definition, inexplicable (they are inexplicable because they're logically contradictory)

Why not get your facts straight before you misrepresent another person’s views? I do** not** believe God is limited by certain laws.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course, but linking to things saves me from having to type a lot.

Why not try answering the questions?
You can destroy the brain but how do you know the mind ceases to exist? Have you ever seen a mind? Or a thought? Or a decision? Where are they located?

 

[tonyrey]

Like everything in metaphysics, these are arbitrary statements.

Do you think “Things exist” is an arbitrary statement?

 

[tonyrey]

The assumption that objects exist is one such thing, the existence of other consciousnesses another, and so on. But it seems reasonable to conclude that if there was a time when only God existed, he would be the only thing to exist forever onward.

It is a mistake to regard God as a thing. It puts Him in the same class as other things whereas by definition is the Creator of everything. If He were the only being to exist for forever He would be sterile and not be the Creator. Since God is the source of everything and sustains everything in existence we don’t end up with less or more but exactly the same amount that has always existed. Being infinite He is not diminished in any way. “In God we live, move and have our being.”

We cannot hope to understand fully the nature of God any more than we can hope to understand ourselves as persons and our free will - which is another form of creativity. We cannot understand ourselves as prime movers but this is what we are if we are uniquely responsible for what we think and do. Our decisions cannot be traced back beyond ourselves.

I’m not trying to discredit the “miracles” of God in this discussion, I’m trying to show you that your defense of evil is inconsistent with what God’s done as per the Church. He hasn’t demonstrated any limitations in the Bible or in Dogma, so why assume he has become limited since then?

I don’t understand why you think God hasn’t demonstrated any limitations in the Bible or in dogma because the fact that human beings broke his commandments demonstrates that he had relinquished absolute power over His creatures. That situation has not changed in the slightest. If by limitations you mean that God is unable to perform miracles in the last 2000 years there is plenty of evidence that this is not so. There are many well-documented cases of physical cures which are scientifically inexplicable.

Strictly speaking, no metaphysical argument can be proven to be sound, so no one can justify their assumptions. There can be validity, but no proven soundness.

Some assumptions are more reasonable than others if they correspond to our experience. The success of science, for example, makes it more reasonable to believe that the universe is intelligible and human beings are rational.

Okay, let’s do it your way: “nothing yields something.” Does this prevent the contradiction from occurring? Nay.

It is not a question of nothing yielding something but of God, the Necessary Being,
using his power to create something. That is not a transition from an absolute void to the existence of things. It is a transformation, if you like, of God into His creatures but being infinite He remains infinite and inexhaustible. Thhe alternative is to believe that persons have emerged from particles which have always existed or appeared spontaneously for no reason. In either case we are confronted with an unfathomable mystery. The difference is that in the second case we are reducing reality to its parts and thereby losing sight of its wholeness and integrity. It is more reasonable to explain reality in terms of its highest aspects rather than its lowest and to consider the entire process of development rather than just its starting point. If anything, the end result is more significant than the beginning. It is a mistake to trace causality only backwards and not forwards as well. That is how purpose is wrongly swallowed up by mechanism even though purpose is a more important feature of existence. We cannot live without purpose: it is a fundamental necessity that we have not invented. There is something radically wrong with any philosophy which attempts to dispose of it.

 

[Matthias123]

How? Like everything in metaphysics, these are arbitrary statements. Unlike some other metaphysical assumptions, however, this doesn’t even have sensory data to back it up.

Can you verify the existence of essence?

Being itself actually exists. How could you not call being an ontological entity? Ontology itself is the study of being! So what is of being? Well like all things it must have essence “what it is” and it must have existence “that it is”. So it is a composite of the two. Now what different from neo-platonic thought is that we do not view existence as a sharing is some “substance of existence” but it shares in a common “act of existing”

 

[gearhead]

1.) Why is it that every form of life on this planet has a basic, fundamental desire to avoid death at all costs?

Not all do.

2.) Why does a species want to reproduce?

Some do, some don’t. The ones that didn’t, didn’t continue, so what’s left is a biased sample.

3.) What is the point of continuing on, of ensuring that the next generation comes into existence? Is it to be remembered? If it is to be remembered, why ?

• For what reason?*

Biologically, the point of reproduction is simply reproduction itself.

Philosophically, we each have our own reasons.

Why does a species like a virus have the same desire to survive that say, a human, or a sunflower has?

Again, some did, some didn’t, but the only ones that are left are the ones that did.

In other words, why does every species of life on earth want to perpetuate itself?

Every species of life on Earth has been successful in some way; all the unsuccessful ones have been eliminated. A key element for success is procreation.

 

[Matthias123]

Gear head, I have a question for you. Why does everything act towards some good? For we have that when we act to move a glass forward two inches the final cause will be to move it forward two inches, and not backwards. So since we understand that all things act towards a good, why do things act towards this good? More specifically, why is it impossible to commit an evil action? More importantly, why does metaphysical evil not exist? Why is what we call evil only a deficiency of good, and not evil per se?

 

[gearhead]

Gear head, I have a question for you. Why does everything act towards some good?

Does it? What good does everything act towards?

For we have that when we act to move a glass forward two inches the final cause will be to move it forward two inches, and not backwards.

Usually. We generally develop a sense of how our actions will affect other things. Still, sometimes when I act to move a glass forward two inches, the final cause will be to move it left four inches and down three feet to the floor, shattering the glass.

So since we understand that all things act towards a good, why do things act towards this good?

I can’t even begin to answer that question until you explain the inherent assumptions in it. What do you mean by “good”? How do you know that “all things act towards a good”?

More specifically, why is it impossible to commit an evil action?

Is it impossible? A lot of actions that I personally consider to be evil have been committed.

More importantly, why does metaphysical evil not exist?

Doesn’t it? I think you’re making a number of assumptions here that I don’t necessarily share.

Why is what we call evil only a deficiency of good, and not evil per se?

Is it?

Personally, I think that “evil” isn’t a deficiency of good; IMO, “good” and “evil” are opposite directions on a scale that stretches out from zero.

If evil truly is a “deficiency of good”, then there would be such a thing as “absolute evil”… i.e. a lower limit to how evil an action can be. I’ve never seen anything that would indicate that such a limit exists. Have you? If so, what is that limit and how do you know it?

 

[James_S_Saint]

1.) Why is it that every form of life on this planet has a basic, fundamental desire to avoid death at all costs?

2.) Why does a species want to reproduce?

3.) What is the point of continuing on, of ensuring that the next generation comes into existence? Is it to be remembered? If it is to be remembered, why ?

• For what reason?*
  Why does a species like a virus have the same desire to survive that say, a human, or a sunflower has?

In other words, why does every species of life on earth want to perpetuate itself?

When asking “why”, one must be clear as to which form of “why” he intends. Are you asking “why for what purpose” or are you asking “why by what cause”?

That one clarification will dismiss most of the arguing (even those concerning good and evil). Or is arguing the purpose? Perhaps the cause?

The Atheist believes that Reality has no purpose, but accepts that all things might have a cause. When asked “why”, he responds to the only question that makes sense to him, “why by what cause? - There is no purpose!”

A better question would be to ask,

1. “Why (by what reasoning or faith) does the Atheist believe that Reality has no purpose (of its own)?” Or
2. “Why (by what reasoning or faith) does the Catholic believe that Reality does have a purpose of its own?”

Life is a part of Reality. To the Atheist, Life has no purpose of its own. It merely does what it does. The human mind might choose a purpose and declare it, but that wasn’t the question. Thus to the Atheist, the OP questions are all answered by the cause of the phenomena mentioned.

The destruction of the mind is brought by the believe of no-purpose. If you choose to destroy the minds of the people in a nation, you create Atheists by default.

Reality’s actual purpose for each of the mentioned behaviors can be cleared up, once you understand and agree upon what is really being asked.

1. “What does it mean to have purpose?”
2. “Can a unconscious object have purpose?”

 

[Matthias123]

Does it? What good does everything act towards?

Usually. We generally develop a sense of how our actions will affect other things. Still, sometimes when I act to move a glass forward two inches, the final cause will be to move it left four inches and down three feet to the floor, shattering the glass.

I can’t even begin to answer that question until you explain the inherent assumptions in it. What do you mean by “good”? How do you know that “all things act towards a good”?

Is it impossible? A lot of actions that I personally consider to be evil have been committed.

Doesn’t it? I think you’re making a number of assumptions here that I don’t necessarily share.

Is it?

Personally, I think that “evil” isn’t a deficiency of good; IMO, “good” and “evil” are opposite directions on a scale that stretches out from zero.

If evil truly is a “deficiency of good”, then there would be such a thing as “absolute evil”… i.e. a lower limit to how evil an action can be. I’ve never seen anything that would indicate that such a limit exists. Have you? If so, what is that limit and how do you know it?

Does it? What good does everything act towards?

Everything acts towards good per se, and good is a purely actual entity, because potential would cause a contradiction and it could not be good per se.

Usually. We generally develop a sense of how our actions will affect other things. Still, sometimes when I act to move a glass forward two inches, the final cause will be to move it left four inches and down three feet to the floor, shattering the glass.

The final cause is still to act towards some good, however there may be accidents that come into play that cause this good to be a deficient of the good that is intended in the final cause. As when I attempt to put myself in physical motion but trip and fall down.

can’t even begin to answer that question until you explain the inherent assumptions in it. What do you mean by “good”? How do you know that “all things act towards a good”?

I mean metaphysical good. Because metaphysical evil doesn’t exist, so all things have to.

Is it impossible? A lot of actions that I personally consider to be evil have been committed.

Moral evil is known to us by a violation of natural law.

We know that all acts are acted in order to obtain some good. For the act of existing is for the good of being, and the act of moving an object forward two inches is to move it forward and not backwards. Thus we understand that all actions are undertaken for some good. We also understand that any action contrary to this good, will itself be evil – a deficiency of good. So in the same way all human acts are to obtain some good. This is the first precept of natural law, that good is done and evil avoided.

All other precepts fall under this, and whatever man sees as his natural good is a precept of natural law and he should do, and what he sees as a natural evil he should avoid, because this would break a precept of the natural law. Since all things act naturally towards good, it follows that all things that man has a natural inclination for are good, and anything that is contrary to mans inclination is to be avoided. Since man has free will he can choose to commit an action that is deficient of good.

Man has the desire to exist, he also has the potential due to his free will to take his own life. Now the action of taking one’s own life will still be good in one sense, because without good there can be no action, but in another sense it will be a deficiency of good and thus evil because it is contrary to the natural inclination to exist.

Doesn’t it? I think you’re making a number of assumptions here that I don’t necessarily share.

No it doesn’t, metaphysical evil is just a relational concept. As nothing cannot exist because then there will be something, and that something will be nothing. What we call darkness is just a deficiency of light, what we call cold is just a deficiency of heat.

Take light for example; say we are in an area of the universe that has no light. One would call this complete darkness. Nobody suggests that there is such an ontological entity as darkness. Darkness is just a lack of light. You can have a mental concept of the ontological entity as a relational concept only; you would never be able to know metaphysical evil per se, because it does not have potential existence.

If evil truly is a “deficiency of good”, then there would be such a thing as “absolute evil”… i.e. a lower limit to how evil an action can be. I’ve never seen anything that would indicate that such a limit exists. Have you? If so, what is that limit and how do you know it?

There can be what we call absolute evil in once sense, if you mean the deficiency of evil approaching potential infinity. However there cannot be an ontological entity of metaphysical evil.

Personally, I think that “evil” isn’t a deficiency of good; IMO, “good” and “evil” are opposite directions on a scale that stretches out from zero.

That is true in one sense, however this dificiency of evil does not reach actual infinity and form a set. Nor does it metaphysical evil have potential to exist, because it would cause a logical contradiction.

1. We know good exists.
2. Therefore this good has to be pure actually because what has potential cannot be good per se because this would include a deficiency of good.
3. The ontological being of good has to be purely good and lack potentiality, otherwise it would not be good per se.
4. Therefore evil per se does not exist as an ontological entity.

If you do not agree that all being act towards some good, I would challenge you to give me an example of somthing that does not act towards a good.

 

[liquidpele]

Why not try answering the questions?
You can destroy the brain but how do you know the mind ceases to exist? Have you ever seen a mind? Or a thought? Or a decision? Where are they located?

Did you not read the story in the link? I mean, it pretty much answered your question if you take a moment to understand the point it makes.

 

[Matthias123]

Did you not read the story in the link? I mean, it pretty much answered your question if you take a moment to understand the point it makes.

Matter itself is unconscious; you can’t put it into a system and call it consciousness. Also if the mind was completely material you wouldn’t be able to know yourself, considering the idea of yourself would be made up of what you are trying to know.

Part of the mind has to be immaterial.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You can destroy the brain but how do you know the mind ceases to exist? Have you ever seen a mind? Or a thought? Or a decision? Where are they located?

The mind seems to be rooted in the brain.

Thoughts and decisions are the result of brain activity.

 

[liquidpele]

Matter itself is unconscious; you can’t put it into a system and call it consciousness. Also if the mind was completely material you wouldn’t be able to know yourself, considering the idea of yourself would be made up of what you are trying to know.

Part of the mind has to be immaterial.

Ummm… did you look back at what Tony and I were discussing, or did you just guess and then post a reply?

 

[gearhead]

Everything acts towards good per se, and good is a purely actual entity, because potential would cause a contradiction and it could not be good per se.

This isn’t an explanation; it’s just a re-stating of the same assertion.

The final cause is still to act towards some good, however there may be accidents that come into play that cause this good to be a deficient of the good that is intended in the final cause. As when I attempt to put myself in physical motion but trip and fall down.

And this relates to good how, exactly?

I mean metaphysical good. Because metaphysical evil doesn’t exist, so all things have to.

Adding the word “metaphysical” doesn’t really provide any explanatory power. What do you mean by “metaphysical good”? And why do you say that metaphysical evil doesn’t exist?

Moral evil is known to us by a violation of natural law.

Before I can accept this, you’ll have to define “natural law” and demonstrate that it exists.

We know that all acts are acted in order to obtain some good.

No, all intentional actions are acted in order to obtain some result. Unintentional acts aren’t “acted in order to obtain” anything at all, and the object of an action isn’t necessarily good.

For the act of existing is for the good of being, and the act of moving an object forward two inches is to move it forward and not backwards.

Unless you walk around to the other side, and then what was “forward” becomes “backward”.

How is this relevant, anyhow?

Thus we understand that all actions are undertaken for some good.

You’ll need quite a bit more explanation before we’re anywhere near understanding that.

No it doesn’t, metaphysical evil is just a relational concept.

It’s relational to good, but it’s just as valid to define good in terms of evil as it is to define evil in terms of good.

As nothing cannot exist because then there will be something, and that something will be nothing. What we call darkness is just a deficiency of light, what we call cold is just a deficiency of heat.

It’s a very pretty analogy, but analogies do not make an argument.

Take light for example; say we are in an area of the universe that has no light. One would call this complete darkness. Nobody suggests that there is such an ontological entity as darkness. Darkness is just a lack of light. You can have a mental concept of the ontological entity as a relational concept only; you would never be able to know metaphysical evil per se, because it does not have potential existence.

And again, your explanation isn’t actually an explanation; it’s just a re-statement of your initial claim.

There can be what we call absolute evil in once sense, if you mean the deficiency of evil approaching potential infinity. However there cannot be an ontological entity of metaphysical evil.

You’re contradicting yourself.

If evil is simply the absence of good, once all the good is removed from a thing, it is maximally, finitely evil and can’t be made any more evil.

You used the analogy of temperature. There is no colder temperature than -273.15 degrees Celsius, because at this temperature, there is no heat left to remove. You can’t have “a deficiency of heat approaching potential infinity”; you simply have no heat.

So… just as absolute zero for temperature is a specific, finite value (-273.15 C), if evil is simply defined as the absence of good, there would be a specific, finite value for the “absolute zero” for morality. It would be a fixed barrier that would be impossible to traverse. What is it? And don’t think you necessarily need to give a quantitative value. Even in qualitative terms, what is “maximal evil”?

1. We know good exists.

Until you provide an actual, valid definition for what you’re calling “good”, we have no way of knowing this at all.

1. Therefore this good has to be pure actually because what has potential cannot be good per se because this would include a deficiency of good.

Only if we accept your model of the relationship between good and evil, which still has issues to be resolved.

1. The ontological being of good has to be purely good and lack potentiality, otherwise it would not be good per se.

But does “the ontological being of good” necessarily exist?

1. Therefore evil per se does not exist as an ontological entity.

Begging the question. You had to assume this to assert your point #2.

If you do not agree that all being act towards some good, I would challenge you to give me an example of somthing that does not act towards a good.

It would be hard for me to do this until we agree on a definition of “good”. So far, you haven’t given one that’s sufficient for me to figure out whether I agree with it or not.

 

[Matthias123]

Good == being. Good is synonymous with being.

The reason metaphysical evil can’t exist is because good itself is being. So whatever is not good (being) is not being. What is does not have being cannot be an ontological entity. So what I am saying is something that does not exist cannot be an ontological entity.

So everything has to act to a good (being) because otherwise this final end wont exist.

1. Good (being) exists
2. What does not have being does not exist.
3. Good per se must be pure actually because potentialy is is a diffiency of what actually is.
4. Good has to be one, since distinctions would contradict pure actually.
5. Good also needs to be immutable because changes would also contradict pure actually.
6. Now space is the changing of something here to something over there. So anything that is actually here and potentially there is not a pure actually. Therefore good exists outside of space making him omnipresent.
7. Now we know that we have the capacity to know; good being the pure actually will be able to know all that is known by the potentially actually. Therefore good is omniscient.
8. Being potentially actually we are able to do some things logically possible, but good is a pure actually therefore he is able to do everything that is logically possible thus making him omnipotent.
9. We know that since good is being as therefore must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist. We know that you exist (via cargito ergo sum) and good exists therefore good is also Eternal.
10. Good(being) exists as a single immutable omnipresent omniscient omnipotent eternal entity. Good(being) is what men call God.