Conversation with an Atheist

[I_am_learning]

Hello, as some requested, I will post some things from our conversation, and I ask for guidance and advice.

Here is what I last sent him, including the examples suggested in the other thread:
"Sure, I see your views. And I saw the video, and the wiki.
However, Here are some good analogies of Gods omniscience and our free will.

Have you ever heard a voicemail? Or watched a video? Now that stuff’s all been recorded. It can be heard/watched any number of times and won’t ever change. But did your friend cause those things to be recorded that way?

What would happen if a guy had figured out time travel. Let’s say that guy travels to the future. Buys a newspaper. And goes back to the past. Assuming he doesn’t show that paper to anyone and doesn’t change a thing based on what he knows won’t that paper have the same headline when he finally lives up to that date? I mean free choice is free. And just because a guy knows what’s going to be chosen doesn’t mean it isn’t freely done.

Goes to show knowing is not causing, perhaps to give you a different view of free will, being more of a conscious decision.

There actually are plenty of reasons to believe in God. If you have not found any compelling reason, thats something. But saying theres none, that philosophers and theologians have discussed amongst themselves for a long time about this and gotten nothing, zip, nada, thats a problem.
I believe there have been atheistical reasons put forth, but there have also been replies, so you just need to keep an open mind, we can keep discussing here, and I do suggest you call in on Friday, it should be of great help on your main concerns.

We can talk about the existence of God for starters, sure, heres one argument we have not talked about:
If something exists you wonder why does it exist?
Universe needs an explanation, and it does not need to exist
Explanation is found in something that needs to exist, If God is existence itself, then God is necessary, therefore it follows we have a source for why a universe that does not have to exist, does exist."

He replied:
"1) the voicemail and recording arent omnisciently foreseen therefor guarenteed to happen

2)time travel will always affect the future so theres a chance that it would have the same headline but its not guaranteed to

Even before this universe existed its not like there was nothing, we can think of what came before it as its own universe. Nothing NEEDS to exist, it just does exist. Now, what created god? Every effect has a cause so surely a god must too. If you can say that he is eternal then you can say that an infinite chain of universes popping in an out of existence could exist too. God isnt needed, he serves no purpose. If hes real and omniscient then hes a big douche to be honest. He creates people for the sole purpose of wanting them to love him even though he knows beforehand that they wont. He makes people specifically so that they will love him, but then punishes those that dont even though they have no real choice of whether or not they want to love him because he already knows if they will or wont. This brings another question, if god is omniscient (which has been proven ti negate free will) then he must foresee his own actions as well, and since an omniscient being has foreseen his acti

Ons then he cannot deviate from that foreseen path. So does god have free will? (Dont know why that part didnt send)"

Of course, I have multiple things I can answer properly. For example, I can certainly clarify that example #1 was just to illustrate Gods omniscience. #2 clearly said “Assuming he doesn’t show that paper to anyone and doesn’t change a thing based on what he knows.”

And his talk about nothing needing to exist, because it just does, well that does not explain anything, and as I heard before, an infinite regress is illogical(/or impossible? Help?).
What created God? Asking that is like asking what is an uncaused cause. If something created God, we still have that regress and no beginning, so God would be as meaningless of a creator as an alien, because things in space and time need a creator. God, though, is outside of space and time, an infinite being, immaterial, creator of the universe, etc.
Anything to add here?

Then he goes on speaking as if he did not take anything away from our ongoing discussion, making it a cycle. I already explained God does not create people just to send people to Hell or Heaven. He still is not connecting our beliefs of Gods omniscience, seeing more of a calvinistic predetermination, and he also continues seeing God as evil.

Any way to break down all of those things he has misunderstood about God? Personally, I don’t have a good explanation for the “creating people” part.

I saw an answer to the God having free will question on the forum, free will boiling down to the choice between good and evil, and to say that God has the opportunity to choose against Himself would be a contradiction in terms of His nature.

I’ve observed, if you guys have not already, that he has a big issue with Gods omniscience, free will, and really, understanding God in general. I get its difficult to grasp God when you have a bunch of questions in your way which seem to fill your thoughts with God being a contradiction, and if this conversation does not help him understand those things, well, maybe CAL or something else at some point will.

So yeah, any help with adequately addressing these concerns, and, most importantly, advice and guidance for where to lead the conversation, what extra things to tell him/ask, etc, would help.
Thank you!

 

[Bradski]

I’m not sure you are going about this the right way.

If you are having a discussion with someone, then I think it’s only proper that you use your own arguments and put forward your own viewpoints. Although it’s perfectly natural to ask for information from anyone you think can give it, I’m afraid that what I see is you cutting and pasting comments and even analogies in response. It seems like the conversation is running like this:

I told him what you guys said and this is how he responded. Now what do I say?

If you are not able to respond with your own ideas, then I think it would be better not to respond at all. But take on board what other people say (in opposition to what you think you believe as well as in support), come to your own decisions and then use them in the conversation.

Whoever you are talking to wants to know what you think. Not what a random selection of people on a forum think.

 

[Rhubarb]

I think your time travel thought experiment is very good! And putting aside all philosophical problems with time travel, I don’t really think your friend answered it well.

I’ll try to think about this some more. Even though I’m skeptical about God in the Christian sense, I’ve never found the deity’s omniscience to be problematic.

 

[I_am_learning]

I’m not sure you are going about this the right way.

If you are having a discussion with someone, then I think it’s only proper that you use your own arguments and put forward your own viewpoints. Although it’s perfectly natural to ask for information from anyone you think can give it, I’m afraid that what I see is you cutting and pasting comments and even analogies in response. It seems like the conversation is running like this:

I told him what you guys said and this is how he responded. Now what do I say?

If you are not able to respond with your own ideas, then I think it would be better not to respond at all. But take on board what other people say (in opposition to what you think you believe as well as in support), come to your own decisions and then use them in the conversation.

Whoever you are talking to wants to know what you think. Not what a random selection of people on a forum think.

Right, and I see where you’re coming from, but the thing is, there are deep questions that have answers but I do not know them until I get asked or hear about it. I don’t want to say the wrong thing, and not to mention, some answers have been given in an adequate way which is where the copying sometimes comes in.

I have learned a substantial amount to answer many things about God in a conversation, so i’m not just talking while not having a clue, but again, there are certain important concerns which should be addressed as we see it properly, not just on my view.
That is also why I ask at the bottom for advice and guidance for where to take this conversation and all that, because I certainly do not want the answers alone.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[I_am_learning]

I think your time travel thought experiment is very good! And putting aside all philosophical problems with time travel, I don’t really think your friend answered it well.

I’ll try to think about this some more. Even though I’m skeptical about God in the Christian sense, I’ve never found the deity’s omniscience to be problematic.

Hello.
Sorry I did not mention it, but the 2 analogies are not mine, they were from the other thread I made (maybe they got it from somewhere), but credit goes to them!
I agree, it is good, and he certainly has some sort of issue with analogies, which is why he responds like that to them.

I’d be interested to hear about your beliefs! Maybe i’ll post on your wall at some point in time, if thats fine.

 

[Bradski]

Right, and I see where you’re coming from, but the thing is, there are deep questions that have answers but I do not know them until I get asked or hear about it. I don’t want to say the wrong thing…

I personally think that there’s nothing wrong with saying something like: ‘That’s a good point. I don’t have an answer at this time’. As opposed to ‘That’s a good point, here’s someone else’s answer to it’.

And I would attribute anything that you do use (even if it’s just: ‘Here’s a good analogy I read recently’). It’s just good form.

Anyway, good luck with your conversation.

 

[HungerNThirst4R]

Im new to this thread but, have you tried discussing the big bang? Its based on Genesis 1. Try reading up on the priest who discovered it.

I month ago I was talking to some Mormon missionaries about the big bang, they discouraged it but than I told them how it is based on the belief in God. They were perplexed. Ive found that atheists often have a similar reaction for the inverse reasons.

 

[Rhubarb]

Hello.
Sorry I did not mention it, but the 2 analogies are not mine, they were from the other thread I made (maybe they got it from somewhere), but credit goes to them!
I agree, it is good, and he certainly has some sort of issue with analogies, which is why he responds like that to them.

I’d be interested to hear about your beliefs! Maybe i’ll post on your wall at some point in time, if thats fine.

Analogies can be difficult, especially for people who aren’t used to thinking with them. And feel free to the wall.

 

[Trident_H]

Hello, as some requested, I will post some things from our conversation, and I ask for guidance and advice.

Here is what I last sent him, including the examples suggested in the other thread:
"Sure, I see your views. And I saw the video, and the wiki.
However, Here are some good analogies of Gods omniscience and our free will.

Have you ever heard a voicemail? Or watched a video? Now that stuff’s all been recorded. It can be heard/watched any number of times and won’t ever change. But did your friend cause those things to be recorded that way?

What would happen if a guy had figured out time travel. Let’s say that guy travels to the future. Buys a newspaper. And goes back to the past. Assuming he doesn’t show that paper to anyone and doesn’t change a thing based on what he knows won’t that paper have the same headline when he finally lives up to that date? I mean free choice is free. And just because a guy knows what’s going to be chosen doesn’t mean it isn’t freely done.

Goes to show knowing is not causing, perhaps to give you a different view of free will, being more of a conscious decision.

He replied:
"1) the voicemail and recording arent omnisciently foreseen therefor guarenteed to happen

2)time travel will always affect the future so theres a chance that it would have the same headline but its not guaranteed to

Why would time travel always affect the future? That seems like a lame duck slid in here just to trip you up. I can think of at least 5000 examples where that wouldn’t be true. So I think he’s lost the race right here. He’s done.

But to give you something else to play with. Let’s shift over a bit.

Let’s talk about defacto Omniscience. Which we just about all have at this point. Yes. I’m talking about the Internet.

So imagine a perfect Internet. That records everything. Everywhere. All the time. And imagine instant and perfect search tools to plumb its depths. So now everyone’s able to call up and see everything that everyone’s doing. As they do it. But now let’s throw faster than light speed into the mix. So that you can now use complicated physics to see what everyone’s going to do 5 seconds ahead of time. So you’ve got a 5 second drop on anyone and everyone.

Tell me this. Where oh where has their free will gone?

Good luck man. Keep us posted.

-Trident

 

[I_am_learning]

I personally think that there’s nothing wrong with saying something like: ‘That’s a good point. I don’t have an answer at this time’. As opposed to ‘That’s a good point, here’s someone else’s answer to it’.

And I would attribute anything that you do use (even if it’s just: ‘Here’s a good analogy I read recently’). It’s just good form.

Anyway, good luck with your conversation.

I agree. I heard that before too, but since it is not a person-to-person discussion, I can find the answer for him right there. I also use quotation marks, so he does know I do not know all of that off the bat. However, I do agree I need to cite more.

Thank you. I will definitely do that, and clearly portray my honesty.

 

[I_am_learning]

Why would time travel always affect the future? That seems like a lame duck slid in here just to trip you up. I can think of at least 5000 examples where that wouldn’t be true. So I think he’s lost the race right here. He’s done.

But to give you something else to play with. Let’s shift over a bit.

Let’s talk about defacto Omniscience. Which we just about all have at this point. Yes. I’m talking about the Internet.

So imagine a perfect Internet. That records everything. Everywhere. All the time. And imagine instant and perfect search tools to plumb its depths. So now everyone’s able to call up and see everything that everyone’s doing. As they do it. But now let’s throw faster than light speed into the mix. So that you can now use complicated physics to see what everyone’s going to do 5 seconds ahead of time. So you’ve got a 5 second drop on anyone and everyone.

Tell me this. Where oh where has their free will gone?

Good luck man. Keep us posted.

-Trident

Thank you!

 

[Trident_H]

Even before this universe existed its not like there was nothing, we can think of what came before it as its own universe. **Nothing NEEDS to exist, it just does exist. **

Well there’s a faith statement right there. I guess. I mean how does he know either of these things?

Now, what created god? Every effect has a cause so surely a god must too. If you can say that he is eternal then you can say that an infinite chain of universes popping in an out of existence could exist too.

That really doesn’t make a lot of sense. I mean what makes God different is that He had no creator. So lining up something that had no creator with something that has an infinity of creation moments is not an equal comparison. He might as well be saying that a waterfall’s the same thing as the ocean. Because water.

God isnt needed, he serves no purpose.

God’s not some kind of loose screw. He’s not serving a purpose. He IS THE PURPOSE. I mean even if God turns out to be a three-headed monster He’s still the purpose. The main event. The whole point. The key.

If hes real and omniscient then hes a big douche to be honest.

Says the tiny man. Flailing his arms around and shaking his fist at the sky. Meanwhile God’s trying not to laugh.

He creates people for the sole purpose of wanting them to love him even though he knows beforehand that they wont.

I’ve never had children. But I hear they’re a lot of fun. But often folks aren’t making them for the sole purpose of wanting them to love them… Usually the love’s a thing that’s hoped for. Not planned out in advance. It’s one of the risks of having kids. Yeah. They might end up biting the hand that feeds them. Sure. But does that mean it isn’t worth the risk at all?

I also don’t think God’s that much of a simpleton to have only had one reason for humanity either.

He makes people specifically so that they will love him,

so that they CAN love Him. So they can choose that.

but then punishes those that dont even though they have no real choice of whether or not they want to love him because he already knows if they will or wont.

I’ve seen some dysfunctional relationships in my life. I’ve even been in a couple. Yet even in those there’s love of a sort. And it’s a free choice in both directions. But I can still stand on the doorstep and figure out whose love is strong enough to outlast whose. Does that mean no one’s choosing? Are they really all robots dancing for my utter amusement? I can know a guy’s an idiot. That he’ll make idiotic choices. But that doesn’t mean I’m making him do them. He’s free to run down the up ramp any time he wants.

But when it comes to throwing a party. Well do you think I invite the guys with a proven track record for making dumb choices? Do you think I go out of my way to go over an pick up the guys who I know will walk out with my stereo? Why would God, just because He’s a nice guy, have to deal with getting saddled with all the losers and users of humanity? Especially when He knows exactly what’s in their heart? Why would it make him a bastard to draw a line somewhere and just let only the good guys in? I mean none of us would be any different. None of us.

This brings another question, if god is omniscient (which has been proven ti negate free will) then he must foresee his own actions as well, and since an omniscient being has foreseen his actions then he cannot deviate from that foreseen path. So does god have free will?"

Has he ever looked forward to getting home from work/school and relaxing by taking out a game he’s already played or watching a movie he’s already seen? So then he knows what it’s like to foresee his own path. And yet to choose to do it anyway. Without changing his mind when he gets right up to it. So why would it be a big surprise that a being with the resources of God would get even a bit wobbly about following through with all of the things He’d already decided and knew He’d decided that He would do? I mean since God has perfect knowledge it seems less than uncanny that He’d have no need to double back on something later. Because if He ever did that. Well I guess He would have predicted that too.

 

[I_am_learning]

^ Thanks for the reply!

 

[I_am_learning]

I would, however, like more (name removed by moderator)ut on the “creating” question. Now, I know that if God decided not to create someone because they would end up in Hell, that would disrupt free will. But I am still in need of an explanation to generally God creating people. Is it that those people have been with Him, or He could see them in His plan, or…?

I hope I got my question across, Help please.

 

[Trident_H]

I would, however, like more (name removed by moderator)ut on the “creating” question. Now, I know that if God decided not to create someone because they would end up in Hell, that would disrupt free will. But I am still in need of an explanation to generally God creating people. Is it that those people have been with Him, or He could see them in His plan, or…?

I hope I got my question across, Help please.

K. Here’s the thing. God laid out the blanket at the beginning of time. He shook it out. And it laid down flat in front of Him. Because it’s all inter-woven. So some go to hell. And some go to heaven. But He doesn’t choose that for them. He only made the way open for creation to happen. He didn’t plan it out so one thing or another would happen. Instead He lets it all unravel as it will. So seeing that one soul’s headed to destruction? That’s as out of God’s want to interfere as the fan at a baseball game can’t jump in and catch the pop fly. It would defeat the whole point. It would undo the game. It would make every pitch a guaranteed out. Or every run a guaranteed win. So there’d be no point in doing any of it. No merit to award for a foregone conclusion.

Now God creating people in general? Well it’s all in the rhythm of the deed. It’s all in the pace of events. Because God’s created a great many things. So it seems just a logical place to be that He’d eventually create us too. After all. He’s had an infinite time to make an infinite number of things. For all we know we’re way down the line in that. Way down the line of things He’s already tried out before. No big deal. It’s His show.

Hope that helps.

Merry Christmas man.

-Trident

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Im new to this thread but, have you tried discussing the big bang? Its based on Genesis 1. .

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Bradski]

Do you have this quote on some sort of speed dial. Charles?

 

[littlestsouls2]

Most atheists have fundamentally flawed ideas about what we mean by “God.” Your friend, for example, compares an infinite causal chain to God. The two are infinitely different. For starters, God is not composed of potency and act; He cannot lose and acquire “being.”

Have you read ‘Who Designed the Designer?’ It answers these questions very well. The author shows deductively that an infinite, uncaused, spiritual mind (God) exists. Your friend should read this before trying to make sense of these apparent paradoxes, bearing in mind the feebleness of the human intellect, which he seems to have faith in for acquiring the truth.

 

[Oreoracle]

To build on Bradski’s point about asking for possible responses, wouldn’t it be irritating if your friend were doing the same? What if you make an argument the atheist can’t adequately address–one that challenges his preconceptions–and then, without fully digesting the rebuttals himself/herself, they just copy and paste counterarguments from others? Neither of you would learn anything from the exchange.

If one can’t adequately address another’s questions, then this presents an opportunity for one to revise their own beliefs. That’s what you would expect from your friend if you raised a point that they couldn’t address, so it’s only fair that it work the other way around.