Dishonest Apologetics

[benedictus2]

Or you could have infinitely many integers before 1 and everything has a proximate cause. You haven’t done anything to show this is impossible. I disagree with the argument you’re making, and I’m pretty sure I disagree with Kreeft. But if you want me to respond to his argument, could you link me to which version of it you’re using?

Yes, I have shown that this is impossible. You think in numbers but numbers are not material. We are talking about the material world. Put it this way, in purely mathetical terms we can say 2 minus 3 = negative one. But one cannot really say in the material sense 2 apples minus 3 apples = negative 1 apple.
So therefore my argument stands. You cannot have an infinite number of causes that depend on causes which are in turn caused by something else. There has to be a cause that is not caused that is, does not depend on anything for its existence.
You may disagree with Kreeft but the thing is you cannot show the flaw in this argument.
As to the version of Kreeft’s argument, if you go to the same website, it is the one called first cause. This St Thomas’s proof which Peter Kreeft tried to make accessible.

What is the proximate cause of a planet being formed? How do you draw the line between causes 1, 2, and 3 in your series of causes. To me it seems more appropriate to say that things are constantly changing then to block them up into a specific series of causes.

Change is not causality. What I am saying here is cause. A cause is anything that determines the existence of another. Say your proximate cause of being in existence is your father and mother, and theirs would be their own fathers and mothers and so forth.
What is the proximate cause of a planet being formed? I don’t know. But one thing we do know is that the planet did not cause itself into existence because I think we have agreed that ca. What ever the planet’s cause is irrelevant to the discussion because the point is the planet did not create itself.

The mere lack of knowledge does not provide any evidence for a creator.

And I never said that it did. But neither does It provide evidence for chance. There are only two options here, Creator or chance. But you seem to have ruled out creator altogether when at the same time you say there is not enough knowledge to go either way.

If I have no evidence on whether or not there are invisible fairies who will drive me to commit a crime tomorrow, that does not mean I should say there’s a 50% chance that there are. I have no evidence that the universe did not begin 10 minutes ago, but that doesn’t mean that there’s a 50% chance that it did.

This is a misrepresentation of our discussion. The existence of fairies is not one of the options in a list of possibilities. This not a case of either a zero or a one.
The issue is the origin of the universe and we only have two options: God or chance.
Since there are two options, there is a 50/50 chance it could be either of these two.

Because we don’t yet know. It is not a scientific fact that the universe is infinitely old. I never claimed that it was.

And that is exactly my point. That is why I said you need to stop mixing what is supported by data and that which is mere conjecture to which you replied that I ought to stop when in fact it was you who started mixing data with conjecture.

I do not think there is something supernatural. But if there were, it could be pretty much anything.

You are not making any sense here. First you say that you concede the possibility of something supernatural and then you say you do not think that there is something supernatural. If you concede the possibility of something you must have some idea of what that something is.

I know you aren’t arguing for the Catholic version of God. What I am saying is that I have no evidence one way or another on whether there’s some sort of creator. I mentioned the Catholic God to show that even though I think a creator is possible, as soon as you start assigning it properties, like it caring whether we believe in him and behave certain ways, the probability of such a god existing becomes incredibly small (absent evidence to the contrary).

Maaan, you keep contradicting yourself. First you say you know I am not arguing for a Catholic God then you say I am I assigning properties to this God and that the likelihood of such a good with such properties is small.

How many times do I have re-iterate that what we are discussing here is Creator God. Full stop.

What I believe God to be I have not brought up as an item for discussion with you. So let’s get one thing clear, what we are discussing here is Creator God period. No other properties. So perhaps we can move on from here.

 

[benedictus2]

I mean the entire natural world and it seems like you mean just the spatial and temporal part of our universe that we have some knowledge of.

No I do not mean what you think I mean. When I say universe, I mean the entire natural world. But to further clarify, when you say temporal what exactly do you mean by this term?

I agree. The article I linked to earlier describes quite a lot of the evidence for it. There is no good evidence for the stead state theory.

Finally we get that cleared up. So you agree with me that the big bang is the going accepted theory? If this is so then why did we go through all that tango of whether the big bang is the accepted theory or not.

Unless there is some other theory that you believe holds sway more than the big bang?

I mean that they no longer apply. It would be like trying to use a map of a known island on a completely unexplored island. It’s theoretically possible that the islands would be in the exact same shape, but there’s no reason to assume that they would be.

You keep saying that when you just have no way of knowing whether that is true or not precisely because we do not know anything (conditions included) before Planck time. You cannot at the same times say that the laws will not apply when we know zilch about anything before Planck time.
You map analogy does not work because you are assuming that there is a completely unexplored island when because of the fact that our knowledge is zero, there may not be an unexplored island at all. Put it this way, if we do not know anything before 1930 we cannot say that what applies now will not have applied before 1930. When you know zilch about anything, you know zilch period.

Because once the universe becomes sufficiently dense and hot, quantum effects become more important and you would need a gravitational theory that is consistent with quantum physics. However, we don’t currently have a proven theory of quantum gravitation. So we’re unsure whether the universe would keep shrinking if you went back in time, or whether the universe would start expanding.

But as I have mentioned above, since we you know nothing about what happened before Planck time then you know nothing. It’s not only that we do not know whether the universe will expand or contract or what theory of quantum gravitation will work. We plain do not know anything at all about anything before Planck time.

 

[benedictus2]

P.S. Atheist I want to thank you for your prayers from my son and his family. :tiphat:

Now I am really confused Cinette. Did Atheist pray for your son and his family? To what God?

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2:

*Put simply, say in 2 depending on one and 3 depending on 2, it would all be zero if we do not have one because the very first say in the sequence (2) depends on 1 for being. If 1 in turn dependended on another thing for existence, and so forth, then there would be nothing (zero) because each in turn depends on something that depends on something yet again. Unless there is something that does not depend on anything else for it’s existence, then nothing (zero) will result. *

Can you please explain this in more detail?

I don’t follow your reasoning.

Okay how do I simplify that. Let us talk genealogy. Let us say Q fathered P, P fathered O, O father N, and so fort down the line. We know N exists becuase of O which in turn exists because of P who again exists because of Q. So in fact, NOP all exists only becuase Q exists. Without Q there will be no NOP.

But if Q in turns owes it existence to something say R that owes it existence to something again say S and so forth then you see that every single one of them depends on something that depends on something for its existence. Unles there is something that does not depend on another for existence, then nothing will exist because everything is preconditioned by something that is itself preconditiioned by something else. Unless let us say Z was there from the beginning and does not depend on anything else for it’s existence, then there would be nothing at all.

 

[benedictus2]

However, if I said that Steven Hawking was an atheist, you would probably think that I was either trying to show that it’s possible for a smart scientist to be an atheist, or that science and intelligence lead to atheism.

If you had mentioned that Steven Hawking is/was an atheist all I would have said was “So? What does that have to do with whether God exists or not”.

Which really is all that anyone should have commented about my post or Cinette’s. Just point out the illogicallity of it.

And I would have replied “Absolutely nothing”. End of story…

But unfortunately you and Surfmeister decided to take it to another level. A level it did not deserve

Surfmeister calls my post dishonest apologetics and shoots himself in the foot in the process

 

[benedictus2]

Still using that capital G, though, hmmm?

A Creator God (who creatied the universe from nothing and so therefore was in existence before everthing else is welll deserving of the Capital G". As a matter of fact, as big a G as possible.

Deists are like one of the seven blind men of hindustan. They believe that the elephant does exist but upon touching the side of the elephant concluded it is a huge wall. Some touched the ear and said it is a fan and others touched the tusk and concluded that the elephant is a sword.

The atheist does not see the elephant at all.

The theist sees the elephant for what ti is but concedes that there is much more to the elephant than meets the eye.

 

[benedictus2]

Cool! I see some science experts.
Can someone show me a link or explain how evolution & natural selection come up with the pattern on the wings of the butterflies that look like an eye and how animals developed skin patterns that camouflage their environment?

Chance took a a few pigments here and there then Chance created a pattern and thought I think this would be cool if it is also an eye

 

[benedictus2]

that, my friend, is where you are mistaken…lol…i dont believe in god as an event or force, but as a distinct creator with all the powers that would be in attendance for someone who could create a universe…THEN full stop…btw…i rarely capitalise, so whether i’m referring to the christian concept of god, the deist concept of god, or the pantheon of norse mythology, i simply wtite “god”…i hope this clears up any confusion……frederick

Hi Jargon,

Apologies to you. In my post 591 I said way to go Surfie (to Surfmeister) but that should have been way to go Jargon… (other way around )

Entire post 591 was addressed to you.

Cheers,

Cory

 

[benedictus2]

I agree completely. But the lack of experience with nothingness shows that we do not have any evidence either for or against the ability of something to come from nothing. Intuitively it seems wrong, but our intuition is often wrong when it comes to physics that is outside our own experience.

Is it intuition or plain good sensible rational thinking?. Nothing is nothing. It cannot cause something into existence. From zero cannot come 1. Causa sui as I have said before is a contradition. Now before you say I have not explained myself again, I am assuming that you know here what I mean by causa sui, that the thing is the cause of itself.

You’d first have to establish that the universe is not eternal, and that something cannot come from nothing.

Do you believe that the universe is eternal, that it is pure being not dependent on anything for its existence? If the universe is that which is eternal, then you are saying that the universe is the cause of your existtence?

Cells are indeed extraordinarily complex, but why do you assume that every pattern must have a pattern maker?

So you think the complexity of the cells is purely by chance?

 

[benedictus2]

As long as there is something, there will be some regularity in how things work in that universe (as pure randomness itself is a kind of regularity).

Aaah! As long as there is something. To extend that is to say as long as there has ALWAYS been something. There has to have been something that has always been there for the universe to be here. You said in another post that the universe may have been eternal Do you think that that something that has always been there is the universe?

You do not support your assumption that there can be no regularities without there being a creator. You also do not show that my view requires any faith at all.

Actually, I think Joe is right that your view requires faith. If you are an atheist as you claim then you have the faith on the god called chance. And that require a lot more faith to believe in than the Intelligient Designer we call God.

Atheist, you replied to another post of mine, which I saw before I left to go to Mass but now I can’t seem to find it (maybe because it is late and I am beginning to see double). If you think I need to address it, can you let me know. I will see if I can log on tomorrow to locate it.

 

[Sinner82]

Chance took a a few pigments here and there then Chance created a pattern and thought I think this would be cool if it is also an eye

I envy chance it made so much cool stuff, that artist and engineers copy its works.

 

[PatrickLars]

There are instances that “argumenting” were simply a construction to propose publicity among peers. Sometimes, these what they consider themselves as good debaters were as abstract as to their knowledge, they seek world achievements rather than seeking the truth. They are like the modern stoics. A qoute from Socrates: “scio me nihil scire”, in english: I know that I Know nothing, the humility and honesty of this verse is well profound for those who I considered as the true lovers of wisdom.

 

[Maranatha33]

Hi, EA.,

Just got a note from Joe, saying that there is an interesting conversation going on here…

I don’t think it’s illogical. Something coming from nothing just seems like it couldn’t happen. However, I do think that it is illogical if you say that science shows the universe had a beginning.

** From Dr. Stephen Hawking**

In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature.

**The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. **

The evolution theory regarding the formation of the earth has the same problems as the cellular theory. There is no beginning proposed by evolutionists that can be proven, just disproven. Where did the matter come from?

***“The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws. The sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing…It represents a true miracle.” ***

(I thought the acknowledgement of miracles was exclusively a creation belief.)

Paul Davies, physics and evolution, The Edge of infinity 1995.

"The universe burst into something from absolutely zero…nada. As it got bigger it became filled with more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."

Discover magazine, April 2002.

"It is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning."

]Joseph Silk, Phd. and professor of astronomy, University of Oxford.

The Big Bang, 2001.

"… Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness."

Sten Odenwald, Phd. and chief scientist with Raytheon STX corp. at the Goddard Space Center.

The Astronomy Cafe, 1998.

Here is a question for you.
How was the universe created? There are only 3 possible answers:

It created itself-
Obviously not possible since nothing can create itself, and it goes against the Law of Cause and Effect.

It is eternal-
This would entail no molecular movement which in turn creates a virtual heat death. Life would be impossible. Plus the conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It had a Creator.-
Well, we have run out of other possibilities.

In Christ Jesus,

m33

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Wow, I’ve fallen way behind again. Thanks everyone for all your questions/comments and I’ll try to get caught up as soon as I can.

 

[joe370]

**Atheist, I know you don’t believe in God, for lack of evidence, but do you hope that there is a God, if so, why? **

 

[anEvilAtheist]

**Atheist, I know you don’t believe in God, for lack of evidence, but do you hope that there is a God, if so, why? **

Yes, I would want for there to be a benevolent God and a heaven (although eternal happiness seems impossible, I am willing to accept that it may be possible for an omnipotent being to bring about). However, I currently think that the chances of such a God existing are so low that I do not actively hope that he exists. Similarly, I would love to find billions of dollars buried in my yard, but it’s not something I actively hope for. But if knowing God is as incredible as the Church teaches, and eternal happiness is possible, I would want it.

 

[Angie_Baskin]

Thanks for taking the time to read the link I sent and respond. I think it would be unfair to dismiss ACIM out of hand as some Catholics may do and I am trying not to do that. In response to your post, I have taken a look at some of their stuff. I can understand why some of their teachings would be appealing. But what I still don’t understand is why you think it’s true. I think it is dangerous to believe things just because we want them to be true (for example, if I get an email saying I won a lottery I didn’t enter, I may want it to be true, but that doesn’t mean I should go ahead and send them my bank account number). There are only so many hours in the day and I don’t want to go through the whole course unless I think they might be on to something. So I was wondering if you could tell me why you think their teachings are true. If you give good reasons, I will then read up more on their teachings.

I can hardly believe that I’ve received an open minded response to this item!! It’s hard to say why I believe ACIM as true. I don’t believe it is because I wish to. Why I say this is because I have always believed I was saved. I have always believed God loved me and I have always felt protected and directed by Jesus as to what to do and how to act in my life. I have felt this since I was old enough to remember. I also had a significant revelation at the age of aprox 9 or 10 (can’t remember my exact age) while on my knees with my family praying the rosary (a compulsory nightly family prayer which I found boring and monotonous). Because I found it so boring I desided I may as well do something interesting, so I began to think about the life of Jesus but in a movie reel style thought. (I’m a visual person). About half way through the Rosary, I was suddenly filled with a hot rush of ???..what it felt like was ‘hot love’.but being juvenile I didn’t know what that was. I felt heady and full of joy to the point of bursting. I could barely stay on my knees and couldn’t stop smiling. No one was praying over me or touching me. Everything was exactly as it had been every other night. All I knew was that Jesus was speaking privately just to me. I felt Him in my “personal space”. I could here His voice like a warm caress. There was no doubt who it was & what I was experiencing. I have never been the same since and can not understand, even the thought, of other’s doubt in a God or Jesus as I have felt Him so tangably. This is the same awareness I had when I began to read ACIM. I heard the same ‘voice’. But it is not just this that convinces me but the outcomes I’ve experienced by applying the course. The course it’s self says that you will see it’s truth as you apply it – and I have. I’ve seen it in my marriage amoung other things. Athough it’s not a theological document, when I read it, passages of the bible pop into my head and I think, 'that’s what Jesus meant about that…"and “that’s why He did that…” It all finally makes sense… everything. What I have found is that it’s not a document that you can breeze through. or pick up at any page. (at least not for me). It’s not easy listening either. It makes you look inside but without fear or judgment. Its scary and awsome all in one. It shows you your purpose and endowers you with a mission. A mission that is not visable or judgemental but difficult yet simple all in one. I do not find it contradictory to my Catholic Christian faith and I don’t believe it’s contrary to ANY faith. It’s seems to be a universal truth (and that is why I seem to attract so much flack over reading it). It is labled New Age and thrown out with the rest of new age thinking. It probably is New Age but I also believe it’s truth where as a lot of new age isn’t. It’s like Catholics don’t want to know anything that may say that as a Catholic we may not have the whole truth. I think the Catholic Religion DOES have the whole truth but the experience and interpretation leaves much to be desired and that much has been ‘tacked on’ as truth and it’s not. ACIM seems untainted & pure and if read thoughtfully with an open heart, reveals it’s truths personally and totally at your own pace. If is’t for YOU, you will be LED to read it and you WILL. It’s all in the perfect timing of the Lord. That is my experience. Love Angie

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I can hardly believe that I’ve received an open minded response to this item!! It’s hard to say why I believe ACIM as true. I don’t believe it is because I wish to. Why I say this is because I have always believed I was saved. I have always believed God loved me and I have always felt protected and directed by Jesus as to what to do and how to act in my life. I have felt this since I was old enough to remember. I also had a significant revelation at the age of aprox 9 or 10 (can’t remember my exact age) while on my knees with my family praying the rosary (a compulsory nightly family prayer which I found boring and monotonous). Because I found it so boring I desided I may as well do something interesting, so I began to think about the life of Jesus but in a movie reel style thought. (I’m a visual person). About half way through the Rosary, I was suddenly filled with a hot rush of ???..what it felt like was ‘hot love’.but being juvenile I didn’t know what that was. I felt heady and full of joy to the point of bursting. I could barely stay on my knees and couldn’t stop smiling. No one was praying over me or touching me. Everything was exactly as it had been every other night. All I knew was that Jesus was speaking privately just to me. I felt Him in my “personal space”. I could here His voice like a warm caress. There was no doubt who it was & what I was experiencing. I have never been the same since and can not understand, even the thought, of other’s doubt in a God or Jesus as I have felt Him so tangably. This is the same awareness I had when I began to read ACIM. I heard the same ‘voice’. But it is not just this that convinces me but the outcomes I’ve experienced by applying the course. The course it’s self says that you will see it’s truth as you apply it – and I have. I’ve seen it in my marriage amoung other things. Athough it’s not a theological document, when I read it, passages of the bible pop into my head and I think, 'that’s what Jesus meant about that…"and “that’s why He did that…” It all finally makes sense… everything. What I have found is that it’s not a document that you can breeze through. or pick up at any page. (at least not for me). It’s not easy listening either. It makes you look inside but without fear or judgment. Its scary and awsome all in one. It shows you your purpose and endowers you with a mission. A mission that is not visable or judgemental but difficult yet simple all in one. I do not find it contradictory to my Catholic Christian faith and I don’t believe it’s contrary to ANY faith. It’s seems to be a universal truth (and that is why I seem to attract so much flack over reading it). It is labled New Age and thrown out with the rest of new age thinking. It probably is New Age but I also believe it’s truth where as a lot of new age isn’t. It’s like Catholics don’t want to know anything that may say that as a Catholic we may not have the whole truth. I think the Catholic Religion DOES have the whole truth but the experience and interpretation leaves much to be desired and that much has been ‘tacked on’ as truth and it’s not. ACIM seems untainted & pure and if read thoughtfully with an open heart, reveals it’s truths personally and totally at your own pace. If is’t for YOU, you will be LED to read it and you WILL. It’s all in the perfect timing of the Lord. That is my experience. Love Angie

Wow, that’s a powerful story. Thanks for sharing that. Although I think that you could have had an experience like that even if there wasn’t a God, I won’t try to explain it away. I understand why you’d believe based on your experiences, but I haven’t had those same experiences. Maybe if I had had experiences like yours I would feel differently. I just don’t consider people’s subjective experiences of God to be good evidence that he exists because different people have different and often contradictory experiences, and because those experiences are explainable even if there is no God. I consider it possible that there’s some kind of creator, but I just think that if he exists, we don’t know anything about him. I could be convinced by evidence, but I still don’t think I’ve seen any good reasons to believe.

Thanks for your post though. I like to try to understand why people believe the things that they do.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Maan, where did I say that? My post was a one liner. I am not quite sure how you could have inferred that from my post. The only reason you could have misconstrued it that way would have been due to bad arguments from theists you have encountered in the past. So again, posting with a set of assumptions in motion.

Well, Cinette’s post made it sound like she was saying that science had some effect on Einstein’s thoughts on God, and it sounded like you agreed.

No there is no reason for me to mention Einstein. So correction again, That is why I did not mention Einstein. I merely commented on Cinnete mentioning Einstein.

If anything the only thing that I was thinking when I commented on Cinnete’s post was the common misconception among atheists and agnostics that only the “uneducated” and “idiotic” belived in God. But then again, I did not write that then becaused that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion and I have not read any posts that suggested you have bought into that misconception as well.

That’s basically what I thought. It definitely is a common misconception that only uneducated people believe in God. Although most top scientists are atheists, there are plenty of believers as well. I don’t think that making a point like that is dishonest at all (though we can certainly argue about Einstein’s religious beliefs).

So I am not explaining myself again on this matter suffice it to say that both you and Surfmeister got it totally wrong. So that’s that.

Again, a reminder. Stick to what has been written and when in doubt ask.

I don’t think that I got it totally wrong. I think I basically understood what you and Cinette were getting at with your posts. There’s definitely been some failure of communication between us though, so I apologize if I came off as judgmental. Anyway, I hope we can put this behind us. I don’t really care that much about the Einstein argument and I think it’s been beaten to death.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Don’t worry. I have stowed away my heat seeking missiles so you can come out of the bunker now.

There appear not to be any signs of life in the bunker. I guess those were some powerful missiles.