Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The moment that life emerged then it responded to the environment.

It responded to an environment it didn’t know was there.

Consciousness and self awareness took some time to emerge but that is simply part of the natural process.

And then natures and qualities just so happen to emerge, such as brains, a central nervous system, sensory awareness, that allow for the ability to know and navigate an environment that can in principle be known. Physics cannot explain that, not just because it’s hard t

Nobody is arguing that these things didn’t emerge from a natural process, one is arguing that the possibility of their being a knower in an environment that in principle can possibly be known is not a coincidence at all because they presuppose the possibility of one-another.

I have already said that if life emerges then it will respond to the environment. It cannot be any other way. Life is PART of the environment. It exists WITHIN the environment. It REACTS to the environment. These are axiomatic statements.

It doesn’t need to be aware of the environment for it to exist. A bacterium is not aware of the environment. If there were just you and I examining life a few billion years back then you would have no argument. There wouldn’t be anything that WAS aware of the environment. If life remained at that level then again, you would have no argument.

But it didn’t. Consciousness emerged and we became self aware and only then do you exhibit surprise. ‘Gee, too much of a coincidence for THAT to have happened!’

You are simply exhibiting amazement at that. It’s an argument from incredulity. Notwithstanding, and quite reasonably from your position, that you need God to have at least some (name removed by moderator)ut at some point.

This is your point.

But please don’t tell me that it was at this juncture and for these reasons that you decided that an intelligence must have been needed. You have had God in the wings all the time. This is your point to bring Him centre stage.

 

[IWantGod]

If you want to go right back to that moment then we still have an argument from incredulity

It’s not an argument of incredulity

It’s a variation of the argument against the anthropic principle.

It’s nothing like the anthropic principle

Next you’ll be arguing that the fact that Earth is just the right distance from the sun for life is waaay too much of a coincidence as well.

I wouldn’t, and my argument is nothing like that.

You don’t understand what i am arguing, so i will leave it here.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How many different understandings do you think need to be carefully investigated before reaching a decision on which one is most accurate?

Honestly, I’d say all which present as credible. I recognize that apparent credibility is in the eye of the beholder, so I’d say any which attempt to present reasonable explanations for their beliefs. i.e. not just, believe because this one guy said so.

Why would it be a non-sequitur? The catechism explicitly declares that God’s existence can be KNOWN through pure reason alone - without reference to authority or faith. I am not adamant of requesting that a specific argument should be proven. Any one of them would do - as long as they would not refer to faith.

It is a non-sequitur because the incompleteness of any single proof does not negate what you can learn through examining various proofs taken together.

There is no “one proof” to arrive at the Catholic understanding of God. There are a plethora of proofs which each focus on different qualities of God, as well as His activity in human history.

 

[IWantGod]

These are axiomatic statements.

The fact that they respond to the environment is simply how we find nature, finding it that way is not an explanation in itself.

If there were just you and I examining life a few billion years back then you would have no argument.

You don’t understand what my argument is.

 

[PickyPicky]

You’re adorable! Your pseudonym explains it all

I am. And it does.

 

[Pattylt]

and since blind natural processes have no intent or foreknowledge of environments or knowers you cannot explain the possibility of their being an emergence of one in relation to the other using blind natural processes alone.

I’m really, really trying to understand your arguments. I fully admit I may just be too dense to unpack it.
When you say we can’t explain the possibility of their emergence of relationship using blind natural processes, how are you defining possibilities? Statistically? physically impossible? Unlikely?

By blind natural processes alone, is inserting God the only possibility? Why? You accept emergence to have occurred, right? Why isn’t that enough? Is your point that emergence must use God.

Any help is appreciated!

 

[George720]

That is why God is stable when nothing is stable…

God is not a thing, and no thing is stable…

Look at the Cosmos, then look at the vastness of Space in which it abides…

The Cosmos is suspended and abides in Space…

Space is no thing, yet it contains all things…

To con-tain is to Hold With…

Space is not passive…

Yet it cannot be perceived by man…

Hence some physicists are becoming believers…

I was an atheist my first 36 years…

geo

 

[Economist]

It is a non-sequitur because the incompleteness of any single proof does not negate what you can learn through examining various proofs taken together.

If that would be true, then that “summary” is missing. No matter how you twist it, the declaration in the catechism is deficient. And two thousand years were not enough to put the summary together?

There are a plethora of proofs which each focus on different qualities of God, as well as His activity in human history.

Unfortunately I am not aware of even one - which would not rely on some faith or some authority.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If that would be true, then that “summary” is missing. No matter how you twist it, the declaration in the catechism is deficient. And two thousand years were not enough to put the summary together?

The summary does exist, it has been put together in any number of philosophical apologetic works. The Summa has been around for nearly a thousand years, and it outlines five proofs for God, and dives into several of God’s qualities, all arrived at from the starting point of observable creation.

Unfortunately I am not aware of even one - which would not rely on some faith or some authority.

Like I said, start with the Summa. Aquinas’ proofs all begin with what is observable within the realms of nature, and work upwards from there. Trent Horn’s book Answering Atheism also outlines a handful of philosophical proofs for God that presuppose nothing.

 

[Economist]

The summary does exist, it has been put together in any number of philosophical apologetic works. The Summa has been around for nearly a thousand years, and it outlines five proofs for God, and dives into several of God’s qualities, all arrived at from the starting point of observable creation.

Of course I am familiar with the five proofs. Each and every one of them contains errors. And if any one would be successful, it would only lead to a deistic creator.

 

[o_mlly]

You are wrong. The catechism says that God’s existence can be known by pure reason alone (which means: without faith), but unfortunately leaves out the argument of “how can it be known?”.

Apparently, you read too economically. See the footnote #10 in the Catechism.

 

[Economist]

Apparently, you read too economically. See the footnote #10 in the Catechism.

Please quote it. Here is the whole text. http://archeparchy.ca/wcm-docs/docs/catechism-of-the-catholic-church.pdf

You can show the exact place you have in mind.

 

[o_mlly]

Please quote it. Here is the whole text. http://archeparchy.ca/wcm-docs/docs/catechism-of-the-catholic-church.pdf

You can show the exact place you have in mind.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You know, I’ve heard people repeat that they have errors in them, even read some of the breakdowns of these “errors.” Most of the time, these so-called errors just seem to stem from personal incredulity, rather than any deficiency in the proof. I’d love to hear what you think the problems with these proofs are.

 

[Economist]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm

Thanks. Do you refer to footnote #10 : “St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I,2,3.”?

Which refers back to:

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

Because if you do, it is not helpful. None of the so-called philosophical proofs can withstand the scrutiny of reason, and even if they could, none of them would lead to the biblical God of Christianity.

 

[o_mlly]

Because if you do, it is not helpful. None of the so-called philosophical proofs can withstand the scrutiny of reason, and even if they could, none of them would lead to the biblical God of Christianity.

The arguments are for the existence of God the Creator and are all reasonable. The God of Christianity is a different argument.

 

[Economist]

You know, I’ve heard people repeat that they have errors in them, even read some of the breakdowns of these “errors.” Most of the time, these so-called errors just seem to stem from personal incredulity, rather than any deficiency in the proof. I’d love to hear what you think the problems with these proofs are.

Don’t hurry. I am willing to engage in an analytical conversation. But you need to present the argument in your own words, and explain the meanings of some of those words. So far all such conversations bogged down because the apologist declared that some words do not mean what they mean in a secular environment. They say that the words of Aquinas used to have a different meaning in those times. So I will wait until you pick the proof you wish to discuss, and present the modern “translation” of the questionable words.

 

[Economist]

The arguments are for the existence of God the Creator and are all reasonable. The God of Christianity is a different argument.

Present one in your own words, and we can discuss it.

 

[o_mlly]

Present one in your own words, and we can discuss it.

In this forum, the one who asserts must back up his claim. You claim you ar3 already familiar with the arguments so show us the errors.

All the alleged philosophical proofs of God are faulty …

Of course I am familiar with the five proofs. Each and every one of them contains errors.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So far all such conversations bogged down because the apologist declared that some words do not mean what they mean in a secular environment. They say that the words of Aquinas used to have a different meaning in those times

Considering that the works were written 800 years ago, and that it is written and understood in light of a living language, that’s an accurate and necessary observation.

So I will wait until you pick the proof you wish to discuss, and present the modern “translation” of the questionable words.

As for this, you said that there were errors. Pick a proof and explain what you see wrong with it. You are making the positive assertion that these proofs are in error, so at this point the ball is in your court. You can’t say that the proofs are wrong, and then say that it’s up to me to explain how they’re not without any understand of why you believe them to be wrong.

(Also, I’m mid-deadline at work, so if I’m being honest I don’t have time to do this until next… Thursday or Friday, depending on how everything goes. If you’d like we could shift this to PMs so I can actually find your response and we can engage i a meaningful discussion.)