Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[lelinator]

Yes lelinator, we are all already aware that you think it’s a possibility that you are God. In any case the existence of physical reality would be teleological since in either case an intelligence is the cause of it.

But it would seem to me that you must at least consider the possibility that the reason that reality is so perfectly attuned to my existence is because I am its cause. But this doesn’t by necessity presume that I am the first cause, or that I am God. Just that I may be the cause of this miniscule, insignificant thing that I presume to be all of reality. It may in fact not be all of reality, simply my small piece.

 

[IWantGod]

I would still like to hear what your alternatives are which make your environment/environment sensing life a coincidence.

It’s not me that would claim it to be a coincidence. I said it cannot be.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Yes. Because there aren’t any in the cyclical model. It’s one event. Outside time.

I’m not two interested in a hypothesis that would deny the very reality of change and then call it a cyclical model. I’ll stick with what i know.

Which, in this regard, would be exactly as much as I do. Next to nothing. But I am prepared to listen to proposals from leaders in the field and not dismiss them because I didn’t get around to doing that theoretical physics course I wanted to do.

If you had to think of someone that would fit the term ‘guy who really knows what he’s talking about’, then you wouldn’t go far wrong with Sir Roger.

But I guess we could ignore him and his ideas and just read posts from random people on the forum though.

There is a fallacy known as An Appeal To Authority. But that doesn’t apply to listening to what people who know a lot more than you or I do on complex matters.

 

[IWantGod]

If you had to think of someone that would fit the term ‘guy who really knows what he’s talking about’, then you wouldn’t go far wrong with Sir Roger.

What is being spoken about here are physical causes. But i don’t believe that a physical cause is the same thing as an existential cause in principle and i have my reasons for thinking so.

 

[Mary888]

No. I am simply pointing out the fact that there is an environment, and the fact that there are natures that have qualities that allow them to know their environment.

I hope you are not implying that atheists have no rational discernment because of their lack of faith. Many of them are highly intelligent and have strong moral grounds.
The hardcore problem is that, at the root, the existence of God to a non-believer can only be proven by the intervention of the said Person Himself. In other words miracles. Not supernatural events, ghosts and such, but the non-believer experiencing a miracle within the context of said religion - in our case, Christianity.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I would still like to hear what your alternatives are which make your environment/environment sensing life a coincidence.

It’s not me that would claim it to be a coincidence. I said it cannot be.

So if there is no coincidence there are no other options. It could only have been what it was. How can you be confused about that?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If you had to think of someone that would fit the term ‘guy who really knows what he’s talking about’, then you wouldn’t go far wrong with Sir Roger.

What is being spoken about here are physical causes. But i don’t believe that a physical cause is the same thing as an existential cause in principle and i have my reasons for thinking so.

The cause of this universe was physical, not existential. As per the cyclical model. It’s now one of the options you have. As I said earlier, all posts from now on will imply an implict disclaimer: ‘On the assumtion that Sir Roger Penrose is wrong, then…’

As you were.

 

[IWantGod]

The hardcore problem is that, at the root, the existence of God to a non-believer can only be proven by the intervention of the said Person Himself.

And i would say that they are wrong. That might be the conditions that they demand, but it doesn’t follow that the existence of God in principle cannot be known otherwise. There are some things that are a matter of faith, but the existence of a supreme being and intellect can be known to exist because the alternative is meaningless insomuch as it leads to absurdity.

 

[Economist]

I would argue that modern knowledge of physics only bolsters Aquinas’ argument.

First, I want to thank you for your analysis.

Now let’s get down to it.

Aquinas’ argument doesn’t only encompass those things which are actually changing, it also deals with those things that have the potential to change, to be changed, or to be different from what they are. This encompasses everything from your puddle, to the foundational laws of physics that govern the structure of the universe.

This paragraph has an error in it. The “laws” of the universe are not ontologically existing phenomena, they are our explanations of the observed events. As our understanding grows the explanation will have to be modified. This has nothing to do with the concept of “change”.

All things which exist in this universe appear to be contingent, there are forces external to themselves which govern their current state.

This is the same incorrect generalization from the particular to the whole that Aquinas committed. And you introduced another concept: “contingent”. This concept needs to be defined. Does it mean that things could be “different”? Like a water molecule does not “have to” contain one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms? Or that a hydrogen atom does not “have to” contain exactly one proton and one electron?

There is no evidence that anything in the whole of material existence is not acted on and influenced by external forces.

This is a strange “double negative”.

The basic building blocks of the universe are what they are. They cannot change even if external forces act upon them. It is quite possible that our current understanding of the concept “basic” needs to be refined. But the basic building blocks do not change, only our understanding of them.

D: An infinite regression of changes is impossible, given that, with infinite “moments” of change prior to the current one, it would be impossible to ever reach the current point of change in the line of changes. (If there is an infinite distance to travel before I reach my current location, then I can never reach where I am because there is an infinite distance to travel before I get here.)

This argument contains an incorrect understanding of the concept of “time” and the incorrect understanding of the mathematical concept of “convergent series”. In the times of Zeno people simply could not imagine a convergent series, where infinitely many changes will result in a finite amount. But that is just abstract mathematics, which is not applicable to physics.

The error you commit comes from the incorrect understanding of “time”. Time and space used to be understood as absolute phenomena, an unchanging “box” of the Newtonian universe, which contains the physical universe. This understanding has been discarded with the Einsteinian model of space-time-matter-energy where time is not an independent variable any more.

 

[IWantGod]

It could only have been what it was.

You are claiming, that because there are environments there has to be a possibility of knowers only because of the fact of environments, and that this possibility is perfectly ineligible in terms of physical processes. But you would have to show that. You cannot just assert it.

The question is, is the possibility of that relationship explicable by physics alone. I think that you would ultimately have to say it’s brute fact.

Secondly, the argument is that there is an environment that can in principle be sensed and known, and beings have come into existence that have the nature to sense and know it. This relationship is teleological because the possibility of the two presuppose each-others existence and natures, and while they may be dependent on blind physical processes to be actual, their relationship is evidently not a coincidence and cannot be explained by blind natural processes for reasons i have continuously repeated ( a lack of foresight and intention ).

So either the relationship is a brute fact (I reject brute facts) or the relationship is ultimately a result of an intellect that intended for there to be a relationship between the two.

 

[Economist]

Given the context and time of his writing, this is not an improper generalization. His world was distinctly Catholic, and pretty much every philosopher, scientist, etc, he knew would have been Catholic. This is an accurate statement given his context.

Aha, but if a philosophical argument cannot withstand the scrutiny of the time, then it needs to be discarded. As I said before, even if his argument would be valid, it would only point to a faceless Prime Mover, not to the concept of Christian God, with all his plethora of attributes.

My basic criticism is that Aquinas operates on an incorrect generalization from the particular to the whole. And this error manifests itself in all the other arguments. The basic form of his arguments can be summarized as:

P1: we observe a particular phenomenon. (true)
P2: we assume that is phenomenon can be generalized unto the whole universe. (erroneous)
C: therefore the explanation points to outside the universe, to something we call God. (erroneous)

I’m going to try to make this my only post today. I’m mid-deadline, so I need to be focusing on my work. Sorry for the inconvenience.

That is fine. I am not impatient.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Bradskii:

Then life, then consciousness and then self awareness. Easy.

You glossed over a million “Coincidences”.

I have no hope whatsoever that this will make sense to you. But anyway…Quote by Richard P. Feynman: “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me...”

ARW 357… kinda lame, seeing it 10 days in a row would have more significance .

 

[lelinator]

Yes lelinator, we are all already aware that you think it’s a possibility that you are God.

You need to stop being so darn hypocritical. I have taken the time to consider, weigh, and hopefully understand your arguments. I do believe that I have a fairly clear understanding of them. But you dismiss mine as if I am incapable of the same level of reasoning as you are.

I’ll repost my last comment. I think that it deserves the same level of consideration as you think people should give to yours.

But it would seem to me that you must at least consider the possibility that the reason that reality is so perfectly attuned to my existence is because I am its cause. But this doesn’t by necessity presume that I am the first cause, or that I am God. Just that I may be the cause of this miniscule, insignificant thing that I presume to be all of reality. It may in fact not be all of reality, simply my small piece.

 

[IWantGod]

No, atheists are totally retarded

That’s going too far mate. You will get banned.

 

[IWantGod]

I’ll repost my last comment. I think that it deserves the same level of consideration as you think people should give to yours.

Fair enough.

 

[lelinator]

Fair enough.

Thank you.

 

[lelinator]

Now I’m going to throw out an idea that’s going to seem completely stupid. But I’ll do it anyway.

Consider the possibility that the first cause…God, gives rise to consciousness, and consciousness gives rise to reality.

But before the existence of reality, before the existence of time and space, the idea that one thing preceded the other is meaningless. So these three things must appear as simply three aspects of the same thing.

A trinity. The Father…the first cause. The Holy spirit…consciousness. And the Son…physical reality.

This isn’t meant to be a proof. It’s meant to be a curiosity. It’s supposed to make you think.

How good are you at considering ideas that are foreign to your preconceptions?

 

[o_mlly]

It’s a common problem that Christians face. Without realising it. What you should have said is ‘The arguments are for the initial existence of a god (definition required) who was the creator of this universe’.

Spell god with a capital G and describe that god as the Creator with a capital C and you are already showing your hand. You are already talking about the God of Christianity. I hope you don’t play poker for money.

We must presume that this was posted well after cocktail hour began down under so we’ll let it pass as just another Baffling Bradskiism.

 

[Economist]

Remember this wonderful idea of Douglas Adams:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,

‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

 

[Bradskii]

As I said…it didn’t make any sense to you at all.