Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[IWantGod]

Physics is the cause, .

What does that mean, beyond the assertion?

And the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ assumes that either could have been the case.

No. It emphasizes the idea that existence needs an explanation

It just is.

Is a brute fact with no content, this is your answer. But it’s not an answer at all.

But there’s only one answer.

Absolutely nothing is logically impossible

Thus there is a nature that has a necessary act of reality. It necessarily exists and does not come into existence, and as such does not have any actualised or unrealized potential in it. It is it’s nature to exist, and as such has the fullness of it’s reality. Therefore you cannot treat it as something that lacks reality or as something that is limited in it’s actuality or as something that can essentially be more than what it already is. It cannot be described as something that is forming or transforming or in a state of becoming or as something that has moving parts. It is not something that is progressing towards some particular act of reality or state. It is not a cyclical universe.
It is pure-actuality, and in actual fact It causes to exist and determines the nature and laws of everything that is changing, and therefore everything that is not necessary existence.
.
In this ultimate reality we move and have our being (This is what Aquinas points to as the uncaused cause).

That is the answer. Any other conclusion necessarily leads to absurdity.

The fallacy that plagues all forms of materialism and metaphysical naturalism in particular is the idea that reality can essentially be explained by an operation, or a movement of parts or an interaction of the elements.

The sooner you alleviate your mind of this deception the better you will become in understanding the object of your experience and more importantly the existence of yourself as a personal being.

 

[IWantGod]

Show me just one instance of “movement from potentiality to actuality” which does not involve a physical change

Why? Do you not understand what is being said.

 

[Economist]

Why? Do you not understand what is being said.

Because it was you, who asserted that the Thomistic concept of motion is some “ontological” concept. I say that there is no “motion” or “change” outside the physical reality. The Thomistic concept of “potential” and “actual” are meaningless without the physical reality.

I even wasted time on refuting you “scientism” by explaining the different types of epistemology.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt? Or is it a preference?

It hard to group them all as a generalization. Without having any statistics to back this claim, I would venture to guess that the majority of atheists are probably born into a family of atheists, most of the others are converted from a religious background based on their world experience and knowledge gathered, which leads them to lose belief. There is going to be a few who may claim to be atheists so they can “get away” with things, but I suspect that those with that point of view either assume God will forgive their acts, or see no reason to deny him, since if he is all-knowing, he will know what they are thinking anyway, which would not make them atheists.

 

[Mary888]

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.

We as Christians do not simply argue the existence of a higher smarter being. That may as well be the Enemy, who is more powerful than some drawing with horns. We argue the existence of said God in the OT, and that Jesus is God. He doesn’t have to be popular nor liked, Jesus Himself did not care if He was liked and forced no one to follow Him.
Today is the feast of Transfiguration, and one minor character in the Apparition as depicted is prophet Elli. He proved, down to earth proved, that God is the One he talks about through signs and not the priests of Baal encouraged by Jezebel.
Jesus Himself said to ask and be given.
Are we secretely aprehensive at the idea that an atheist might be shown more in order to believe than dutiful faithful ones are shown? Just asking for my own self-clarifying.
Is it us that they don’t just see?

 

[IWantGod]

It hard to group them all as a generalization. Without having any statistics to back this claim, I would venture to guess that the majority of atheists are probably born into a family of atheists, most of the others are converted from a religious background based on their world experience and knowledge gathered, which leads them to lose belief. There is going to be a few who may claim to be atheists so they can “get away” with things, but I suspect that those with that point of view either assume God will forgive their acts, or see no reason to deny him, since if he is all-knowing, he will know what they are thinking anyway, which would not make them atheists.

I was going to say that except for a chosen few, atheism is a culture. A preferable attitude towards reality rather than a well reasoned out result of their intellect. But i remember a time when i had great difficulty in understanding the arguments for God or at least conceiving them in a way that i would call irrefutable. And while i had faith, i would be dishonest if i said that i was satisfied with just having faith. Believing in God can be a struggle, so i will try not to generalise because i was an atheist once.

I like Nietzsche and other philosophers who attempt to explore a reality without God, so i can’t pretend they don’t have something of value to offer philosophy.

However, it does frustrate me when atheists come on the forum and try to make an idiot out of Christian philosophy. If they had good arguments against it that would be no problem, but it’s usually just scientism or brute-facts posing as explanations or a pretence that something doesn’t need explaining at all. Just a raid of red herrings, straw-men and other fallacies.

 

[IWantGod]

We as Christians do not simply argue the existence of a higher smarter being

Neither do i.

 

[IWantGod]

Are we secretely aprehensive at the idea that an atheist might be shown more in order to believe than dutiful faithful ones are shown?

No. Of course it could be true that it’s not God’s will that somebody believes because of reason. But it would be false to suggest that God’s existence cannot be reasoned to. I often wonder if there is some kind of mind block. Sometimes i think people are just being a wind-up. But they wouldn’t be here if they were not in some way interested.

 

[Economist]

Everything you have said thus far has been a waste of time because the body of your work is littered with assertions and an inability to understand what other people are saying…

Well, since according to your own words: “I’m the best” how could anyone hope say something that your “superior” intellect would find worthwhile to answer.

 

[IWantGod]

Well, since according to your own words: “ I’m the best ” how could anyone hope say something that your “superior” intellect would find worthwhile to answer.

Just say i love you…loool

And you clearly don’t get the idea of a joke either.

But God bless. We simply don’t see things the same way. And that’s okay. It’s not the be all and end all.

 

[Techno2000]

Julian of Norwich(1342-1416)

These revelations were shown to a simple unlettered creature the year of our Lord 1373, the 13th day of May. In this revelation God showed a little thing,
the size of a hazelnut in the palm of my hand, and it was as round as a ball.

I looked at it with the eye of my understanding and thought: ‘What can this be?’

And it generally answered thus, ‘It is all that is made.’
I marveled how it could continue, because it seemed to me
it could suddenly have sunk into nothingness because of its littleness.
And I was answered in my understanding:
‘It continues and always shall, because God loves it;
And in this way everything has its being by love of God.’

In this little thing I saw three characteristics:

The first is that God made it.
The second is that God loves it.
The third, that God keeps it.

Loading…

static1.squarespace.com

 

[Techno2000]

After that the Lord brought to my mind the yearning that I had for Him in the past,
and I saw that nothing stood in my way except sin (and thus I observed universally in us all).
And it seemed to me that if sin had not been, we would all have been pure and like to our Lord as He made us.
And thus, in my folly, before this time I often wondered why, by the great foreseeing wisdom of God,
the beginning of sin was not prevented, for then, it seemed to me, all would have been well.
I ought much to have given up this disturbing wondering,
but nevertheless, I made mourning and sorrow about it without reason or discretion.
But Jesus answered by this word and said:
‘Sin is inevitable, but all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.’
In this unadorned word ‘sin’ our Lord brought to my mind generally all that is not good, and the shameful despising,
And the uttermost tribulation He bore for us in this life, and His dying,…
And with the beholding of this, with all pains that ever were or ever shall be,
I understood that the Passion of Christ to represent the greatest pain and ever more than that.
And all this pain was shown in one stroke and quickly passed over into comfort.

Loading…

static1.squarespace.com

 

[ForeverLearn]

I was going to say that except for a chosen few, atheism is a culture. A preferable attitude towards reality rather than a well reasoned out result of their intellect.

I wouldn’t say a chosen few, definitely more than that. But I would say the number on both sides (belief, non-belief) for whom have made it a well-thought out decision aren’t really high. However, the ratio of atheists who have is much higher, since they likely started out as believers (based on the numbers).

However, it does frustrate me when atheists come on the forum and try to make an idiot out of Christian philosophy. If they had good arguments against it that would be no problem, but it’s usually just scientism or brute-facts posing as explanations or a pretence that something doesn’t need explaining at all. Just a raid of red herrings, straw-men and other fallacies.

Although this is frustrating, it is not my experience really. The one thing that frustrates educated atheists is that they concede that they really can’t know for sure whether a god exists, where theists usually don’t make that concession, which then comes off as dishonest and conceded.

 

[lelinator]

ForeverLearn:

I was going to say that except for a chosen few, atheism is a culture. A preferable attitude towards reality rather than a well reasoned out result of their intellect.

I wouldn’t say a chosen few, definitely more than that. But I would say the number on both sides (belief, non-belief) for whom have made it a well-thought out decision aren’t really high.

I would say that you’re probably being a bit too generous. I think that most people’s “reasoning” is simply delusion masquerading as reasoning, because there would seem to be a very fine line between the two. Or to be more accurate, delusion and reasoning are simply two aspects of the same thing. The paranoid schizophrenic, the conspiracy theorist, and the metaphysicist, are all examples of delusion masquerading as reason.

But that’s what the “reasoning” mind does, it attempts to find patterns in things. Unfortunately it tends to see patterns that aren’t really there. Hence delusions.

But there are those few who recognize this weakness, accept it, and then choose one belief or another, fully understanding that they have no means of discerning whether they’re right. There are some theists who do this, and there are some atheists who do this, but it’s my experience that the atheist is more likely to concede uncertainty than the theist is. Ask a theist if they’re “certain” that God exists and they’re almost universally going to say yes. An atheist on the other hand will more often concede that they can’t be certain.

So the edge in reasoning goes to the atheist.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Ask a theist if they’re “ certain ” that God exists and they’re almost universally going to say yes. An atheist on the other hand will more often concede that they can’t be certain.

So the edge in reasoning goes to the atheist.

This is exactly what I wrote in my last comment.

 

[lelinator]

This is exactly what I wrote in my last comment.

Yup, sorry for not acknowledging that insight.

 

[Pattylt]

Ask a theist if they’re “ certain ” that God exists and they’re almost universally going to say yes.

I tended to think this, too, but asking on CAF, I was surprised at how many stated some uncertainty. Perhaps it’s due to CAF’s more serious thinkers but it surprised me, nonetheless .

I found it refreshing, to say the least!

 

[IWantGod]

Ask a theist if they’re “ certain ” that God exists and they’re almost universally going to say yes.

I would say that i am rationally certain that God exists, and what i mean by this is that if i am wrong then it would follow true that reality is fundamentally absurd. My certainty follows from the premise that reality can’t be fundamentally irrational. Thus the idea that God exists is consistent with the principles of reason and follows necessarily from them.

So i am certain in this way that God’s existence is true. However i don’t know for certain that God has contacted the human race. For all i know all religions could be false in the sense that they have not truly received a revelation from God. But i don’t think that prevents us from thinking that some religion is most likely true.

 

[lelinator]

I tended to think this, too, but asking on CAF, I was surprised at how many stated some uncertainty. Perhaps it’s due to CAF’s more serious thinkers but it surprised me, nonetheless .

Then I must say that you and I have had different experiences in this regard. Perhaps it’s because I can be more confrontational, which tends to make people more unwavering in their beliefs.

Or perhaps it’s my demeanor which tends to make some people less inclined to interact with me. So your view, being different than mine, is appreciated.

 

[Pattylt]

I agree that a confrontational approach will bring about more digging in of their heels, so to speak. When confronted with “no God” type of statements, human inclination for those that believe is to confidently state the opposite with perhaps more certainty than they might really have.

When I’ve asked if they’ve ever doubted and have they completely resolved that doubt, then it’s different. Almost every Catholics I’ve met admits to periods of doubt or uncertainty. Some still have not completely resolved their doubts and struggle to contain them. Many state their faith became even stronger after these types of doubt. I know many atheists that waver in uncertainty, too.

One of the reasons I call myself agnostic rather than atheist is that I feel I am always agnostic but my atheism varies from day to day. I’ve even had moments where I felt I could almost believe…then it flys away upon further thought .