Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, without God. It took a while but I got there and have stayed there for over 43 years.

I know it is hard for believers to accept this but I am happily retired, happily married for 46 years, happily living my life and contributing as best I can to society, my husband, children and grandchildren, and several charities I’m involved in.
 
I know it is hard for believers to accept this but I am happily retired,
By that you mean you have learn’t to live a life without believing in God (not entirely impossible, and it is not impossible to experience happiness and pleasure without believing in God, after-all there is good in the world regardless of whether we think God is the cause of the good or not.)

Or do you mean that you are happy to exist in a world where God does not exist, while perfectly understanding all that this logically entails. Because if this is true, not only does it contradict your testimony, it seems to fly in the face of what it is to be a human-being; and since you are a human being i wonder if you truly comprehend what it would mean if there was no God.

You have to help me to understand because after your last post i can’t help but sense that you actually feel a sense of relief that you don’t have to believe in God. But if that were the case i wonder why you would waste time with us “crutch-holding” Christ lovers?

Is this just some kind of religious education experience for you. What is your agenda?
 
Last edited:
contributing as best I can to society, my husband, children and grandchildren, and several charities I’m involved in.
I’m glad that at the very least you have a sense of the good, and you probably do better than most - atheist or christian, in that regard.

God bless and thanks for your good.
 
Last edited:
By that you mean you have learn’t to live a life without believing in God
This is what I meant! Sorry, I often ramble a bit in my posting and thus cause confusion.

I reached a point where I accepted that I didn’t believe in God and quit seeking to find Him. It just didn’t seem that I was going to succeed and rather than continue in frustration and blaming myself for being unable to believe, I just accepted it.

I consider myself still open to God, but I’m pretty much done with all the efforts and no returns. God knows where I am if He wants me. God or no God, I try live up to being the best person I can be. I don’t always succeed but I have learned to forgive my failings, correct them if possible and move on. While I think I have great empathy for suffering and empathy for others, I am not spiritual. I’m not even sure what being spiritual means. I have just as much awe and wonder at this world we inhabit as anyone else but I have no sensation of there being something beyond what our senses detect. Is my brain different? Am I defective? I don’t think so. I just seem to a person that isn’t capable of detecting a supernatural layer on top of this one.

I certainly hope I am considered good. I’m actually kind of boring. I’m not a radical anything. I have good friends. I have a good happy family. We’ve had struggles at times and overcame them as a family. I’m far beyond the rebellious years though I had some in my youth. I’m a good neighbor and care deeply about some charities I work for. I’m even one of those rare anti abortion agnostics though my solutions would not line up with Catholic theology. I also think that all humans are both good and bad. Some tip more one way than the other but we’re all trying as best we can.

I have no nefarious agenda here. When inquiring into other religions, I didn’t look very long or hard at Catholicism and wanted to understand your faith better. Especially concerning where it differed from Protestantism. I am still fascinated at why believers believe, what they believe, why I’m different and just in general, what makes us tic! I am not here to forward my beliefs. I will state them when asked but I’m a guest here to learn what you think. I know what I think!😂

I also wouldn’t say I have relief that I no longer believe. More, that I finally accept it. I own it. I’d love to know one way or the other before I die. It’s, in most ways, the greatest question, is it not? I am unable to answer it but I’m not going to dwell every minute on it. It is too exhausting and unsettling to never arrive at an answer. They say to let go and let God. That’s pretty much what I finally did.
 
Thank you for that. I withdraw my Catch 22 remark. You have explained very clearly why you wanted to believe. Thank you again.
 
40.png
Pattylt:
I know it is hard for believers to accept this but I am happily retired,
By that you mean you have learn’t to live a life without believing in God (not entirely impossible, and it is not impossible to experience happiness and pleasure without believing in God, after-all there is good in the world regardless of whether we think God is the cause of the good or not.)

Or do you mean that you are happy to exist in a world where God does not exist, while perfectly understanding all that this logically entails. Because if this is true, not only does it contradict your testimony, it seems to fly in the face of what it is to be a human-being; and since you are a human being i wonder if you truly comprehend what it would mean if there was no God.
There seems to be some mental block here. There aren’t two states of affairs summed up thus:

I don’t believe in God.
God does not exist.

They are two sides of the same coin. If someone doesn’t believe in God then for that person, God does not exist. You would need to be psychotic if you thought that God did exist but you didn’t believe in Him.

Whether He exists or not doesn’t change the world. It is still a place of beauty and happiness and love and caring. And also of terror and pain and hate and death. The only thing that changes is people. And what changes some of them is a belief in God. They believe that it only makes sense if God exists. And they say that they need God to be good.

Others, like Patti, show that that is not the case.

I could guarantee one thing. We could take 100 people at random and, avoiding all obvious examples of their belief or lack of it, study their day-to-day lives and you wouldn’t have a clue if they were Catholic, atheist, Muslim, Jew or any other flavour of belief or lack of it. You’d probably have a better chance at picking their political allegiances.

If you need God in your life then having God in your life is a very good idea indeed. Otherwise, follow the Golden Rule and enjoy your three score and ten.
 
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”.
I disagree, not with your definition, but with the implication that it does not imply change. In order for the universe to be structured as it is, with the size it currently hold, we know that certain apparent constants had to have been different. If these apparent constants are, in fact, variable, then that means that their state is contingent, meaning that they are influenced by some factor outside of themselves. However, I realize that is not your point, and you are examining the underlying laws that govern those constants and variables.
This is the same incorrect generalization from the particular to the whole that Aquinas committed.
It is not an incorrect generalization when all observed phenomena are adherent to it. Everything that we have observed in our studies is beholden to forces external to themselves. If we ever find something that is not then I would agree that this would be a generalization fallacy. However, given the preponderance of evidence in favor of the statement, and the complete lack of evidence to contradict it, it is not an improper, illogical, or fallacious generalization. You are improperly applying the generalization fallacy.

As for the definition of contingent, yes, in general I would say that it means that it has the capacity to be different than it is, and/or is acted on by forces external to itself. That’s a fairly good baseline definition.
This is a strange “double negative”.
I was writing it at about 5 am after an hour drive into my office. Sorry for the confusing wording.
The basic building blocks of the universe are what they are. They cannot change even if external forces act upon them.
There is no evidence to support the position that they cannot change. I agree that it’s reasonable to generalize that they have not and do not change, but that is vastly different from the assertion that they can not change. This is moving into the realm of discussing contingency and how it relates to the argument, and I’ll admit to not being in the frame of mind to be able to explain it properly. If you’d like to delve into the subject more, Trent Horn’s Answering Atheism has a chapter of two dedicated to the topic that do it far more justice than I could manage right now.
 
Last edited:
This argument contains an incorrect understanding of the concept of “time” and the incorrect understanding of the mathematical concept of “convergent series”.

The error you commit comes from the incorrect understanding of “time”
I used time as a medium to discuss the nature of infinity. I am aware that it is an imperfect analogy, but since we’ve no real way of discussing the nature of infinity without a reference point we can comprehend, I figured it was the best option.

As for your reference to convergent series, that actually sort of proves my point. The series presupposes a starting number, to which all subsequent numbers are added. That number may be zero, but it’s still a starting point. My contention is that you have to have that “starting number” from which to begin measuring even an infinitely long sequence of events.

Perhaps a better way of explaining what I was talking about would be this. Our universe is observed to be subject to causation. One action produces a reaction, which creates a result which then becomes the basis for a new action, and so on and so forth. There is nothing we observe in the universe that is not the result of an action that preceded it.

Let’s say that we’re on reaction 1,000,000,000.

Reaction 1,000,000,000 is the result of action 999,999,999. In order for this reaction to occur, action 999,999,999 had to take place.
Reaction 999,999,999 is the result of action 999,999,998. In order for this reaction to occur, action 999,999,998 had to take place.
Reaction 999,999,998 is the result of action 999,999,997. In order for this reaction to occur, action 999,999,997 had to take place.

Reaction 1,000 is the result of action 999. In order for this reaction to occur, action 999 had to take place.

Reaction 1 is the result of action 0. In order for this reaction to occur, action 0 had to take place.

In your contention, that there is no absolute first cause, this would continue into the negatives infinitely. In order for each reaction to take place, there has to be an action that precedes it. However, in order for the preceding action to take place, there has to be an action which precedes it, and one before that, and one before that. You can never actually reach a given reaction, because there are an infinite number of actions that have to come before it.

In order to be able to actually reach any point along a causal chain, there must be a first action which sets the chain in motion, otherwise there would always be an infinite number of actions that have to occur before you reach any given reaction. While we can conceptualize a subset of action-reactions as it’s own self contained series, without the actions that preceded that series, it couldn’t exist. If all reactions are reliant on an infinite number of action-reaction combos to precede them, then no matter how far back you go, you’ll always have infinite action-reactions to move through before reaching any given point, meaning that it would be impossible to actually arrive at any series.
 
Last edited:
The “theistically challenged” who continue to search are never lost.
 
40.png
Bradskii:
enjoy your three score and ten.
Look, I did that (enjoyable more or less). Now what do I do? 🙂
I’ve not long to go before my allotted chronological time is up. At least from a biblical perspective… But there are four aspects to one’s age. There’s the chronological, the physical, the mental and (ahem) the sexual.

In no particular order, I’m mid 20’s, forty-ish, somewhere around 50 and the wrong side of sixty.
 
The best private revelation I ever read about Hell…
excerpt :

“Clara, do not pray for me! I am in hell. If I tell you this and speak at length about it, do not think it is because of our friendship. We here do not love anyone. I do this as under constraint. In truth, I should like to see you to come to this state where I must remain forever.”

“Perhaps that angers you, but here we all think that way. Our wills are hardened in evil - in what you call evil. Even when we do something ‘good’, as I do now, opening your eyes about hell, it is not because of a good intention.”

“Do you still remember our first meeting four years ago at. . .? You were then 23 and had been there already half a year. Because I was a beginner, you gave me some helpful advice. Then I praised your love of your neighbor. Ridiculous! Your help was mere coquetry. Here we do not acknowledge any good - in anybody.”

“Do you remember what I told you about my youth? Now I am painfully compelled to fill in some of the gaps.”

“According to the plan of my parents, I should not have existed. A misfortune brought about my conception. My two sisters were 14 and 15 when I was born.”

“Would that I had never existed! Would that I could now annihilate myself! Escape these tortures! No pleasure would equal that with which I would abandon my existence, as a garment of ashes which is lost in nothingness. But I must continue to exist as I chose to make myself - as a ruined person.”

continue-
http://olrl.org/doctrine/cry.shtml
 
The best private revelation I ever read about Heaven
excerpt :

Blessed Henry Suso (1295 - 1366) Dominican and German mystic

-Now, then, ascend thou on high with Me. I will carry thee thither in spirit, and will give thee, after a rude similitude, a distant glimpse into the future. Behold, above the ninth heaven, which is incalculably more than a hundred thousand times larger than the entire earth, there is another heaven which is called Coelum Empyreum, the fiery heaven, so called, not from its being of fire, but from its immeasurably transparent brightness, which is immovable and unchangeable in its nature; and this is the glorious court in which the heavenly hosts dwell, where the morning star with the rest praises Me, and all the children of God rejoice.

There stand, encompassed with inconceivable light, the everlasting thrones, from which the evil spirits were hurled, in which the elect are seated. See how the delightful city shines with beaten gold, how it glitters with costly jewels, inlaid with precious stones, transparent as crystal, reflecting red roses, white lilies, and all living flowers. Now, look on the beautiful heavenly fields themselves. Lo! here all delights of summer, here sunny meads of May, here the very valley of bliss, here the glad moments are seen flitting from joy to joy; here harps and viols, here singing, and leaping, and dancing, hand in hand for ever! here the gratification of every desire, here pleasure without pain in everlasting security!

Now, look how the countless multitude drink to their hearts’ desire at the living fountains of gushing water; look how they feast their eyes on the pure, clear mirror of the revealed Divinity, in which all things are made plain and evident to them. Steal a little nearer, and mark how the sweet queen of the celestial kingdom, whom thou lovest with so much ardour, soars aloft in dignity and joy over the whole celestial host, reclining tenderly on her beloved, encircled with rose-flowers and lilies of the valley. See how her ravishing beauty fills with delight and wonder all the heavenly choirs.

Continue-
 
Oh, now behold what will rejoice thy heart and soul, and see how the mother of compassion has turned her compassionate eyes towards thee and all sinners, and how powerfully she appeals to her beloved Son, and intercedes with Him. Now, turn round with the eyes of thy pure understanding, and behold also how the high seraphim and the love-abounding souls of the seraphic choirs blaze up perpetually in Me; how the bright company of the cherubim have a bright infusion and effusion of My eternal inconceivable light, how the high thrones and hosts, the lordships, powers, and dominations, regularly fulfill My beautiful and eternal order in the universality of nature.

Mark, too, how the third host of angelic spirits executes My high messages and decrees in the particular parts of the world; and see, how lovingly, how joyfully, and variously the multitude is marshalled, and what a beautiful sight it is! Turn next thy glance and see how My chosen disciples and best beloved friends sit in repose and honour upon their awful judgment-seats, how the martyrs glitter in their rose-coloured garments, the confessors shine in their vernal beauty, how refulgent the virgins appear in their angelic purity, how all the heavenly host overflows with divine sweetness! Oh, what a company! Oh, what a joyous band!

Blessed, thrice blessed is he who was born to dwell where they dwell! Lo, to this very fatherland I shall carry home from misery and tribulation, arrayed in all the richness of her rich morning gift, My beloved bride in My arms. I shall adorn her interiorly with the beautiful garment of the eternal light of that glory which will exalt her above all her natural powers. She will be clothed exteriorly with the glorified body, which is seven times brighter than the sun’s light, swift, subtle, and to suffering, impassive; then I shall put on her the crown of delight, and on the crown a golden garland.

http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/eternal_wisdom/ew13.php
 
Annette seems very voluble for one undergoing continuous screaming pain,
 
“Would that I had never existed! Would that I could now annihilate myself! Escape these tortures! No pleasure would equal that with which I would abandon my existence, as a garment of ashes which is lost in nothingness. But I must continue to exist as I chose to make myself - as a ruined person.”
Yeah. Sounds so convincing, Techno. It sounds more like a bad satire of a bodice-tearing BBC period drama than someone burning in hell. I can just picture a young, foppish and love-lost Hugh Grant wannabe emoting desperately as he reads those lines.
 
Last edited:
I think you have a theory about things that makes sense to you, but not necessarily to everyone else. You have stated things that are clearly absurd in my mind, but they don’t seem to be absurd to you.

In my mind you are not being faithful to the principles of reason, or first principles, and it is my belief that you don’t think you have to, and it could also be true that you don’t really understand the method.
So you believe that my reasoning can be absurd, and I believe that your reasoning is flawed. You claim to be using various methods of reasoning, and you’re right, I don’t understand them. At least as you seem to be applying them. Which seems to be very haphazard and frankly unintelligible.

Your arguments as far as I understand them, boil down to four main things, potency, contingency, teleology, and non-contradiction. But I believe that it can be shown that the first three are based upon assumptions, and the last one you seem to apply with no apparent rhyme or reason, simply when it suits you.

So yes, I believe that your reasoning is flawed, and can be shown to be flawed.

As for my reasoning, I may be wrong, but I don’t think that you actually understand what my method of reasoning is, which is probably my fault. So I’ll explain it…don’t make assumptions, and when you do, recognize and acknowledge them as such. To me, this is the biggest mistake that people make, they don’t recognize when they’re making an assumption, and so they end up with a conclusion that doesn’t hold up to reason.

Now if you would like to discuss this any more in depth, this wouldn’t seem to be the thread in which to do it. If you would like to start one, be my guest, otherwise don’t be surprised if I regularly challenge you in this forum.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top