God Delusion is Delusional

[tonyrey]

That is an act of faith. What evidence do you have that he would believe?

The fact remains that Dawkins vehemently denounces all religion as evil and condemns **all **religious education as child abuse…The likelihood of a volte-face is negligible.

 

[BlueShadow123]

The fact remains that Dawkins vehemently denounces all religion as evil and condemns **all **religious education as child abuse…The likelihood of a volte-face is negligible.

I think because you are so religious you cannot see where he is coming from. I used to be an atheist, so I know exactly where he is coming from, but since I am a Christian now, I see things differently. Dawkins does not understand God for personal reasons obviously. I don’t think hes been shown the right things in life and that definitely affects him. I wish God would let him witness a miracle or something. I mean considering the fact that he is like the world known atheist, if he announced that he has witnessed something that science cannot refute, then I’m sure he would definitely get some of his followers to start thinking and being more open minded. I mean, it couldn’t hurt, right?

 

[The_Exodus]

What does this mean? What do you mean by the phrase that it “cannot account for itself”?

All beings we sense depend on other beings in order to explain their existence. See my initial premises. (These prior beings are either temporally or logically prior (my parents were temporally prior to my existence, and this chair is logically prior to my being seated). Would you agree your mode of existence currently depends on, say, the earth?

spock:

I am saying that the observed existence of causal relations is an inherent property of matter / energy. Just like motion, etc… They need no “explanation”.

Well if you can simply assert unsubstantiated claims (e.g. motion needing no explanation), why can’t I in my premises? The truth is, motion does indeed cry for explanation, since it is always caused.

Anyway, my premises were a posteriori, not apriori.

spock:

Certainly. But that is the same: “they are not caused by outside factors”, though they do not exist in vacuum, so they are influenced by outside factors.

I never said they were not *influenced *by outside factors, I said we cause them – i.e. there is causal power in us, which is not in the causes which affect us. A very different thing from what you are saying. This is irrelevant to my premises however.

spock:

The universe is a collection of entities. Even if one can meaningfully define a causative relationship for the individual entites (all of them, which is just an assumption) such a causative relationship cannot be defined for the collection (the universe)

I think you may mean the same thing I do when you say “entity” as when I say “being” (which leads me to think you would sympathize with the epistemology behind my premises.)

But the thrust of the argument depends on the validity of reductio ad absurdum. The current, observable causal relationship is insufficient to account for its own existence, ergo, we must posit a sufficient explanation (unless you think the universe is absurd.)

You did not address my crucial question: do you reject reductio ad absurdum in principle, or do you have an empirical reason for doing so?

 

[Spock]

All beings we sense depend on other beings in order to explain their existence. See my initial premises. (These prior beings are either temporally or logically prior (my parents were temporally prior to my existence, and this chair is logically prior to my being seated). Would you agree your mode of existence currently depends on, say, the earth?

That is the premise which I do not accept. Matter is an entity and according to our best knowledge it cannot be created or destroyed - so it is a causal primary. Of course I do agree that our current mode of existence (the current configuration of our body, for example) is caused by logically or temporally prior events. But you implicitly extended this to the actual building blocks of our body, and that is not substantiated. Neither a-priori nor a-posteriori.

Well if you can simply assert unsubstantiated claims (e.g. motion needing no explanation), why can’t I in my premises? The truth is, motion does indeed cry for explanation, since it is always caused.

You are talking about a billiard ball bumping into another one and thus causing it to move. I am talking about the Brownian motion of the molecules, or the movement of electrons around the nucleus (crude picture, not to be taken literally). You cannot reduce those to “outside” causative agents.

I never said they were not *influenced *by outside factors, I said we cause them – i.e. there is causal power in us, which is not in the causes which affect us. A very different thing from what you are saying. This is irrelevant to my premises however.

It is very relevant. Your line of arguments is that the universe is one huge, uninterrupted causal chain, which then you assume to have a “first” event. The existence of free decisions (which are assumed) contradicts that picture.

I think you may mean the same thing I do when you say “entity” as when I say “being” (which leads me to think you would sympathize with the epistemology behind my premises.)

Right. I prefer the word “entity”, because the word “being” has overtones. We usually talk about living beings and that is what I wish to avoid.

But the thrust of the argument depends on the validity of reductio ad absurdum. The current, observable causal relationship is insufficient to account for its own existence, ergo, we must posit a sufficient explanation (unless you think the universe is absurd.)

Ah, the good old PSR (principle of sufficient reason). You have two ways to utilize it. You may have an infinite regression where everything “needs” a prior causative relationship - which picture we find intuitively “wrong”. But, of course intuition does not refute this picture. It is possible.

Or you stop somewhere and say that this particular entity needs no explanation - thus contradicting the PSR. And here is your reductio ad absurdum. Presumably this final entity for you is God. If God is exempt from the PSR, then the PSR is universally applicable. If there is one exception, there can be others, and indeed our free decisions are such examples. (And that is why I bring them up).

I said before that formally, the materialistic and theistic worldviews are identical. They both stop the PSR at a certain point. The materialists stop at STEM, the theists stop at God. Do you see the formal equivalence? Materialists say that STEM merely exists, it needs no “explanation”. Theists say that God simply exists and needs no explanation. What does the “extention” give you? Nothing at all. Instead of postulating STEM, which is observable, you posit God, which is not observable. Instead of the natural laws which are the inherent properties on STEM, you posit a very strange picture, in which there is an immaterial entity, which can nevertheless “somehow” influence matter (thus contradicting the preservation laws). The ways and means of the interaction are not explained, and they cannot be explained. So your picture totally lacks any “explanatory” power. Also, the positing of this “faceless” God can only be used as an “explanation” for having the Universe in the first place. From that it does not follow that this God still exists, nor can you reach the other attributes you claim the “real” God has. For that you need “revelation”, which is not accepted by the materialists. In your picture would there is no place for “faith” either - which is a principle tenet of theism.

You did not address my crucial question: do you reject reductio ad absurdum in principle, or do you have an empirical reason for doing so?

Sorry for the neglect. Of course, the reductio ad absurdum is a fine way to argue. I employed it above.

 

[Betterave]

Rolls eyes, indeed. Have you heard of a difference, which is zero? No, I guess, you did not. Instead of making your usual nasty, condescending remarks, why don’t you try to make a meaningful contribution? Is that so hard to do?

I tried to point out that your quibbling objections are suggestive of someone who has issues with being closed-minded. (Ironically you respond with more closed-minded quibbling, with some irrelevant ad hominem remarks thrown in for good measure.) This is nasty for you, I guess, but that shouldn’t distract you from the fact that it’s true, and it would be a meaningful contribution if you would actually pay attention to it and attempt to change your irrational behavior. Instead you come back with more silly quibbling about a difference which is zero, regarding which the obvious reply is: a difference of zero is no difference, and no difference is not a difference - just like zero apples is not an apple.

God cannot “prove” lots of things. He cannot “prove” that he is omniscient, for example. He cannot prove that he is a necessary being - since that concept is nonsensical. But we can postpone this until the time that God actually accepts my open invitation, and comes down to chat with me. He is always welcome. Coffee and cakes are ready.

Right… Like I said:

Spock ultimately responds to any reasons that contradict his dogmas by an appeal to a crude empiricism which claims that the only valid proof of any existential claim is of the form: “I perceived it with my senses,” or more specifically “I sat down by the fire and chatted with Him” - and let’s be honest: even then he would argue with God no less. He would just point out that God can’t prove to him that He’s a necessary being, etc., so thanks for coming out God, but please go away now.

I do hope awatkins comes back. I’d be interested in his comments on this methodological catch-22.

 

[The_Exodus]

But you implicitly extended this to the actual building blocks of our body, and that is not substantiated. Neither a-priori nor a-posteriori.

Why is this extention unjustified? I do not see the difference between matter’s nature, which you are trying to draw. I do not see the size of matter changing the fact that all change requires a cause.

]
You are talking about a billiard ball bumping into another one and thus causing it to move. I am talking about the Brownian motion of the molecules, or the movement of electrons around the nucleus (crude picture, not to be taken literally). You cannot reduce those to “outside” causative agents.

Are you saying that “molecules” have a sort of inherit “motion-ness” to them? Are they, by nature, in movement? (If so, this is the notion of Heraclitus which, I believe, Aristotle refuted.)

It seems to me that invoking the term “Brownian” does little to solve the problem, since the theory dissolves into being coming from non-being, or constant creation ex nihilo (if motion and movement have no cause). Perhaps you could better explain to me what you mean by “Brownian,” and how it is different from the material causation that I am putting forward a posteriori. You’ve yet to say how it is different. You’ve only *stated *that it is.

spock:

It is very relevant. Your line of arguments is that the universe is one huge, uninterrupted causal chain, which then you assume to have a “first” event. The existence of free decisions (which are assumed) contradicts that picture.

But Spock, I’ve never once maintained that the human person is entirely physical or material. I’m moving from observable, physical reality, to posit an immaterial cause. That is all.

Furthermore, I’ve said nothing of “free decisions.” Even if it were true (which I do not maintain) that free choice is an illusion, it would not invalidate my argument.

spock:

Right. I prefer the word “entity”, because the word “being” has overtones. We usually talk about living beings and that is what I wish to avoid.

You say tomato, I say tomato. We can use “entity” if you like, but the implication is the same, as is the thrust of my argument.

spock:

Or you stop somewhere and say that this particular entity needs no explanation - thus contradicting the PSR. And here is your reductio ad absurdum. Presumably this final entity for you is God. If God is exempt from the PSR, then the PSR is universally applicable. If there is one exception, there can be others, and indeed our free decisions are such examples. (And that is why I bring them up).

The argument is a posteriori. I’m not sure we are in agreement on this point. We find, empirically, that the things we sense have certain kinds of causes. But, if this is the case for everything we sense, then the universe would be absurd. We are not justified in making the same claims about God – an entity we have no experience of. But we have empirical reasons to make such claims about the nature of the material world.

spock:

I said before that formally, the materialistic and theistic worldviews are identical. They both stop the PSR at a certain point. The materialists stop at STEM, the theists stop at God. Do you see the formal equivalence?

Not at all, since there is observable motion and change. If there was no change, then there would be equivalence, and God would be an unnecessary hypothesis. As it stands, change requires an explanation. That explanation itself cannot be a previous change (either temporal or causal), and so on ad infinitum, because that view is self refuting. An infinite amount of idiots do not make one smart man. Neither does an infinitely long paintbrush give you an artist.

spock:

Instead of postulating STEM, which is observable, you posit God, which is not observable.

I never claimed God was observable, only that the effects of such a being are.

spock:

of the natural laws which are the inherent properties on STEM, you posit a very strange picture, in which there is an immaterial entity, which can nevertheless “somehow” influence matter (thus contradicting the preservation laws).

The phrase “natural laws are inherent properties on STEM” is particularly vague. Do you mean these laws “come from” STEM? “Natural law” is a term, so far as I can tell, entirely devoid of meaning from a materialist standpoint - a sort of natural deity that gives explanation to the order and motion in the universe.

What do you mean by “natural laws are inherent properties on STEM,” and how would you substantiate that assertion?

spock:

Also, the positing of this “faceless” God can only be used as an “explanation” for having the Universe in the first place. From that it does not follow that this God still exists, nor can you reach the other attributes you claim the “real” God has.

I never said anything about explaining God’s “face” nor his other attributes, so this is more or less a straw man.

Further, since the very proofs themselves require an ever present, immovable, changeless cause, they do indeed establish the existence of such a cause as “still” existing. (Your use of the temporal word “still” indicates you’re fundamentally misunderstanding the argument. It is not trying to show that the universe cannot be eternally old, or eternally in time.)

spock:

In your picture would there is no place for “faith” either - which is a principle tenet of theism.

This is a generalization. For one, many theists have no recourse to faith (take, for example, the deists of the Enlightenment.) Secondly, I’ve made no claims to God’s “revelation” – i.e. the Trinity, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. In other words, one could posit the first cause and still reject all faith claims about “Jesus of Nazareth.”

 

[Spock]

Not at all, since there is observable motion and change.

OK. I will explain it one more time. Aquinas lived in a time of ignorance. He had no idea that matter and energy cannot be separated. That ignorance gave him a good excuse to come up with his speculation. You don’t have that excuse any more. We know that matter is not a “dead” material, which needs some “external” entity to put it into motion. Motion = energy. Matter and energy are inseparable. Case closed.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I think because you are so religious you cannot see where he is coming from. I used to be an atheist, so I know exactly where he is coming from, but since I am a Christian now, I see things differently. Dawkins does not understand God for personal reasons obviously. I don’t think hes been shown the right things in life and that definitely affects him. I wish God would let him witness a miracle or something. I mean considering the fact that he is like the world known atheist, if he announced that he has witnessed something that science cannot refute, then I’m sure he would definitely get some of his followers to start thinking and being more open minded. I mean, it couldn’t hurt, right?

This an interesting and insightful comment. Not many of us religious people consider it from the atheist’s PoV - that they’ve probably been exposed to poor examples of Christianity that are little if anything like Christianity at all.

But what gets me is the whole “atheists seeing miracles” thing. It’s not that I think atheists shouldn’t see miracles. But it’s like that’s the only evidence the atheist demographic will accept. A public miracle from God every generation so everyone knows he is here. I realise God CAN do that, but where is the faith and hope in that? Faith, hope, and love - not knowledge - make us happy, and human.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

A public miracle from God every generation so everyone knows he is here. I realise God CAN do that, but where is the faith and hope in that? Faith, hope, and love - not knowledge - make us happy, and human.

Tell your God to throw an open house every Day of the Dead. You know, so we could check out the harp music in heaven, the saunas in hell, catch up with old friends, and make sure we were following the right text. Since obviously there are billions of people practicing Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, athiesm and they can’t all be worshipping the right gods and if you Catholics are right at least some of those other folks who practice ‘faith’, ‘hope’, and ‘love’ are gonna burn in hell as unrepentent sinners. Hopefully the Hindi gods win out and we’re all be reincarnated as butterflies and eagles.

A mere miracle wouldn’t be enough. Even if a super-powerful being appeared in San Francisco and began juggling the Golden Gate Bridge and Candlestick Park on national TV–a rational person wouldn’t know for certain whether he was omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, or associated with any particular religious text–he could just be an alien with technology beyond our comprehension, as modern airplanes would awe a tribe unfamiliar with its technology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

I suppose most people would be inclined to follow his instructions anyway.

 

[tonyrey]

Tell your God to throw an open house every Day of the Dead. You know, so we could check out the harp music in heaven, the saunas in hell, catch up with old friends, and make sure we were following the right text. Since obviously there are billions of people practicing Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, athiesm and they can’t all be worshipping the right gods and if you Catholics are right at least some of those other folks who practice ‘faith’, ‘hope’, and ‘love’ are gonna burn in hell as unrepentent sinners. Hopefully the Hindi gods win out and we’re all be reincarnated as butterflies and eagles.

A mere miracle wouldn’t be enough. Even if a super-powerful being appeared in San Francisco and began juggling the Golden Gate Bridge and Candlestick Park on national TV–a rational person wouldn’t know for certain whether he was omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, or associated with any particular religious text–he could just be an alien with technology beyond our comprehension, as modern airplanes would awe a tribe unfamiliar with its technology.

I suppose most people would be inclined to follow his instructions anyway.

You seem to be ignorant of Form rule 7:

“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

If life is absurd your remarks inevitably fall into the same category…

 

[ronin67]

Some very good points AntiTheist. That is correct all we have are written accounts written down from numerous eye witnesses who seen Jesus, the Christ perform them. Then to top it off, many of these disciples gave there lives willingly as martyrs for the lies they witnessed (not killing innocents in the process like the professed religion of peace, Islam) Come on, really? One thing I do know from being a cop for 20 years. No one is willing to take the big fall for something they know is a lie, especially if it means life in prison or their very life.

Ed

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

tonyrey:

You seem to be ignorant of Form rule 7:

I’m well aware. In my interpretation, being respectful entails civility but does not entail agreeing with others’ ideas. It’s my sincere hope TarkanAttila (and others) are not offended by me sharing my opinion about his statement.

tonyrey:

If life is absurd your remarks inevitably fall into the same category…

And this must be your way of setting an example of showing respect?

 

[tonyrey]

If life is absurd your remarks inevitably fall into the same category

It’s a simple statement of fact - which you haven’t disproved…

 

[wanstronian]

It proves that it may be reasonable, even if it fails to convince, which was my initial point.

If you’re still interested, can we take this to a new thread? This one’s got a bit long while I’ve been away.

Let me know.

W

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

It’s a simple statement of fact - which you haven’t disproved…

Which of my points did you find absurd:

That a display of power each generation would be insufficient?

That a loving God would ensure his people knew which faith to follow so they would not choose the wrong one and end up being burned by Hellfire for all eternity?

Or perhaps it was my proposal for ensuring everyone knew which path was the right path.

 

[The_Exodus]

OK. I will explain it one more time. Aquinas lived in a time of ignorance. He had no idea that matter and energy cannot be separated. That ignorance gave him a good excuse to come up with his speculation. You don’t have that excuse any more. We know that matter is not a “dead” material, which needs some “external” entity to put it into motion. Motion = energy. Matter and energy are inseparable. Case closed.

Not at all. Aquinas lived in a time of intellectual vivacity. The Greek philosophers, by the way, had already postulated several theories which we hold as “novel” today (such as the Brownian hypothesis you set forth.)

I’m sorry to see you have resorted to Bulverism however. I was looking forward to seeing you go deeper into your ideas, in hopes of understanding what you were saying.

Thanks for the short exchange.

 

[Spock]

Not at all. Aquinas lived in a time of intellectual vivacity. The Greek philosophers, by the way, had already postulated several theories which we hold as “novel” today (such as the Brownian hypothesis you set forth.)

I’m sorry to see you have resorted to Bulverism however. I was looking forward to seeing you go deeper into your ideas, in hopes of understanding what you were saying.

Thanks for the short exchange.

You are welcome. But you are mistaken, when you think I merely “assumed” that your position is incorrect. Modern physics shows that matter = energy (E = m*c^2) and therefore there is no need for assuming an outside force. The conversation fizzled out, because there in no need to continue to talk about a metaphyscis which is contradicted by real physics.

 

[The_Exodus]

You are welcome. But you are mistaken, when you think I merely “assumed” that your position is incorrect. Modern physics shows that matter = energy (E = m*c^2) and therefore there is no need for assuming an outside force. The conversation fizzled out, because there in no need to continue to talk about a metaphyscis which is contradicted by real physics.

My friend, if you understood metaphysics, you would realize that all physics (and indeed all subjects) rest upon a certain metaphysical foundation. Our understanding of various fields of science already assumes a particular metaphysical worldview or understanding. If you would like to explain what you are talking about in a coherent fashion (instead of Bulverizing and being dogmatic), feel free to respond to my last detailed response, post 205.

 

[BlueShadow123]

This an interesting and insightful comment. Not many of us religious people consider it from the atheist’s PoV - that they’ve probably been exposed to poor examples of Christianity that are little if anything like Christianity at all.

But what gets me is the whole “atheists seeing miracles” thing. It’s not that I think atheists shouldn’t see miracles. But it’s like that’s the only evidence the atheist demographic will accept. A public miracle from God every generation so everyone knows he is here. I realise God CAN do that, but where is the faith and hope in that? Faith, hope, and love - not knowledge - make us happy, and human.

Because some people are stubborn and don’t trust an ancient book with no scientific evidence. Thats just how they are, and I don’t blame them for that.

Many atheists see the bible as for what it is, and they don’t like the old testament God because of how harsh he is. Most atheists don’t like the idea of hell. They don’t like how apparently the bible ‘contradicts’ itsself, or so they say.

 

[tonyrey]

Which of my points did you find absurd:

I pointed out that** if** life is absurd all your points inevitably fall into the same category!

That a display of power each generation would be insufficient?

That a loving God would ensure his people knew which faith to follow so they would not choose the wrong one and end up being burned by Hellfire for all eternity?

Or perhaps it was my proposal for ensuring everyone knew which path was the right path

You need to explain how all these proposals would be implemented. By miracles?