How do I turn the table on atheists?

[DCNBILL]

Emisher - I think you might have misrepresented Dawkins’ point re the creator - his point was if you reduce everything back to the creator, you have to then ask, who created the creator, and who created that creator of the creator and so on.

This for me is precicely why I dont find Aquinas’ proofs remotely convincing ie Everything must have a cause, except the first cause, which must be God. (that’s oversimplufued I know but I have gone through the proofs). That Im afraid makes no sense, and isnt even consistent with it’s own logic.

There are thousands of sites and papers refuting these proofs. I find them convincing.

Sarah x

Note that the concept of a prime mover does not begin and end with Aquinas, it is well documented in the philosophy of Aristotle well before the Christian faith developed and apart from a Judeao Christian beliefs.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

Of course you find them convincing… You also find that all of this order and all of these patterns just happen out of nothingness and just keep right on going - and do so on their own! Now, in my opinion, that takes more faith than I have!

Naturally, Aquinas is dated (1225 - 1274) but, the idea behind an Uncaused Cause or First Cause is that it could have no beginning. Just like patterns are evidence for regularity and reproducibility - in a world that has no argument with the second law of thermodynamics - with things just breaking down. We have no experience in making anything that does not break down (Detriot has made this into an art-form … but, that is another story… ). Yet, you willingly believe that everything just happened with no cause and no direction. That is what makes no sense.

God bless

Emisher - I think you might have misrepresented Dawkins’ point re the creator - his point was if you reduce everything back to the creator, you have to then ask, who created the creator, and who created that creator of the creator and so on.

This for me is precicely why I dont find Aquinas’ proofs remotely convincing ie Everything must have a cause, except the first cause, which must be God. (that’s oversimplufued I know but I have gone through the proofs). That Im afraid makes no sense, and isnt even consistent with it’s own logic.

There are thousands of sites and papers refuting these proofs. I find them convincing.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Yet, you willingly believe that everything just happened with no cause and no direction. That is what makes no sense.

We will agree to differ

What makes absolutely no sense to me, is to go through a logical process, then leap to an uncreated creator to explain what we do not understand at the moment.

An uncreated creator makes no sense to me at any level - except maybe in the realms of quantum physics - which is just waaaaaaaaay above my little blonde brain

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Note that the concept of a prime mover does not begin and end with Aquinas, it is well documented in the philosophy of Aristotle well before the Christian faith developed and apart from a Judeao Christian beliefs.

I appreciate that. But it’s still no more credible for all that. I recognise this is an important issue for those with faith so I wont link to quite systematic dismantling of the logic out of respect and not to be accused of trying to undermine someones position - but the links are out there should anyone wish to look and examine.

Sarah x

 

[mdisse]

I’m reading the book the godless delusion, and it’s very helpful. I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

idk that you want to do that, i felt that same obligation, & ive tried & all it did was shake my faith & allow them to get inside my head. my faith is still shaken, then again you might be stronger than me so idk, but the bible does say do not give that which is holy to dogs unfortunatly. these people dont always have the will to believe. But if youre confidfent in your faith & strenght then by all means help them.

 

[atheistgirl]

I think it was in a post in this thread someone brought up near death experiences - if Im wrong I apologise: But I thought this was interesting on the subject:

youtube.com/watch?v=DOvpF4tKTRU&feature=feedlik

Sarah x

 

[mdisse]

Food for thought though, the people who started the church were people who personally knew Jesus, Simon Peter the 1st Pope was the one who Jesus asked to walk out into the water with him, which Peter did until he lost faith & ended up sinking. Also basic science says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so i guess it all comes down to there was this lifeless energy that has always existed for an infinit amount of time, or the energy is a god that created the universe & some how the energy that is our soul is a part of that being. But I guess even us believers may never know until we die & stand before God, or go in a hole in the ground. I for one cant comprehend being unconsess for all eternity. I hope God can forgive me for my Skeptisism.

 

[emisher]

Hi, Emisher,

Welcome to CAF! And, thank you for sharing your personal insights into atheism.

My experience is very limited - and limited to only two people I knew as an undergraduate. Basically, they would not modify their sexual behaviors so they just modified their belief. It was just sooooooooo much easier to say there was not God, then I will control my body.

Reality is consequences - and it does not make any difference what you think of a flame - if you stick you hand it, you will be burned. You are correct about not ‘winning’ and arguments with athesists becasue they simply will not acknowledge that all of this order, all of these patterns could only come form the Master Pattern Maker. But, I do have one question for you…

Acquinas’ 5 proofs aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html still make sense to me. All I have seen on this thread as a response is, “I-don’t-believe-it!” which does not really do much for a logical dialogue. From your perspective, why do you think Acquinas’ 5 proofs fail to convince today’s atheist?

God bless

Oh, they make sense to me too. I don’t why they don’t hold much weight among the modern atheists, except to say that they allow for a lot of murky philosophical meanderings in which the very basic questions can be avoided–such as if a speck of dust can explode into a universe according to science, maybe there really isn’t anything that should be written off as impossible.

 

[emisher]

Emisher - I think you might have misrepresented Dawkins’ point re the creator - his point was if you reduce everything back to the creator, you have to then ask, who created the creator, and who created that creator of the creator and so on.

This for me is precicely why I dont find Aquinas’ proofs remotely convincing ie Everything must have a cause, except the first cause, which must be God. (that’s oversimplufued I know but I have gone through the proofs). That Im afraid makes no sense, and isnt even consistent with it’s own logic.

There are thousands of sites and papers refuting these proofs. I find them convincing.

Sarah x

Thanks for the reply. If the 5 proofs don’t make sense to you what do you think about all of the other things I’ve written about here? Would you want to comment on them?

 

[atheistgirl]

Oh, they make sense to me too. I don’t why they don’t hold much weight among the modern atheists, except to say that they allow for a lot of murky philosophical meanderings in which the very basic questions can be avoided–such as if a speck of dust can explode into a universe according to science, maybe there really isn’t anything that should be written off as impossible.

Scientists are not avoiding the questions - look at the work thats going on at CERN right now - scientists (and many atheists take a keen interest in science) are struggling to find answers to the most fundamental of questions - as are a lot of atheists. My experience may be different to yours, but I tend to find atheists take on the difficult questions head on. What we tend to be happy doing is saying ‘‘we dont know’’ when we dont know - not attributing an unknown quantity to a diety.

The reason the proofs dont make sense to me, putting it quickly and simply, is the logic is happy to follow a line which says everything that has motion must have a force acting on it, everything that exists must have a creator, and then wildly asserts, the creator and prime mover cannot be created so must always have been. It just makes no sense and the next most obvious question, well, following the line of logic, who created the creator.

It’s similar to the kalam (I think thats what its called) cosmological arguement that has been roundly dismantled.

And it also doesnt answer this question - even if its given the creator cannot be created and has always been - how does that prove the God of Christianity, and not the God of the Koran or Buddha or whoever else?

Sarah x

 

[MrZosimus]

We will agree to differ

What makes absolutely no sense to me, is to go through a logical process, then leap to an uncreated creator to explain what we do not understand at the moment.

An uncreated creator makes no sense to me at any level - except maybe in the realms of quantum physics - which is just waaaaaaaaay above my little blonde brain

Sarah x

I think the common objection to this argument is that it seems rather arbitrary to not apply the same causal laws to God as to everything else, but I think that misses the point of the argument. It is clear that everything which exists has been caused to exist by something else. Modern science, I think, also makes clear that the universe is not infinite, and thus had a point at which it came into being. It follows then that the universe has to have a cause. The only real options are that either the universe caused itself to exist, or it was caused to exist by something outside of itself. Since nothing within the universe is capable of being its own cause, then it seems to follow that the universe, since it follows the same laws of the parts which it is made of, cannot have caused itself. Thus, the only other option is that the universe was caused by something outside of itself. Now, this thing which caused the universe must also be accounted for. Either it, like the universe, also had a cause, in which case one runs into the same dilemma as earlier, or it is capable of causing itself. Since the chain of causes cannot be endless, because then it would never have begun in the first place, one must ultimately posit that there is something which is capable of serving as its own cause, something which exists necessarily, to use the philosophical terminology, and this thing is called “God”. So the argument isn’t really making a logical leap. It is following the logical argument to its inevitable conclusion and then pointing out that the conclusion of something which exists necessarily coincides with the Christian understanding of the nature of God.

 

[atheistgirl]

Thanks for the reply. If the 5 proofs don’t make sense to you what do you think about all of the other things I’ve written about here? Would you want to comment on them?

Ok, well, consciousness - Ive posted a link to a video on this - very interesting area of research and we’re getting close to understanding it. Scientifically. The biological roots (and therefor subjected to evolutionary processes) are beyond doubt now for many, due to the work being done with brain injured patients.

Dawkins, as I said, I think you misrepresented his point as I explained above.

Theories - well, lots of people believe in all sorts of strange and whacky ideas, they are most certainly not the preserve of atheists.

Sexuality - Im sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Do you seriously propose that if it could be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of the God of Christianity, atheists would not be interested on the basis they want to continue enjoying their particular sexual pecidilos!!!
With the greatest respect that is just silly. (in my opinion anyhow). And lets be honest, the existence of God, of whatever faith system, doesnt do much to stop people doing what they want to do anyhow. Just look at the amount of abortions and use of contraception in society. Do you really believe all these men and women are atheists???!!!

The Bible - I am currently reading it. It has some wonderful life affirming stories and liek Shakespeare, it can be read on so many levels and has lessons to learn from for the benefit of humanity. But seriously, it has contradictions that need to be explained by apologetics, it as a very difficult God in the OT who orders killing and the taking of young women and human sacrifice, the NT introduces the concept of eternal punishment - something that is profoundly immoral I think - even the concept of punishing others for the sins of someone else is immoral. Imagine 10 generations from now, when you would hardly even be remembered, your great great great great great great grandson is beaten then locked up in prison for something YOU did yesterday Its a barbaric concept to me. As for archeological evidence - again greatly disputed and lots of evidence in the archeological record missing for key places and events.

I have mentioned elsewhere I give the catholic church much credit for being open to science, in fact even embracing it - the vatican has an astronomy research facility. But it has been dragged kicking and screaming at times - look at Galileo! And also, I wonder about how the church, any church, is dealing with science really - not so long ago, the church backed the literal belief in adam and eve (some still do) but we can prove no such couple existed, the church now says at some point man was given a soul but we dont know when. But 1000 yeas ago they did - it was literally with the creation of adam and eve. Theres lots more examples but thats enough to illustrate my point.

Sarah x

 

[emisher]

Scientists are not avoiding the questions - look at the work thats going on at CERN right now - scientists (and many atheists take a keen interest in science) are struggling to find answers to the most fundamental of questions - as are a lot of atheists. My experience may be different to yours, but I tend to find atheists take on the difficult questions head on. What we tend to be happy doing is saying ‘‘we dont know’’ when we dont know - not attributing an unknown quantity to a diety.

The reason the proofs dont make sense to me, putting it quickly and simply, is the logic is happy to follow a line which says everything that has motion must have a force acting on it, everything that exists must have a creator, and then wildly asserts, the creator and prime mover cannot be created so must always have been. It just makes no sense and the next most obvious question, well, following the line of logic, who created the creator.

It’s similar to the kalam (I think thats what its called) cosmological arguement that has been roundly dismantled.

And it also doesnt answer this question - even if its given the creator cannot be created and has always been - how does that prove the God of Christianity, and not the God of the Koran or Buddha or whoever else?

Sarah x

Oh, I know that scientists are working hard at the questions, I was speaking mainly in the philosophical realm, where things can just go round and round and get a little bit unnecessarily confusing.

I guess what it comes down to is this—there are plenty of things that we don’t understand, things that many people believe that they don’t understand–why do we have to understand how an uncreated Creator could be possible before we can believe it? Like I said, how in the world could it ever be proven that there are mulitple universes where there are many versions of each of us? We don’t even understand our own universe that much. As I’ve heard many scientists say–we just dont’ know that much about anything out there.

Another point–it used to be believed that the universe always existed until the big bang came along. Many scientists could not accept such craziness as the thought of the universe having a beginning. So in essence those scientists believed in a eternally existing entity.

It blows the mind, I’ll give you that, but why must I have to be able to figure it out before I can allow myself to sign off on it? Maybe God wants to blow our mind

Finally, there was a man that lived on the earth, who revealed himself to be one with God. This man is universally recognzied as a good man, a good teacher. He testified to this worldview of a Creator God. Jesus claimed to be the living revelation of God and he backed up the written revelation. The question is --can he be trusted?

 

[atheistgirl]

I think the common objection to this argument is that it seems rather arbitrary to not apply the same causal laws to God as to everything else, but I think that misses the point of the argument…

We will have to agree to differ. I think that precicely highlights the weakness of the arguement. An uncreated creator is not logical. However, even if it was given - all that says it there is an uncreated creator. There is still all the work ahead to prove, beyond any doubt what so ever, that this creator is the God of Christianity and not some other creator/god. After all, every faith had their own creation story that this uncreated creator would neatly fit into.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

As I’ve heard many scientists say–we just dont’ know that much about anything out there.

And I quite like that as an answer. I dont know. I think its more honest than filling in the gaps with an equally unresearchable entity (not necessarily the God of Christianity I must stress).

Another point–it used to be believed that the universe always existed until the big bang came along. Many scientists could not accept such craziness as the thought of the universe having a beginning. So in essence those scientists believed in a eternally existing entity.

I think not - thats why the research never stops. There is always more to find out. Multiverses etc are whacky sounding ideas now, but thats all they are - currently a lot of effort is focused on the possibility the universe explodes and then contracts in cycles.

It blows the mind, I’ll give you that, but why must I have to be able to figure it out before I can allow myself to sign off on it? Maybe God wants to blow our mind

You could well be right Goodness only knows what He makes of my mind

The question is --can he be trusted?

My answer is personally I dont know. I need a lot more undisputed evidence.

Sarah x

 

[MindOverMatter2]

My answer is personally I dont know. I need a lot more undisputed evidence.

Sarah x

I reckon that if you were asked if it were possible for something to come out of nothing by itself you would say that you don’t know. In other words, what you define as true knowledge cannot be trusted as a logical conclusion, but merely an arbitrary inference based purely on desire.

 

[MrZosimus]

We will have to agree to differ. I think that precicely highlights the weakness of the arguement. An uncreated creator is not logical. However, even if it was given - all that says it there is an uncreated creator. There is still all the work ahead to prove, beyond any doubt what so ever, that this creator is the God of Christianity and not some other creator/god. After all, every faith had their own creation story that this uncreated creator would neatly fit into.

Sarah x

Well, if one is taking the argument as an attempt to prove the whole truth of Christianity than of course it is inadequate, and it is probably even an overstatement to say that it proves the existence of the Christian God. The important part is that it demonstrates that there has to be something outside of the physical laws of the universe, and I think that can at least be seen as evidence in favor of God’s existence.

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, if one is taking the argument as an attempt to prove the whole truth of Christianity than of course it is inadequate, and it is probably even an overstatement to say that it proves the existence of the Christian God.

I agree with that. And that’s assuming the conclusion is a given, which other philosophers have pointed out, it isnt. And Aquinas himself said ‘And by this everyone understands God’. Well, that’s a huge generalization and assumption too. The ‘‘creator’’ could, in essence, be just about anything that is more complex than the universe itself. Something we simply cannot conceive of. Something neither personal nor with any of the qualities we attribute to it. Something detatched and uncaring and unfeeling. It could in essence be just about anything.

The important part is that it demonstrates that there has to be something outside of the physical laws of the universe, and I think that can at least be seen as evidence in favor of God’s existence.

Only if you accept the arguement. As we roll back the barriers to understanding the origins of the universe, and as we delve deeper into the mysteries of the quantum world, who knows what we might unearth.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I reckon that if you were asked if it were possible for something to come out of nothing by itself you would say that you don’t know. In other words, what you define as true knowledge cannot be trusted as a logical conclusion, but merely an arbitrary inference based purely on desire.

Please stop making personal remarks and personal assumptions and personal observations about me.

Discuss the post and not the poster.

Sarah x

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Please stop making personal remarks and personal assumptions and personal observations about me.

Discuss the post and not the poster.

Sarah x

Are you going to deny that you don’t know if something can come from nothing? I was merely drawing a reasonable conclusion based on the posts that i have seen you make. Am i some how barred from both analyzing and exposing the flaws in your reasoning?