How do I turn the table on atheists?

[ThinkingSapien]

I think the best way to turn the table on atheists is to question why they exist in the first place, but not by posing that question directly. Atheists cannot know for sure whether there is a God or not, yet they maintain firmly that there isn’t one,

It might also be good to try to qualify one’s position. There seem to be a range of positions that people have and still identify themselves as a type of atheists. Some of these positions include the consideration of the possibilities that one of the concepts of God is the correct one. For that matter it may be useful to know the description of the God concept that one positively denies. Even if you restrict consideration to Christianity there are groups that “Market” vastly different concepts of God.

And where do they say these things? I myself have seen them as youtube comments in religious videos… these are videos for Christians intended to be viewed by Christians (such as prayers), yet atheists go and seek these videos out.

Not that this is a final conclusion (since I haven’t seen the videos) but based on that description that sounds like there are some people being a bit antagonistic.

Where else do they go? They go onto Christian forums. They even go onto this forum!

For what it is worth, the forum Code of Conduct welcome Catholics and Non-Catholics alike (if they hadn’t, I would be here).

This is why they try to find error in scripture. Same reason as the protestants do with respect to catholic teachings. Because they try to find contradictions, either in science, scripture, or wherever else to give themselves some comfort that what the Catholics say is not true.

That sounds interesting. I’ve never seen that before. In the areas where I lived/grew up (all Southern Baptist territory, though the churches were baptists and non-denominational) we knew there existed a denomination called Catholicism, but not much was ever said about it.

A true atheist can realize that it’s theoretically possible God exists, yet one in denial will refute even logic for their favored conclusion.

I’d like to suggest some terms. When I consult various dictionaries I find that “atheist” by itself doesn’t get consistent definitions. So “true atheists” may not be received as intended. Some of these other terms tend to have more consistent definitions.

• Strong Atheists - Makes the positive assertion that there are no gods.
• **Agnostic/Weak Atheist **- Thinks it is possible that there is a god or gods, but holds no belief in any of them.
• Ignostic Atheists - Holds no belief in any gods, but also doesn’t think there’s ever been any coherent definition of god present over which to deliberate
• **Misotheist **- believes there exists a god or gods, but maintains a negative relationship with that god or gods.

Atheism is not a religion…]

I think you’d get more agreement with this statement than you might expect

If an atheist came up to me and told me that he doesn’t believe there’s a God, I would tell him that I don’t believe he’s an atheist.

Now days in real life the only time I seem to encounter some one making religious assertions (off the net) is when Jehovah’s witnesses come to my door. My experiences with them have been pretty pleasant. At present most of the people I deal with from day to day are from polytheistic or eastern cultures. While they have their practices I never see them make assertions. Though they do invite others to participate in their holidays (Dwali was fun!). One of my coworkers told me that he nolonger believes in gods after he figured I was a safe person to tell. Technically that makes him an atheists. But I don’t think he conforms to much of what I see said in these forums about said title.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roger_z,

Welcome to CAF You have some interesting ideas … and, I would like to comment on them. One items though - I just hit my 65th birthday … and reading one block of print is rough on both the eyes and at least my abiliyt not to lose my place. Please consider using a paragraph format in your next post. Thanks.

Now, I am a practicing Catholic, I truly believe in God, the Father Almighty…and Jesus Christ His Son… and the Holy Spirit … and all that the Catholic Church teaches - but, I do have a problem with your approach to atheists. Now, I don’t want the atheists on the list to get carried away … but, I do think of your arguments as being a bit different from this. So, let me begin…

I highlighted the portions I want to address. I think we can moral certitude that God exists, but not absolute certitude.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=173&Itemid=172

The five proofs from St. Thomas on God’s existence we have a solid basis for moral certitude. Here is a link:aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html So, from this stand point I disagree with you. There are not only proofs for God’s existence, there are excellent proofs.

Concerning your second point. I believe in God - and I have actually bought books on this topic. Additonally, I have shared my books with others and others have shared their books with me. Furthermore I have discussed my belief in God and in the readings in this area I have completed. I do not think it apppropriate to criticize an Atheist for essentially doing the same as I do - even if it is for the opposite reason. Just an academic example… you know biologists band toghether - and actually prefer the company of other biologists than to that of engineers or architects. Surgeons group together with other surgeons and not, for example with psychiatrists or opthamologists - even though all are MDs. This is not to criticize any professional group - only that groups with similar view tend to cluster together.

The weakness in the argument of the Atheist does not lie in the fact that they band together, buy books supporting their view or speak out in favor of this position. Most Catholics do some or all of the same. The weakness lies in their lack of logic, lack of even admitted they could be wrong, and lack of looking at patterns and not acknowledging that there is evidence of a Master Pattern Maker.

I submit that asking an Atheist to be quite and not spread their illogic or their particular brand of chaos is basically unreasonable - and certainly does violence to any idea they may have had about Freedom of Speech. While I would mush rather if they were open to God and His Grace - we are really looking at the Power of God in giving man Freedom to chose - something did not give to any other creature except the angels - and with them, they had one shot at getting it right. (Apparently 1/3 of them foolsihly bombed-out on their ‘comprehenisve final’… and were expelled by St. Michale and now reside in one hell of a place! )

God bless

I think the best way to turn the table on atheists is to question why they exist in the first place, but not by posing that question directly.** Atheists cannot know for sure whether there is a God or not, yet they maintain firmly that there isn’t one, much like Catholics maintain that there is one. These are acts of faith. We cannot know whether there is a God or not because we do not have the resources to make that determination by looking at evidence or science because theoretically, God can either exist or not regardless of whatever you look at in the universe.** There is no proof of “no God”.

So it is a believe based on faith. (snip) In private, they go online and look for links like “Proof that there is no God” and buy books questioning religion. They are already atheists, yet they buy the books, read them, and read the links and try to get others to buy into it. The reason is that they seek validation. They want to find others who share in their belief, they go and seek out religious forums to pounce on, and they take a proactive stance in their quest. They don’t have the courage to stand alone with their atheism.

They need to be atheists with others so that they can constantly give each other validation. This is why they try to find error in scripture. Same reason as the protestants do with respect to catholic teachings. Because they try to find contradictions, either in science, scripture, or wherever else to give themselves some comfort that what the Catholics say is not true. You’ll notice a lot of atheists and protestants on this forum asking questions, yet they will never be satisfied with any answer. They’re not asking to know what Catholics believe on the matter.

They could look that up on the Internet easily. And they know their arguments logically fall apart. They seek evidence to fit their conclusions and maintain their delusion that it is evidence even though it’s not. A true atheist can realize that it’s theoretically possible God exists, yet one in denial will refute even logic for their favored conclusion. They’re asking questions because it’s a part of their self-validation. As one of my favorite quotes says, even an atheist half-believes in God at night. These people are too afraid to keep their atheism to themselves.

Atheism is not a religion and a true atheist would have the courage not to evangelize. If an atheist came up to me and told me that he doesn’t believe there’s a God, I would tell him that I don’t believe he’s an atheist.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

That was an interesting list you provided. I recently had to look up “ignostic” Atheist - but, I wondered about that … you know, would there ever be enough - I mean REALLY ENOUGH proof to convince these guys of anything…

Taken as a whole, my guess is that most of mankind is in some form of practicing serial polytheist: Money, Sex, Drugs/Alcohol being the top three contenders. So, from this stand point, I really doubt that there are any (strong, intermediate or weak) atheists if they really looked at what they were doing with their lives.

Your co-worker is a good example. He sounds like he really enjoys himself at parties… does this mean he worships parties … hmmmmmmm well, you know him better than I do But, if you do not think he is an atheist basesd on his conduct and not on what he says - it certainly seems that way, eh?

God bless

I’d like to suggest some terms. When I consult various dictionaries I find that “atheist” by itself doesn’t get consistent definitions. So “true atheists” may not be received as intended. Some of these other terms tend to have more consistent definitions.

• Strong Atheists - Makes the positive assertion that there are no gods.
• **Agnostic/Weak Atheist **- Thinks it is possible that there is a god or gods, but holds no belief in any of them.
• Ignostic Atheists - Holds no belief in any gods, but also doesn’t think there’s ever been any coherent definition of god present over which to deliberate
• **Misotheist **- believes there exists a god or gods, but maintains a negative relationship with that god or gods.

I think you’d get more agreement with this statement than you might expect

Now days in real life the only time I seem to encounter some one making religious assertions (off the net) is when Jehovah’s witnesses come to my door. My experiences with them have been pretty pleasant. At present most of the people I deal with from day to day are from polytheistic or eastern cultures. While they have their practices I never see them make assertions. Though they do invite others to participate in their holidays (Dwali was fun!). One of my coworkers told me that he nolonger believes in gods after he figured I was a safe person to tell. Technically that makes him an atheists. But I don’t think he conforms to much of what I see said in these forums about said title.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As to turning the tables on atheists, I have about finished reading former atheist Peter Hitchens’ really interesting book, The Rage against God (1910). A fascinating book, in that he not only takes on atheists in general, but his own famous brother, the atheist Christopher Hitchens. Hopefully, and prayerfully, Christopher has read the book and will see enough merit in it to assuage his own anger as he, by his own recent admission, is now rapidly approaching the Grim Reaper.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Charlemagne II,

Is there an on-line link to Peter Hitchens’ book?

God bless

As to turning the tables on atheists, I have about finished reading former atheist Peter Hitchens’ really interesting book, The Rage against God (1910). A fascinating book, in that he not only takes on atheists in general, but his own famous brother, the atheist Christopher Hitchens. Hopefully, and prayerfully, Christopher has read the book and will see enough merit in it to assuage his own anger as he, by his own recent admission, is now rapidly approaching the Grim Reaper.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tqualey

amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Peter-Hitchens/dp/1441195076/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322619016&sr=1-8#reader_1441195076

If you click on “Table of Contents” you get a better idea of what’s in the book.

It is extremely well written, though the earlier chapters are less interesting than the later ones.

A great gift for newborn atheists. Will seriously challenge the way they think.

This may also help you.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html

But this article incorrectly identifies a photo of Peter as being on the left. That is Christopher with the beard.

 

[ManOnFire]

Either the cosmos had a beginning, or it did not.

It could not have had a godless beginning since we know that it is unscientific and illogical for the first something to evolve from absolute nothing. If something else existed, then one didn’t go all the way back to the beginning. So, a godless beginning from absolute nothing is not possible.

That leaves the prospect that a godless cosmos has always existed in some form or another (the big bang fails to account for the creation of infinite gravity, and scientists are saying the big bang expansion is one side of the yo-yo, where the other side is the big crunch contraction, in an infinite yo-yo motion). If a godless cosmos has always existed with no god beginning, then there is forever no scientific or logical reason for the existence of the cosmos (and us) since it is forever impossible (by definition) to determine an original cause for something that had no original cause.

Process of elimination. Atheism is actually the less logical choice, scientifically speaking, since there is no science to explain a godless creation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ManOnFire,

Excellent

I had not heard of the ‘Big Crunch’ - but, it certainly makes sense. I like the other side of the ‘yo-yo’ analogy.

For quite some time I have marveled at this totally illogical “It just happened” response from Atheists. Yet they continue to sing their own priases about how logical their argument is … when it really just refuses to even ‘…consider the lilies of the field…’ for their consistent beauty and predictable growth.

God bles

Either the cosmos had a beginning, or it did not.

It could not have had a godless beginning since we know that it is unscientific and illogical for the first something to evolve from absolute nothing. If something else existed, then one didn’t go all the way back to the beginning. So, a godless beginning from absolute nothing is not possible.

That leaves the prospect that a godless cosmos has always existed in some form or another (the big bang fails to account for the creation of infinite gravity, and scientists are saying the big bang expansion is one side of the yo-yo, where the other side is the big crunch contraction, in an infinite yo-yo motion). If a godless cosmos has always existed with no god beginning, then there is forever no scientific or logical reason for the existence of the cosmos (and us) since it is forever impossible (by definition) to determine an original cause for something that had no original cause.

Process of elimination. Atheism is actually the less logical choice, scientifically speaking, since there is no science to explain a godless creation.

 

[Bobber90]

If you have reason to believe something that seems absurdly unlikely to just sort of ‘be there’ is there, it makes sense to think it was actively put there, or created.

It doesn’t matter what it seems like! How can we know that it seems unlikely for this universe to exist? It doesn’t matter whether it is a universe which supports our life or not: by what measure can we judge that this universe must rationally have been created by a god?

Even unlikely things can happen… just rarely.

The widespread experience across cultures and ages of creator God/s gives a handy answer, much better than multitudes of universes we have no experience of, and therefore no reason to believe exist. And to put it down to absurdly remote chance is not rational - it’s essentially faith

Let’s not imagine that people are always particularly accurate about their supernatural feelings. Think about all the numerous medieval fertility/harvest cults - just in Europe. The good people of C16th Friuli believed that their welfare was in the hands of the Benandanti, who fought night battles against witches with sticks of fennel.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

So, your question is: “By what measure can we judge that this universe must rationally have been created by a god?”

Multiple logical arguments have been given to you about the existence of God - to which you basically reply, “You have not convinced me”, or “This is not logical”, or “All of this just happened”. So, let’s look at another question and see if we can flesh out an answer…

“By what measure can we judge that natrinos exist?” No one has seen one. No one has held one in their hand, No one knows its color or if it even has one. No one has heard one or detected its scent - or if it has one.

Prior to 2000 the existence was mere speculation - now we think there are 3 different types: fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/neutrino/index.html … but, how can we be sure? Maybe there are 4 or even more?

Here we have scientists debating that natrinos may travel FASTER than the speed of light: physorg.com/news/2011-11-physicists-neutrinos.html … but, how can we be sure? Does a speed faster than light do any violence to current theories in physics?

Let’s face it - we just do not know. Now there are two possible approaches: believe in the existence of natrinos and continue to conduct experiments, or not-believe in natrinos and shut down the research, fire the scientists and save a lot of money. But, there is a common element in both approaches - no one is living their life and gambling their eternal soul on the existence of natrinos

What is illogical is to see all of this order - even in items we are not sure about … (because discoveries follow from what have learned previously - and this comes from the very patterns in the object itself) and deny its existence since we can not see it. Even seeing the evidence of items, listening to people recount events of the item, going to historic places where the item took place is no guarantee that the item will be believed. We see where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a “myth”. Here is the link: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

The tension between Iran and Isreal is palpable. Admadinejad is living his life like Isreal has no right to exist, has no history and should be destroyed and pushed into the sea. Denying the fact of Isreal does not make Isreal go away. Dehumanizing the Jews of today or the Jews who died under the Nazi rule over Europe only entrenches the idea that Iran will not deal with Isreal. And while many may see this is simply illogical - it does not stop the process. And, the reason for this is that decisions based on emotional responses diguesed as policy are not fueled by logic or a desire to learn more about the world - they are fueld by fear and hatred - and that is how Admadinejad is running his government.

In my view, Atheism and Agnoisticism are two sides of the same flat tire - it is not going anywhere! To claim that all of this ‘just happened’ is the triumph of fantasy over reason. ManOnFire gave an excellent post on why this is so - may I suggest you go back and review his argument and try something original when you debate the issue - just do not say ‘It’s illogical’ and expect that to stick - it doesn’t. You must prove it is illogical - refute the patterns you see with your eyes and deny the existence of a Master Pattern Maker, refute the arguments of St. Thomas and claim why there is no First Cause, refute a little child’s belief that his parents love him although he does not comprehend love or the nature of his parents.

As the late Archbishop Sheen en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_J._Sheen once said, “If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.” And, I really think this sums the issue at its very heart.

God bless

It doesn’t matter what it seems like! How can we know that it seems unlikely for this universe to exist? It doesn’t matter whether it is a universe which supports our life or not: by what measure can we judge that this universe must rationally have been created by a god?

Even unlikely things can happen… just rarely.

Let’s not imagine that people are always particularly accurate about their supernatural feelings. Think about all the numerous medieval fertility/harvest cults - just in Europe. The good people of C16th Friuli believed that their welfare was in the hands of the Benandanti, who fought night battles against witches with sticks of fennel.

 

[atheistgirl]

Cornbread, I argue for things all the time, all the while knowing that my arguments will not dissuade most atheists from their dogged faith in a materialist world. The fun is in the trying. Don’t just up and quit, man!

It’s perfectly acceptable I think, for a catholic, on a catholic forum, to argue the point and try and persuade someone of a different faith, or none, of the truth of catholicism, of the truth of the resurrection etc.

Atheists walk a fine line here. Atheism and evolution are banned as subjects to be intensely debated according to the forum rules. It seems they can be referenced in making a point, if relevant, or in explaining ones position, but they cannot be vigorously proposed as positions. They can however, rightly on a catholic forum, be vigorously contested.

So the atheist, if they push their position too hard, or present arguments too vigorously, could be seen as trying to damage or undermine someones faith. And while I personally enjoy a good and heated discussion among friends, I can easily understand the forum as a whole taking a dim view of such, if it could appear one is trying to damage the faith of another.

So I don’t think it’s a case of ‘‘up and quitting’’ - I think it’s a case of recognising that fine line, and, showing respect for all members, knowing when the conversation has come to an end before offense could be caused.

Sarah x

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It’s perfectly acceptable I think, for a catholic, on a catholic forum, to argue the point and try and persuade someone of a different faith, or none, of the truth of catholicism, of the truth of the resurrection etc.

Atheists walk a fine line here. Atheism and evolution are banned as subjects to be intensely debated according to the forum rules. It seems they can be referenced in making a point, if relevant, or in explaining ones position, but they cannot be vigorously proposed as positions. They can however, rightly on a catholic forum, be vigorously contested.

So the atheist, if they push their position too hard, or present arguments too vigorously, could be seen as trying to damage or undermine someones faith. And while I personally enjoy a good and heated discussion among friends, I can easily understand the forum as a whole taking a dim view of such, if it could appear one is trying to damage the faith of another.

So I don’t think it’s a case of ‘‘up and quitting’’ - I think it’s a case of recognising that fine line, and, showing respect for all members, knowing when the conversation has come to an end before offense could be caused.

Sarah x

Fair enough. I probably shouldn’t have interpreted his decision to no longer participate in the discussion as “quitting.” If one has advanced all ones arguments and has nothing more to say, it is probably appropriate to refrain from further “debate,” because at that point it will simply become an “argument.” And it’s nice of you to stick up for cornbread.

I can’t remember any instances of an atheist “presenting arguments too vigorously,” resulting in being banned on this website (I could be wrong), but abusive or ad hominem attacks by believer and disbeliever alike could result in sanctions, and quite rightly so. I do think many or most of the arguments made by some of the atheists on this forum are made specifically to “damage or undermine someone’s faith…” - otherwise, why make the arguments, instead of simply discussing it with a fellow atheist in one of their on-line salons? The proto-evangelical desire of many “Capital A” atheists to dissuade others from belief is fairly self-evident. If I have disagreements with a Mormon, a Congregationalist, a Muslim, or a Jain, I respect their right to hold their own beliefs. I would never think of going onto websites devoted to those denominations and listing the reasons why I think they’re wrong and misguided. i would be willing to discuss the issues in person if an adherent of one of those faiths asked for my opinion, or questioned the tenets of my faith. Likewise, I have never gone onto any of the atheist message boards and begun attacking their beliefs, or their purported lack of same. Were I to do so, it would be reasonable to think that the reason I would do so would be to “damage or undermine” their materialist belief system.

Atheists obviously may have other reasons to come to a Catholic website, and I accept and welcome those, which could include an interest in discussing philosophical and theological issues that may not be met by posters on the ESPN website message boards; a desire for philosophical debate competition with theists that are sharper and better informed than on many other websites; on-line friendships that form between people with disparate belief systems (like one of those YouTube videos of a cat and a dog playing together); or maybe just a deep-seated, albeit unacknowledged, pull towards belief by the atheist.

That being said, I don’t mind at all the fact that intelligent and reasonable atheists come on here to provide their opinion and try to persuade someone of the “truth” of atheism - it can be interesting, it sharpens us up a bit, especially if they are one of the atheists who can present their arguments with at least a modicum of intelligence, or are trying out a novel argument here before taking it on the road. It’s like sparring in a dojo or ring, it makes both adherents better at debate and forces them to research and learn new things, and you see new techniques and can better defend against them, in a relatively friendly environment And who knows? It could lead to a conversion to the one true faith. It’s happened before. (Or it could go the other way round, in which case someone succeeded in his goal of damaging or undermining someone’s faith. Big boys’ games, big boys’ rules.)

You don’t evangelize by preaching only to the choir, so atheists are welcome here.

 

[Bobber90]

Hi, Bobber90,

So, your question is: “By what measure can we judge that this universe must rationally have been created by a god?”

Multiple logical arguments have been given to you about the existence of God - to which you basically reply, “You have not convinced me”, or “This is not logical”, or “All of this just happened”. So, let’s look at another question and see if we can flesh out an answer…

“By what measure can we judge that natrinos exist?” No one has seen one. No one has held one in their hand, No one knows its color or if it even has one. No one has heard one or detected its scent - or if it has one.

Prior to 2000 the existence was mere speculation - now we think there are 3 different types: fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/neutrino/index.html … but, how can we be sure? Maybe there are 4 or even more?

Here we have scientists debating that natrinos may travel FASTER than the speed of light: physorg.com/news/2011-11-physicists-neutrinos.html … but, how can we be sure? Does a speed faster than light do any violence to current theories in physics?

Let’s face it - we just do not know. Now there are two possible approaches: believe in the existence of natrinos and continue to conduct experiments, or not-believe in natrinos and shut down the research, fire the scientists and save a lot of money. But, there is a common element in both approaches - no one is living their life and gambling their eternal soul on the existence of natrinos

What is illogical is to see all of this order - even in items we are not sure about … (because discoveries follow from what have learned previously - and this comes from the very patterns in the object itself) and deny its existence since we can not see it. Even seeing the evidence of items, listening to people recount events of the item, going to historic places where the item took place is no guarantee that the item will be believed. We see where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a “myth”. Here is the link: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

The tension between Iran and Isreal is palpable. Admadinejad is living his life like Isreal has no right to exist, has no history and should be destroyed and pushed into the sea. Denying the fact of Isreal does not make Isreal go away. Dehumanizing the Jews of today or the Jews who died under the Nazi rule over Europe only entrenches the idea that Iran will not deal with Isreal. And while many may see this is simply illogical - it does not stop the process. And, the reason for this is that decisions based on emotional responses diguesed as policy are not fueled by logic or a desire to learn more about the world - they are fueld by fear and hatred - and that is how Admadinejad is running his government.

In my view, Atheism and Agnoisticism are two sides of the same flat tire - it is not going anywhere! To claim that all of this ‘just happened’ is the triumph of fantasy over reason. ManOnFire gave an excellent post on why this is so - may I suggest you go back and review his argument and try something original when you debate the issue - just do not say ‘It’s illogical’ and expect that to stick - it doesn’t. You must prove it is illogical - refute the patterns you see with your eyes and deny the existence of a Master Pattern Maker, refute the arguments of St. Thomas and claim why there is no First Cause, refute a little child’s belief that his parents love him although he does not comprehend love or the nature of his parents.

As the late Archbishop Sheen en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_J._Sheen once said, “If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.” And, I really think this sums the issue at its very heart.

God bless

(Nutrinos are detected, that is why we believe they are there. Before they were detected, I think they were probably assumed to exist in order to satisfy some equations whose efficacy had been demonstrated in other areas of physics)

But anyway - yes, my question is by what measure can we judge that the universe is likely or unlikely to have been the way it is. By what measure.

That is not simply the question of an uninterested agnostic/atheist (a difference apparently not worth understanding), this is a fundamental question about the rational solidity of the basis upon which much of theism is constructed. My question is how we can know this basis - how is it possible to argue rationally that the universe is likely to have been created?

Do we have an understanding of the process of creating universes? Do we understand not only the nature of universal laws, but the way they are created? Do we know about other universes that can be compared with our own? Do we know the bounds of possible physics? Do we know what a possible universe is?

To all those questions (which I think are necessary for the idea of probability), I think we can only answer “no”. Without these elements, I do not think we can treat fine-tuning or life as evidence of anything outside the universe, for the existence of a creator, or to judge that this universe is unlikely.

So, what is the measure by which we can judge that this universe is unlikely to be the way it is, and why it should have been made by a god? Perhaps I have got it wrong, and we do have the means to know that we have enough data to answer this question of our existence. If anyone who is a Catholic has an answer, I think the burden is much greater on you to step in! That weighs more heavily than the implication that I should stop asking questions or stop seeking rationality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Do we know the bounds of possible physics? Do we know what a possible universe is?

To all those questions (which I think are necessary for the idea of probability), I think we can only answer “no”.

Science isn’t simply the accumulation of self evident properties. Much of it is a rational interpretation of objects according to an objective standard of logic. If we do not know the rational limitations of physics, if we have no standard by which to interpret data, then science itself falls victim to the same epistemological flaws you excuse theistic arguments of having; and thus scientific theories become nothing more than tautologies, rather than an expression of truth and understanding.

 

[Bobber90]

Science isn’t simply the accumulation of self evident properties. Much of it is a rational interpretation of objects according to an objective standard of logic. If we do not know the rational limitations of physics, if we have no standard by which to interpret data, then science itself falls victim to the same epistemological flaws you excuse theistic arguments of having; and thus scientific theories become nothing more than tautologies, rather than an expression of truth and understanding.

To cut a confusing story short, you’re saying that science does not fall victim to accusations of tautology, because of some reason, and that this reason helps us understand how we can judge that the universe is (im)probable?

Any elaboration would be useful!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Fair enough. I probably shouldn’t have interpreted his decision to no longer participate in the discussion as “quitting.” If one has advanced all ones arguments and has nothing more to say, it is probably appropriate to refrain from further “debate,” because at that point it will simply become an “argument.” And it’s nice of you to stick up for cornbread.

I can’t remember any instances of an atheist “presenting arguments too vigorously,” resulting in being banned on this website (I could be wrong), but abusive or ad hominem attacks by believer and disbeliever alike could result in sanctions, and quite rightly so. I do think many or most of the arguments made by some of the atheists on this forum are made specifically to “damage or undermine someone’s faith…” - otherwise, why make the arguments, instead of simply discussing it with a fellow atheist in one of their on-line salons? The proto-evangelical desire of many “Capital A” atheists to dissuade others from belief is fairly self-evident. If I have disagreements with a Mormon, a Congregationalist, a Muslim, or a Jain, I respect their right to hold their own beliefs. I would never think of going onto websites devoted to those denominations and listing the reasons why I think they’re wrong and misguided. i would be willing to discuss the issues in person if an adherent of one of those faiths asked for my opinion, or questioned the tenets of my faith. Likewise, I have never gone onto any of the atheist message boards and begun attacking their beliefs, or their purported lack of same. Were I to do so, it would be reasonable to think that the reason I would do so would be to “damage or undermine” their materialist belief system.

Atheists obviously may have other reasons to come to a Catholic website, and I accept and welcome those, which could include an interest in discussing philosophical and theological issues that may not be met by posters on the ESPN website message boards; a desire for philosophical debate competition with theists that are sharper and better informed than on many other websites; on-line friendships that form between people with disparate belief systems (like one of those YouTube videos of a cat and a dog playing together); or maybe just a deep-seated, albeit unacknowledged, pull towards belief by the atheist.

That being said, I don’t mind at all the fact that intelligent and reasonable atheists come on here to provide their opinion and try to persuade someone of the “truth” of atheism - it can be interesting, it sharpens us up a bit, especially if they are one of the atheists who can present their arguments with at least a modicum of intelligence, or are trying out a novel argument here before taking it on the road. It’s like sparring in a dojo or ring, it makes both adherents better at debate and forces them to research and learn new things, and you see new techniques and can better defend against them, in a relatively friendly environment And who knows? It could lead to a conversion to the one true faith. It’s happened before. (Or it could go the other way round, in which case someone succeeded in his goal of damaging or undermining someone’s faith. Big boys’ games, big boys’ rules.)

You don’t evangelize by preaching only to the choir, so atheists are welcome here.

There have been a few cases of “OK, well you idiots with your hokum backward beliefs in a stupid man in the sky will never understand something as challenging as the TRUTH!!!” sorts of posts, but they’re largely old… the powers that be seem pretty jumpy, however. Personally, I think a forum highly dedicated to apologism shouldn’t shy away from touchy topics like evolution, and certainly not from atheism, the main source of counter argument!

I don’t think atheists have ever been banned from coming here, by the way! And surely the discussion of atheistic ideas, is inevitable on an apologistic website?!?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

I guess the short answer is that there is always more to know about something - and since knowing more about something means we do not know it all - then we will never know it ALL. The argument is, at least as I appreciate it, one must know everything before a ratonal decision is made - and since an impossible situation has already been established, then it is impossible to make the decision.

We know very little about nutrions - yet we are willing to believe they exist. Prior to getting the information we now have - we had less … yet, were willing to believe that there was something out there. Based on the usual arguments - the idea that God exists would have never been been given such latitude. And, I find that very curious.

Now, here is where we have a major problem. Multiple logical proofs have offered that an Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Master Pattern Maker … God … really does exist - and you simply reject it out of hand with statements that this is not logical, there is no God because I say there is no God, or we just came into existence and here we are, etc. You have done such an excellent job of simply rejecting what has been presented - without offering any proof of your own - that I am honestly convinced that no such proof of God’s exists that you will accept.

I have made a few comments on your post below.

God bless

But anyway - yes, my question is by what measure can we judge that the universe is likely or unlikely to have been the way it is. By what measure. Maybe it is just the way I am reading your sentence, but you are using a past tense verb (“have been”) with a present tense verb (“is”) so, I am not really sure what it is you are asking here.

That is not simply the question of an uninterested agnostic/atheist (a difference apparently not worth understanding), this is a fundamental question about the rational solidity of the basis upon which much of theism is constructed. My question is how we can know this basis - how is it possible to argue rationally that the universe is likely to have been created? You have yet to tackle ManOnFire’s post which challenges the very heart of your argument. Why not try that and see how you do … then we can comment on your presentaiton.

Do we have an understanding of the process of creating universes? Do we have an understand of hte process for crating a nutreno? And, since we have serious faith that such an item now exists - but, can only indrectly describe it - do we have the necessary understand to even accept nutrenos at all?

Do we understand not only the nature of universal laws, but the way they are created? Does this mean that you are willing to accept ‘univesal laws’ [like gravity?] only if we know how they were created? So, since we do not know how nutrinos were created, does this mean we reject them?Do we know about other universes that can be compared with our own? Since other galexies exist, I guess this means that other unverses exist - but, we know very little about them. So, just how much knoweldge is needed to make a decision?Do we know the bounds of possible physics? Do we know what a possible universe is? Hmmmmmmmm do we know the meaning of meaning…?

To all those questions (which I think are necessary for the idea of probability), I think we can only answer “no”. Without these elements, I do not think we can treat fine-tuning or life as evidence of anything outside the universe, for the existence of a creator, or to judge that this universe is unlikely. And we are now back to the same dodge I identified previously, there is no way to know everything here so that you can accept God - yet we know far less about nutrinos and accept them! Here is where galloping illogic simply overtakes the previous questions.

So, what is the measure by which we can judge that this universe is unlikely to be the way it is, and why it should have been made by a god? Because we did not make it, and nothing makes itself, puts itself in order, creates its own pattern and replicates itself so tht it can be studied by humans - and that is how we learn about our world.

Perhaps I have got it wrong, and we do have the means to know that we have enough data to answer this question of our existence. If anyone who is a Catholic has an answer, I think the burden is much greater on you to step in! That weighs more heavily than the implication that I should stop asking questions or stop seeking rationality.

Actually, I do think you have it wrong and I think your questions have been answered. Now, not liking the answer does not negate the answer… it just denies it. We may not like a diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension or cancer - but, our disposition to these condiions is immaterial. They exist and if they are ignored you life will be significantly shortened.

God bless

 

[Bobber90]

TQualey, thank you for your detailed response. I will start with this post as there is a backlog of issues it seems like I have neglected. I have thought about these issues, and left them aside because they do not affect my question of the means of identifying the probability that our universe is the way it is. I think it assumes we can know, without showing how.

Anyway:

Either the cosmos had a beginning, or it did not.

It could not have had a godless beginning since we know that it is unscientific and illogical for the first something to evolve from absolute nothing. If something else existed, then one didn’t go all the way back to the beginning. So, a godless beginning from absolute nothing is not possible.

That leaves the prospect that a godless cosmos has always existed in some form or another (the big bang fails to account for the creation of infinite gravity, and scientists are saying the big bang expansion is one side of the yo-yo, where the other side is the big crunch contraction, in an infinite yo-yo motion). If a godless cosmos has always existed with no god beginning, then there is forever no scientific or logical reason for the existence of the cosmos (and us) since it is forever impossible (by definition) to determine an original cause for something that had no original cause.

Process of elimination. Atheism is actually the less logical choice, scientifically speaking, since there is no science to explain a godless creation.

Yes I agree that either everything was caused or it is eternal. I do not think it is definite that everything must have been created by a god, on two counts.

1. There are some ideas being investigated that the Big Bang came as a result of some sort of collision between ‘membranes’ - where membranes are highly theoretical physical components of reality, perhaps a bit like dimensions. Interestingly, they have been called upon to hypothesise that nutrinos apprear to move faster than light speed because they take a detour through another membrane, before reappearing in ours again. If the membranes (whatever they are) are responsible for the appearance of our universe, perhaps the membranes are the first cause - eternal. Call them god, call them membranes - but they are not very knowable, nor do they seem intelligent or like a person. So objection no. 1 is that the first cause (if it is empirically and philosophically necessary) does not have to be a deity.
2. There are philosophical and empirical problems with the idea of first causes. Philosophically it is highly challenged, and even if logically sound, why should it exist empirically? Mindovermatter said that to deny the first cause argument is sound is to claim that there can be a square triangle. This is interesting, because clearly there does not exist a square triangle, but neither does a triangle exist empirically. Lawrence Krauss, the popular physicist, says that we should learn from the universe, rather than try to know in advance what makes it tick. The philosophical challenges I am not familiar with, but this wikipedia page will do enough to complicate the issue and get me off the hook. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument Take a look under Objections and Criticism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Bobber90,

I know you worked at that - and I appreciate your effort. But honestly, if you just step back for a moment you will see how these all fail (the Wiki article was interesting) for the reasons I have previously given to you. Did you forget about ManOnFire’s post?

I tried to keep this one page … but, just could not do it… This is page 1 of 2…

So, let’s see what we have…

Yes I agree that either everything was caused or it is eternal. I do not think it is definite that everything must have been created by a god, on two counts.

1. There are some ideas being investigated that the Big Bang came as a result of some sort of collision between ‘membranes’ - where membranes are highly theoretical physical components of reality, perhaps a bit like dimensions…snip

Essentially, what is being said here is that there is this THEORY that may explain away God … now, this may be summarized as, “While we do not know quite what it is, since we already ‘know’ that there is no God this theory looks pretty good because, there is nothing else.” This is a variation on the previous agrument I have given you which boils down to, “There is no God because I say thee is no God”.

My argument has been consistent throughout this thread: the existence of patterns in all of nature demonstrates the existence of a Master Pattern Maker (God). Patterns represent order - just the opposite of chaos. We are able to learn from and about nature because the various elements replicate in predictable patterns - once you realize the pattern. We know the various stages of how flowers bloom, how to make predictable variations on their size, color and shape through scientific manipultion (we know th pattern and we know how to work with the pattern to get another pattern). Such order can only come from an Ordered Mind - a Master Pattern Maker … God. This is no THEORY - unless you think that the entire concept of nature replicting itself is a theory.

Your second set of arguments comes from the Wiki group who objected to earlier philosophers: Greek, Arabic, Roman concerning their proofs for God’s existence. So, here goes…

1. There are philosophical and empirical problems with the idea of first causes. Philosophically it is highly challenged, and even if logically sound, why should it exist empirically? Mindovermatter said that to deny the first cause argument is sound is to claim that there can be a square triangle.

The very concept of a WHY question takes it out of the realm of emperical science - the scientist asks the question WHAT or HOW … but WHY is in the domain of the metaphysical. I submit that science can not any question about WHY. For example, water boils at 212F at sea level - and how this happens is that heat is applied to water in a vessel. What happens is that once 212F is reached we have boiling water giving off steam - but, WHY it happens … well… all we can say is that it happens, or that is the way it has always happened,or after boiling water in 1,000,000 vessels the temperatre was recorded as 212F so that muct be the nature of boiling water… but, that is as far as we can take it - and none of these really answer the question WHY

**Stenger has argued that quantum mechanics disconfirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. **He postulates ****that such naturally occurring quantum events are exceptions to this premise, like the Casimir effect and radioactive decay.

OK … while it looks like progress has been made - we find we move from a theory to a POSTULATE - or because I know God does not exist I will use one of my theories on quantum mechanics to say things just happen - because we see them, so they obviously happen. Radioactive decay only works if we have a radio-ACTIVE element that is (yeah, another pattern…) giving off radiation that we now measure in half-lives. This is another version of ‘There is no God because I say there is no God - things just happen… in neat, predictable patterns’

Continued…

 

[tqualey]

Hi Bobber90,

This is page 2 of 2…

So, let’s finish up here…

Craig responds to this in two different ways: (1) the** indeterministic origination **of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum is not true creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) since the vacuum contains a sea of fluctuating energy, empty space, and is governed by physical laws; none of which are “nothing.”

Craig’s second argument is similar to the first, so I will just deal with one to save space and time. The novelty is that the same error can have so many off-shoots. In this case we have an “…indeterministic origination…” so while we do not know where the virtual particles in the quantum vacuum came from, since we know there is no God - well they are just there and they must have brought themselves into existence!

Ghazali thought that it is at least theoretically possible for there to be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing that necessitates a first-cause simply by pure deductive reason.

Notice how Ghazali just shoots from the hip - he, too, knows that there is no God - so he spins out of whole cloth a ‘theoretically possible’ reason on how everything came into existence. This has been the poorest attempt so far because he simply creates his own set of rules to disprove what we all can see exists.

** Muhammad Iqbal also rejects the argument stating, “Logically speaking, then, the movement from the finite to the infinite as embodied in the cosmological argument is quite illegitimate**; and the argument fails in total.”

This technique is commonly called ‘begging the question’ where one gives the answer one wants and then arrives at it. If anything is illegitimate is Muhammad’s approach to this - he does not even try to prove his point that there is no God - and this is because he knows there is no God and just summarily dismisses other arugments.

Kant also rejects any cosmological proof on the grounds that it is nothing more than an ontological proof in disguise. He argued that any necessary object’s essence must involve existence, hence reason alone can define such a being, and the argument becomes quite similar to the ontological one in form, devoid of any empirical premis.

Ultimately we are back to looking at patterns - do they exist or not. This is totally empirical becaue we can prove patterns exist in every aspect of nature. True chaos is very difficult to even imagine must less demonstrate in the natural world, contrasted with the order that greets us every day with a ‘sunrise’, gravity keeping us to the Earth, water being wet as it seeks its own level, etc. We have patterns, we have order and I sumbit, we have God to thank for all of this.

God bless