How do I turn the table on atheists?

[akasseb]

First of all no one can say definitively that God does not exist because of the problem of induction. Just because someone has observed a world in which one has yet to perceive of God does mean He does not exist. If you view a series of white swans you cannot say definitely that all swans are white. We have to remember that we each have one mind in one part of the world at one point in history. Secondly, we can look to motives of credibility. For instance, we have this body of evidence that must be explained, namely, the 27 separate books which were later compiled into the New Testament. Beyond this we have hundreds of additional writings from the Church fathers. They attest to the divinity of Christ and the importance of His Church. Can one really explain all this away? Third of all, if there is no God then we are the result of random and purposeless mutations. Atheists are comfortable talking about blind evolutionary forces but they are less comfortable applying that reality to themselves. And if you really want to touch a personal nerve ask them to think of the most important person in their life. Then ask them if this person is the result of blind evolutionary forces.

 

[StrawberryJam]

First of all no one can say definitively that God does not exist because of the problem of induction. Just because someone has observed a world in which one has yet to perceive of God does mean He does not exist. If you view a series of white swans you cannot say definitely that all swans are white. We have to remember that we each have one mind in one part of the world at one point in history. Secondly, we can look to motives of credibility. For instance, we have this body of evidence that must be explained, namely, the 27 separate books which were later compiled into the New Testament. Beyond this we have hundreds of additional writings from the Church fathers. They attest to the divinity of Christ and the importance of His Church. Can one really explain all this away? Third of all, if there is no God then we are the result of random and purposeless mutations. Atheists are comfortable talking about blind evolutionary forces but they are less comfortable applying that reality to themselves. And if you really want to touch a personal nerve ask them to think of the most important person in their life. Then ask them if this person is the result of blind evolutionary forces.

Science does not say definitively that God does not exist. Even the most aggressive athiests claim that it is not impossible but it is very very very improbable for the christian God to exist.
Not that I want to take down that very tall strawman you so carefully crafted, just want to make sure you realize that the apologetic websites you visit don’t prepare you for that.
Your body of evidence in the bible is absolutely the worst type of evidence for anything.
As for the rest of your ridiculous claims about athiests and disrespect and contempt for biology, they pale in comparison to your more absurd position that an athiest will stop in their tracks when thinking upon the most important person in their life and then abandon all reason and dive into wishful thinking and speculation of navel gazers.

 

[Julian0404]

You cannot approach intellectual arrogance with any chance of success in moving that intellect to oppose itself.

You need to do what you are doing - study, learn, prepare, and wait for the HOLY SPIRIT to send to you a soul that has now been moved by the HOLY SPIRIT to question itself and step outside the protective covering of arrogance and begin a true investigation of the truth. When they approach you, then you teach - not with contingencies or conditions but with the truth. The outcome is not yours to define, but rather the HOLY SPIRIT.

 

[Perplexity]

If God does not exist, then why does something exist instead of nothing?

I’ll try not to get into modal logic too much…but if it’s possible that nothing had existed, then it isn’t necessary that God exists. And if God doesn’t exist of necessity, then God necessarily doesn’t exist. Wiki metaphysical nihilism, it’s been proffered as an argument against God for long time.

But, I don’t think the atheist ought to worry about this question. His inability to answer it is only damaging to atheism if we would expect the atheist to know the answer, supposing atheism is true. But, no one does that. So, this isn’t reason to doubt atheism.

And how does something come from nothing, since something without existence is nothing and “nothing” cannot cause itself into existence?

The atheist needn’t commit to this. I’ve seen plenty of atheists who simply believe in an infinitely regressing past. However, this isn’t much of an objection to atheism. It’s basically an argument from incredulity, and an appeal to intuitions, the former is a fallacy and the latter isn’t shared by everyone. Further, theists believe that a thing which occupies no space can cause stuff to exist out of nothing. So, I’d say the theist isn’t in much of a position to say ‘from nothing, something comes’ is that weird.

How did atheism beneift people under the leaders of such atheists as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.? And under atheism, whose opinion decides right and wrong, and why does it?

I have no idea about the former but can’t understand its relevance either. The second question is loaded because it assumes someone’s opinion “decides” right and wrong. Since atheism doesn’t tell us much about morality (moral theory does ) I don’t think the atheist should worry about this question either.

How does atheism work out the problems of good, evil, and suffering? And without God, where do atheists go to for comfort?

I’m not sure there is a problem of good, evil and suffering for atheism. Unless you mean how do atheists try and maximize good, and prevent evil and suffering? In that case I’d say just like anyone else tries to…charity donations, volunteering etc. humanism is notorious for such efforts

And how does atheism explain the meaning and purpose in life? And why do people seem to have a deep spiritual longing for truth and direction and feel incomplete inside when they lack them or are denied them?

I’m not sure there is some objective purpose in life, on atheism. But, that isn’t too worrying because the average joe doesn’t consider whether there is anyways. No, he’s more concerned about living a life of happiness, getting his kids to college and taking care of the misses. That is to say, no body really thinks the purpose in life is to know, love and serve God, until they convert. Atheism maintains the natural outlook, I think…or at least, it doesn’t try and change it.

 

[Perplexity]

They demand proof that there is a God. We demand proof that there is no God. They can never be certain there is no God since that is impossible to prove.

hmm, proof is just sufficient evidence to elicit belief in a position. Suppose the position is “Theism is false.” Sufficient evidence to elicit belief in the position “Theism is false” needn’t be of an extraordinary kind, and the elicited belief needn’t be of remarkable strength.

Where 1 = the highest degree of confidence you can have, 0 equals the least and 0.5 equals total ignorance, all you need to have in order to be reasonable in your belief that “Theism is false” is a confidence > 0.5. For many, the problem of evil or Divine Hiddenness etc. suffice to elicit this degree of confidence. So, it seems to me that atheists certainly can have proof that God doesn’t exist, but this should only worry the theist if he doesn’t have good objections to the atheist’s argument.

 

[tonyrey]

You’re not alone.

And the reason debate doesn’t work is because the arguments presented in such debates are never particularly compelling. Not that “love” is going to get you very far, either.

Do you **really **believe your power of reason has been magically produced by purposeless particles which don’t even know they exist, are incapable of controlling themselves and can’t even prove they have produced everything?!

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure there is some objective purpose in life, on atheism. But, that isn’t too worrying because the average joe doesn’t consider whether there is anyways. No, he’s more concerned about living a life of happiness, getting his kids to college and **taking care **of the misses.

Aren’t they objective purposes?

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe I’m alone, but this atheist would rather debate.

Good for you!

 

[tonyrey]

Do you really believe your power of reason has been magically produced by purposeless particles which don’t even know

That is true but do you really believe your power of reason has been magically produced by purposeless particles which don’t even know they exist, are incapable of controlling themselves and can’t even prove they have produced everything?

 

[tonyrey]

And the reason debate doesn’t work is because the arguments presented in such debates are never particularly compelling. Not that “love” is going to get you very far, either.

Do you reject the reality of love? How would you define it?

 

[Perplexity]

Aren’t they objective purposes?

Well, what is an objective purpose? This gets into teleology right? I don’t think the average Joe thinks of the happiness he desires in teleological terms or anything like that. He just knows that he desires this that or the other, not necessarily why. And that’s not to insult him in anyway, I’m not sure substantive reflection on it (moral philosophy etc.) gets better results.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, what is an objective purpose? This gets into teleology right? I don’t think the average Joe thinks of the happiness he desires in teleological terms or anything like that. He just knows that he desires this that or the other, not necessarily why. And that’s not to insult him in anyway, I’m not sure substantive reflection on it (moral philosophy etc.) gets better results.

An objective purpose exists whether it is recognised or not. The truth does not depend on being discovered.

 

[Perplexity]

An objective purpose exists whether it is recognised or not. The truth does not depend on being discovered.

I wouldn’t disagree. My point is that atheism’s not offering an objective purpose isn’t worrying since we don’t usually take ourselves to have one anyways. It’s only after conversion that we think things like our purpose is to love, and serve God. Or to come to knowledge of God…etc.

 

[tonyrey]

An objective purpose exists whether it is recognised or not. The truth does not depend on being discovered.

Socrates said: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shredderbeam,

Nice try …

I admit, taking on St. Thomas Aquinas is no substitute for an after diner brandy … but, let’s take a look at what you have here …

All right, I’ll give it a go.

Supposing that I agreed that an infinite chain of movers was inconceivable, this argument doesn’t demonstrate that the prime mover has any of the qualities that we’d attribute to God - so why call it God?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that demonstrates that the universe was designed.

Basically, you conceeded to St. Thomas’ arguments but want to base your argument on a quibble… I really did expect better, Shredderbeam. Since you agree to the argument about an infinite chain of movers being inconceivable - you do not like the word ‘God’. OK. Honest, I can deal with that. You may call the Unmoved Mover, the Ultimate Pattern Maker or anything you like, because you have acknowledged its existence.

Now, when it comes to Qualities of the Unmoved Mover - I would be interested in knowing what you would ascribe to this Being that the rest of us call ‘God’.

The question about a design for the universe has come up from many different people at many different times in the history of mankind. But, my view is really quite simple. Let me give you an example. A Speaker once said, “Look at the lilies as they grow …” (Luke 12:27) - so, let’s do that… The first thing a lot of people notice is that there are many flowers gowing together and they look very similar as they share about the same height, leaf pattern, petal arrangement, color and many other characteristics. This is evident by even a small child being able to distinguish between a lilly and another type of flower growing close by. Upon closer examination we find that no two lillies are exactly alike - there are subtle differences.

My view is that the Ultimate Pattern Maker really did make a pattern for lilies. It is not so random that chaos is the only product. To repeat anything means that there is a pattern in place - our job is to just acknowledge it. There is no recorded evidence of a group of flowers negotiating on the next season’s design - year after year they appear. Let’s move up a notch to a more complex life form: insects.

We have recorded evidence from ancient Egypt of honey bees and that there were beekeepers who really did gather honey. And the drawing made of the bees, the honeycomb and the hives are remarkable for the established patterns we see today.

Look at this with an objective eye and I think you will see that God really does exist.

God bless

 

[Perplexity]

I don’t think any contemporary philosopher of religion uses Aquinas’ 5 ways anymore. The first two beg the question, the third commits a quantificational blunder, the fourth and fifth are non-sequiturs.

For instance, here is world renowned philosopher of religion, Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher and an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, being professionally involved in Natural Theology for half a century:

“There have been many versions of the cosmological argument given over the past two-and-a-half millennia; the most quoted are the second and third of Aquinas’s five ways to show the existence of God. However, Aquinas’s ‘five ways’, or rather the first four of his five ways, seem to me to be one of his least successful pieces of philosophy.” - Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. pp. 135-36.

He comments later on the 5th way saying:

“It seems to me fairly clear that no argument from temporal order, whether Aquinas’s fifth way or any other argument, can be a good deductive argument. For, although the premiss is undoubtedly correct-a vast pervasive order characterizes the world- the step from premiss to conclusion is not a valid deductive one. Although the existence of order may be good evidence of a designer, it is surely compatible with the non-existence of one.” - ibid., p. 155

It’s quite a task to force Aquinas’ arguments into logically valid forms, and when you do, they’re easily dismantled. Cf. Sobel, Jordan Howard. Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God. Cambridge Arguing about Gods, 2006. pp. 98-107.

Edit**

I suppose you could also check out The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007. pp. 86-101, and J.L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Perplexity,

I have truly marveled at your dismissive approach to the other posters and what they have presented. But, your bluster has been called to task on this one.

I don’t think any contemporary philosopher of religion uses Aquinas’ 5 ways anymore. The first two beg the question, the third commits a quantificational blunder, the fourth and fifth are non-sequiturs.

Defend your statement that the first two “…beg the question…”

I am looking forward to your response.

God bless

 

[tonyrey]

“There have been many versions of the cosmological argument given over the past two-and-a-half millennia; the most quoted are the second and third of Aquinas’s five ways to show the existence of God. However, Aquinas’s ‘five ways’, or rather the first four of his five ways, seem to me to be one of his least successful pieces of philosophy.” - Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. pp. 135-36.

A significant proviso…

He comments later on the 5th way saying:

"It seems to me fairly clear that no argument from temporal order, whether Aquinas’s fifth way or any other argument, can be a good deductive argument.

No existential argument can be deductive!

For, although the premiss is undoubtedly correct-a vast pervasive order characterizes the world- the step from premiss to conclusion is not a valid deductive one.

The vast pervasive order requires explanation…

Although the existence of order may be good evidence of a designer, it is surely compatible with the non-existence of one." - ibid., p. 155

Compatible but extremely improbable when extreme complexity is taken in conjunction with purposeful activity. The onus is on the proponent of non-Design to explain how extreme complexity taken in conjunction with purposeful activity originated…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I have truly marveled at your dismissive approach to the other posters and what they have presented.

To me it came across as descriptive of human behaviours. It also seems that on one hand there is a discussion of a polarized stereotype and on the other hand there is a view that real people don’t necessarily conform to that stereotype (so I don’t think every one is quite having the same discussion).

Side note, I asked a few friends what they thought of “Objective Morality.” I was a little surprised to find that the phrase didn’t hold meaning with them or held different meaning. One friend (a non denominational Christian) said she didn’t really know what “objective morality” meant. Another friend (she believes in no gods, but has spiritual beliefs) took “objective” to mean “goal” and her description of what she thought it meant came close to utilitarianism. I’ve asked questions that have come up in this forum to my friends before. The impression I get is that the topics discussed here don’t make much of a difference in their every day life (for my religious and non-religious friends alike).

 

[Perplexity]

Hi, Perplexity,

I have truly marveled at your dismissive approach to the other posters and what they have presented. But, your bluster has been called to task on this one.

Defend your statement that the first two “…beg the question…”

I am looking forward to your response.

God bless

Sure, in the words of J.L. Mackie:

“Unfortunately this argument is unsound. Although in a finite ordered series of causes the intermediate (or the earliest intermediate) is caused by the first item, this would not be so if there were an infinite series. In an infinite series, every item is caused by an earlier item. The way in which the first item is ‘removed’ if we go from a finite to an infinite series does not entail the removal of the later items. In fact, Aquinas (both here and in the first way) has simply begged the question against an infinite regress of causes.” Mackie, J. L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. p., 90

The first way says:

But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover

However, if the series is infinite of course there is no first mover! If there’s a first mover, the series is finite…lol So to say it “cannot go on to to infinity, because there would be no first mover” is to say an infinite series cannot be because it wouldn’t be finite…

The second way says:

“Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.”

Again, here he lists aspects of a series of finite efficient causes and concludes that because an infinite series wouldn’t have these aspects, then it cannot be. But of course it wouldn’t have these! Otherwise it’d be finite. So, he’s presupposing the conclusion he’s supposed to be demonstrating. i.e., that infinite regression isn’t possible.

Finally, there is also the issue of his question begging and modality. There are different kinds of possibility.

Metaphysical possibility is concerned with whether something (an event, or state of affairs etc.) can become ‘real’ or ‘actual’. IOW, whether something is actualizable.

Logical possibility is concerned with whether something’s being real or actual would contradict some logical law.

So, for instance, it’s logically possible for me to run faster than the speed of light without assistance (this doesn’t contradict any laws of logic); but, certainly I could never really do such a thing: it isn’t metaphysically possible.

Finally, there is epistemic possibility: metaphysical possibility conditioned by a person’s beliefs and knowledge. For example, for some people it’s epistemically possible for God to have created everyone in hell, yet for the one who believes God’s perfect goodness precludes such an action, it won’t be epistemically possible.

So, what does he mean by saying an infinite regression isn’t possible? Such a regression certainly wouldn’t contradict any logical laws. And what beliefs of ours would preclude such a thing from being real? I can’t even imagine. This only skims the surface.