How do I turn the table on atheists?

[tqualey]

Hi, Perplexity,

I do not think anyone has ever claimed that humanity, earth or the entire universe is infinite. Being around for a long time is just a long time - but, infinite is without end. And, this is where your argument fails - God alone is infinite.

Mackie’s argument is displayed in the first two sentences - and we are not talking about an, ‘…infinite series…’ and that is all we have. As we continue to date various realities we find that some items are older an some are younger - but, all had a point that, prior to which, they did not exist.

“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.

This is a circular argument. The argument states that everthing can be dated - and if we can not date it, does not mean it is ‘dateless’ only that we do not have the ability to set a date on it. As we look around the universe, change abounds. Stars suddenly become supernovas, new galixies are discovered - and if we are lucky, the quater mile long asteroid that will come clsoe to Earth will truly miss us! We have no evidence on Earth of anything lasting forever - and tht is because nothing does last forever. So, we are back to the finate nature of all matter and energy.Sir Issac Newton was right - things are constantly either falling apart or have fallen apart.

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.”

This ‘second way’ is basically like the first. Only God is infinite - and we can only address the finite. Ultimately, it comes down to three basic elements, change (entropy) is a constant and that can only be applied to matter or energy and these items do not continue to create themselves. The only variable here is the amount of time it takes. God is timeless.

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. …

Personally, I think it is Mackie who has begged the question. The issue is the reality of the finite - it has real limits, and one of those limits is that it began a certain time - whether it was the Big Bang or when th sperm united with the egg. It is at that point that we can go backwards to find the Prime Mover.

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.

Let’s look at this ‘first’ Finally (most people limit themselves to just one… One must be careful about how one applies logic - lest total error develops. For example the Ptolemaic theory of the universe was certainly logical, It really does look like the sun ‘rises’ and the sun ‘sets’.and vey elaborate tables and models were constructed to prove their false theory… but, they were all logical!

Of this I am certain: I did not make any of the universe. And, no one human - or Committee(!) I know or have ever heard about has taken credit for doing this. And, before the Second Law of Thermodynamics came into being - man knew that things have a beginning and they eventually end. Patterns mean there is a Pattern Maker. You can call this Creative Engergy whatever pleases you - but, a lot of people call Him God.

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.

Arguments like this are more like watching someone try to walk on air - they fail because there is nothing to support either them or their arguments. Some people may believe anything they wish - as long as what they believe allows for an escape hatch … something where ultimately responsibility is omitted from the equation. We can omit this by saying we are the center of chaotic uiverse where there are no rules and when we die we just cease to exist. But, you know, there are still these patterns that we see both inside and outside of ourselves. Health works in a predictable way - and so does disease… things can be totally uniquie (e.g., iris patterns in the human eye differe from left eye to right eye, from the eyes of identical twins an of course from everyone else - yet we all have iris patterns that allow for recognition and identification). How did this happen? I know I did not make it, and I don’t think you did either… There really is room for God, if we let Him in.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Cute, but not comparing like with like. The reason you don’t spend more time talking about the tooth fairy is because you don’t run across many people who believe in the tooth fairy. <—That is always the excuse. Were there as many people believing in the tooth fairy as believe in God, I bet you’d find yourself in more of those conversations.

Atheists don’t have to blather on about something they supposedly think isn’t there just because they choose to live in a society full of people who aren’t denying God.

Atheists are responsible for their own conflicted weirdness.

Blaming others is just adolescent childishness.

 

[Bobber90]

One question I usually put to the Atheist is ‘How do you define Good?’ It is interesting to see the answers on this point.

Also try to prompt them to extrapolate from the tenets of their faith (Yes - it can be argued that Atheism is indeed a faith.) If one really looks at what a Godless reality would be like - it is indeed a frightening prospect.

Ah now this is really interesting. ‘If one looks at what a godless reality would look like it is a frightening prospect’. Maybe the notion that there is no god is frightening, but is it so difficult to conceive of this in the realm of social life?

I think it is clear that objective morality would have no greater meaning than subjective morality, nor any distinguishing features, in terms of everyday functionality. Right and wrong would feel the same, people would understand and misunderstand each other the same, and morality would have no executive authority. Even if it were desirable to say that there exists an objective morality, how would we have reason to believe this were actually true?

Another point - we know good when we see it, the problems only come when we say Good or The Good. Think concretely about this: stubbing your toe. We all know what it means to stub your toe and we recognise when it happens to others; it hurts and we want to avoid it. But it becomes a bit more imposing when we ask of the essence of Stubbing Your Toe. Does your experience of pain share in the essence of Stubbing Your Toe? Is it the same as everyone else’s? When you realise that what you really did was impact your pinkie on the side of the chair, you see your error: your view of Stubbing Your Toe was relative to the actors involved and the circumstances; it was not pure. You do not really know what it is to be Stubbing Your Toe. Ok, that was clearly more for my amusement, but the point is do we really need a notion of objective morality for morality to work?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bohm Bawerk,

Maybe not here - but, rest assured, they will be turned.

Keep whistling, it’s getting dark out there.

God bless

You can’t turn the table on atheists.

Have a nice day.

 

[tonyrey]

Hi, Bohm Bawerk,

Maybe not here - but, rest assured, they will be turned.

Keep whistling, it’s getting dark out there.

God bless

According to atheists we are but sparks in the dark…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobbrer 90,

I really find it a marvel that there are those who simply dismiss objective morality - yet would become quite upset if someone stole a valued item from them. If this person was in a foreign country and this valued item was stolen by a local - I would imagine the victim would have no second thoughts in going to the local authorities to report the theft - assuming that there are laws protecting private property in this foreign country.

Unfortunately, the victim now finds that those who deny objective morality have been elected to office - and … you guessed it … theft is not a crime! Oh, Noooooooooo

Ooops, you can wake up now - no country like this exists … but, with the banishment from the heart and mind of obvious concepts like objective morality - is your own life safe?

God bless

Ah now this is really interesting. ‘If one looks at what a godless reality would look like it is a frightening prospect’. Maybe the notion that there is no god is frightening, but is it so difficult to conceive of this in the realm of social life?

I think it is clear that objective morality would have no greater meaning than subjective morality, nor any distinguishing features, in terms of everyday functionality. Right and wrong would feel the same, people would understand and misunderstand each other the same, and morality would have no executive authority. Even if it were desirable to say that there exists an objective morality, how would we have reason to believe this were actually true?

Another point - we know good when we see it, the problems only come when we say Good or The Good. Think concretely about this: stubbing your toe. We all know what it means to stub your toe and we recognise when it happens to others; it hurts and we want to avoid it. But it becomes a bit more imposing when we ask of the essence of Stubbing Your Toe. Does your experience of pain share in the essence of Stubbing Your Toe? Is it the same as everyone else’s? When you realise that what you really did was impact your pinkie on the side of the chair, you see your error: your view of Stubbing Your Toe was relative to the actors involved and the circumstances; it was not pure. You do not really know what it is to be Stubbing Your Toe. Ok, that was clearly more for my amusement, but the point is do we really need a notion of objective morality for morality to work?

 

[tonyrey]

I suppose personal struggles have more of an impact on how much one does or does not care about these things. To people to which I spoke have more concern with things such as retaining current or seeking new employment, matters concerning their children’s grades, and so on. Matters of philosophy don’t seem to get high priority for their mental bandwidth.

When the implementation of their rulers’ philosophy hits them where it hurts they soon make it their first priority. They either protest, proceed to depart (if they can) or produce weapons - which are not solely for self-defence!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

It seems like a lot of people take their anecdotal experiences as have some type of universal application. You associate with people who think somewhat like you do - so, this is taken for a type of endorsement of these thoughts. Reality has a lot more diversity as you see from post where you have been challenged for the errors in your posts. I am sure your ‘friends’ would not do this - mainly because they do not think in these terms - as you have so well documented.

Maybe it is time to expand your orbit of the people you know.

God bless

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).

 

[Bobber90]

Hi, Bobbrer 90,

I really find it a marvel that there are those who simply dismiss objective morality - yet would become quite upset if someone stole a valued item from them. If this person was in a foreign country and this valued item was stolen by a local - I would imagine the victim would have no second thoughts in going to the local authorities to report the theft - assuming that there are laws protecting private property in this foreign country.

Unfortunately, the victim now finds that those who deny objective morality have been elected to office - and … you guessed it … theft is not a crime! Oh, Noooooooooo

Ooops, you can wake up now - no country like this exists … but, with the banishment from the heart and mind of obvious concepts like objective morality - is your own life safe?

God bless

Hello!

This is not an argument for the real existence of objective morality, we have simply found out that neither of us likes having our things taken. It falls under the ‘wouldn’t it be good if there was objective morality, and further, if this meant that bad things would never happen’ category

 

[ASimon]

Atheists don’t have to blather on about something they supposedly think isn’t there just because they choose to live in a society full of people who aren’t denying God.

True enough. Mostly, we do it because it’s fun. However, the fact remains. If nobody believed in God, we wouldn’t be sitting around talking about our unbelief. Indeed, “atheism” would cease to exist, since it only can exist as a proper category in relation to something other than an unbelief in God.

Mostly, I only meant to slap down this canard that atheists are somehow “searching,” or somehow in denial about their denial. I would call it arrogant and presumptuous to say such a thing, if I didn’t suspect that was the whole point in the first place.

 

[tonyrey]

The same applies to dysteleological arguments!

If he’s not bothered he’s irrational!

Their “bottom” is itself a metaphysical assumption.

Of course.

Which needs justification.

If that is the case cosmology is nonsense…

I’m not sure I follow. .

As our universe is our sole sample of universes how can it serve as a basis for estimates of probability on matters related to itself?

 

[Bobber90]

True enough. Mostly, we do it because it’s fun

I’d like to think a prime reason for atheism is a concern with truth!

 

[ASimon]

I’d like to think a prime reason for atheism is a concern with truth!

Oh, it is. But the question was, “Why are we here (as in, on a Catholic message board)?”

Babylonsfalling seems to want to think that atheists are here because they aren’t really atheists. That they’re just insecure plebes who can’t handle how weak their arguments for unbelief are, so they seek out the faithful in some kind of oddball reverse psychology move.

And my only point was that I think most atheists are here because it’s fun.

 

[tonyrey]

I’d like to think a prime reason for atheism is a concern with truth!

You may well be disappointed! Truth is in a precarious position if the universe is irrational.

 

[tonyrey]

And my only point was that I think most atheists are here because it’s fun.

’

It’s not such fun when the going gets tough!

 

[ASimon]

’

It’s not such fun when the going gets tough!

I wouldn’t know.

 

[Bobber90]

You may well be disappointed! Truth is in a precarious position if the universe is irrational.

You mean, if the universe were truly irrational? Then we could say that the universe is irrational, truly.

Truth is also not conditional, as might accidentally be inferred from your comment!

 

[babylonsfalling]

True enough. Mostly, we do it because it’s fun. <—Now you’re changing your reasons. However, the fact remains. If nobody believed in God, we wouldn’t be sitting around talking about our unbelief. <—Now you’re changing you’re reasons back again. Indeed, “atheism” would cease to exist, since it only can exist as a proper category in relation to something other than an unbelief in God.

Mostly, I only meant to slap down this canard that atheists are somehow “searching,” or somehow in denial about their denial. <—Atheists are falling all over themselves trying not to believe in God, and showing in the fact they they can’t stop going on and on about God, that they never seem able to reach their goal . People know what it looks like when a person doesn’t think something exists and atheists never fail to fail at that test. I would call it arrogant and presumptuous to say such a thing, if I didn’t suspect that was the whole point in the first place.

Blaming Christians for atheist weirdness only shows adolescent level immaturity. Atheists are responsible for their own conflicted weirdness.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tqualey

I agree with all your comments. I think we should answer atheists point by point, as they insist on being answered. What I meant to say, and it probably wasn’t clearly said, is that I don’t think it serves any purpose to get into the mode of “winning” or “beating” somebody at the logic game. I’ve seen a good deal of that, and have committed the sin myself, much to my regret.

As Bishop Fulton Sheen once said, “Win an argument, lose a soul.”

Mark Brumley, a convert, has written a book titled “How Not to Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization” This book should be read by every Catholic apologist.

Maybe atheists would profit as well?

 

[tonyrey]

I wouldn’t know.

You haven’t been here very long.