How do I turn the table on atheists?

[tqualey]

Hi, Shedderbeam,

I really do not like using the word ‘quibble’ - it really sounds like a very minimizing term. So, let me try something else.

Well, I wouldn’t call it a “quibble”. This argument proves the existence of a first cause, yes, but nothing more. It does not prove that the first cause is loving, has a plan for us, had a son, or even that it is sentient. It could be called “God”, certainly, but to do so risks conflation

.

I do not want to sound silly about this … but, once we have established a First Cause … how can you dismiss it by saying, “…but nothing more…” There is no way to know from nature that God is love, that He loves us as individuals, that there are Three Persons in One God, and that the Son of God suffered and died for our sins. The only way we can know this is from the Grace of God’s Revelation. I suggest that you take the ‘risk’ - some have actually called it a … “Leap of Faith”…

Look at it this way. When we die we will find out if there is a God or there isn’t Now, from nature we can deduce that there are patterns in all of the universe. These patterns give us a good indication that there is a Pattern Maker (First Cause or God if you will). So, when we take our last breath we will either find that there is or isn’t an eternal life as the Bible tells us. As far as I can tell, there are far better odds of having a happy forever by not only believing in God’s Word but in following what what He commanded. Now, if all of this universe just ‘came out of chaos’ and we will just cease to exist - well it really won’t make any difference will it?

God bless

 

[ASimon]

Hi,
I do not want to sound silly about this … but, once we have established a First Cause … how can you dismiss it by saying, “…but nothing more…” There is no way to know from nature that God is love, that He loves us as individuals, that there are Three Persons in One God, and that the Son of God suffered and died for our sins. The only way we can know this is from the Grace of God’s Revelation. I suggest that you take the ‘risk’ - some have actually called it a … “Leap of Faith”…

Except it’s not just a Leap of Faith, it’s Several Leaps of Faith. You’re not presupposing one thing about this First Cause, you have to presuppose many, many things in order to square it with your particular flavor of religion. None of these presuppositions are necessarily linked to any of the others. God could have the power to create the Universe, but not enough power to control what happens within it. God could have the power to control what happens in it, but might not care to. God might care what happens in it, but might be too busy with other things in it to bother with us. God might be very interested in human beings, but only as the equivalent of a science experiment. God might have intervened at one point in human history, but in nothing like the way the Christian faith teaches that He did. There might be a heaven and hell waiting for us after we die, but this God might have a sense of humor, and sends bad people to heaven and good people to hell. And on and on. The gap you’re forced to cross to get from Pure Deism to Christian Theism would make the Grand Canyon look like a pothole in the street.

Look at it this way. When we die we will find out if there is a God or there isn’t Now, from nature we can deduce that there are patterns in all of the universe. These patterns give us a good indication that there is a Pattern Maker (First Cause or God if you will). So, when we take our last breath we will either find that there is or isn’t an eternal life as the Bible tells us. As far as I can tell, there are far better odds of having a happy forever by not only believing in God’s Word but in following what what He commanded. Now, if all of this universe just ‘came out of chaos’ and we will just cease to exist - well it really won’t make any difference will it?

 

[NonServiam]

Hi, NonServiam

Hi. Sorry I haven’t had time to check back in on this thread. I’ll answer your question now.

So, if you are so confident that no proof exists as to the existence of God, tell me, how do you explain repeating patterns?

I’m not exactly sure what you mean – you’re referring to naturally-occurring repeating patterns in nature?

I don’t see at all why you would think that such patterns would require the existence of a supernatural being. It seems to me that such natural repeating patterns are just that: natural. They’re part of the natural pattern of the universe – that is, what the universe does – not the work of a being.

Of course, I don’t need to “explain” these patterns. As an atheist – that is, someone who doesn’t accept god claims – I can simply say I don’t know exactly what accounts for them. They seem to be just the way things are, though we can (and should) keep investigating to learn more. But the relevant point here is this: what about such patterns necessitates the existence of a supernatural being?

I don’t see any reason to think that such patterns come from a supernatural being and thus no reason to see these patterns as evidence for any god claims.

 

[Bobber90]

Hi Bobber90,

Seriously, what part of the exerpt don’t you understand? The mental picture I had in reading your post was something like Dualistic struggle - but, this time between Rationality and Irrationality. The forces of rationality just keeping its counter-part in balance … or something like that.

Of course, Dualism has its problems … but denying God isn’t one of them!

God bless

God bless

Well, fundamentally, it does not make sense!

Anyway, I would point you to the post in which I accepted that truth requires rational thinkers, but not a universe made from a creator nor even a patterned universe like our own. My first reaction to tonyrey’s points went too far, but I revised it in post 135

 

[Bobber90]

If something doesn’t exist it cannot be recognised! Therefore my statement implies I take it granted that truth exists.

I agree with you that truth needs rational beings, as long as we take it that truth is something that applies to fully constructed sentences. My first response perhaps went too far, but my main point is about the universe, not the thinker.

“rational” means “consistent with or based on reason” as well as “having the power of reason”.

And the universe need not be based on reason for truth to be possible.

“meaningless truths” is an oxymoron.

Well, different truths have varying levels of meaning, to the point where one could say that it is true but meaningless for me to say I have 2 apples in front of me. I already revised this point by agreeing that truth requires thinkers.

I shall leave others to decide whether that idea makes sense!

It does if you put aside the argument that an irrational non-thinker can still utter truths. Assume it is a rational thinker in an irrational world. The thinker could state something he/she has no reason to believe is true, and in an irrational universe, it might still turn out to be true. Hence the example irrational belief about eating pink custard on a friday with unicorns.

If you accept my conceding the notion that you have to be rational to utter true statements, will you consider that a universe does not need to be totally consistent with reason for truth to be possible? To go back to the start, a thinker could still say that the universe is truly irrational, if in some particular way it was. (They could not say that the whole of the universe was irrational, because that would include themselves)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

Your logic is incredible … I mean really, really at least 3 standard deviations away from the anyone’s mean! So, let me see if I have this straight:

The existance of repeating patterns does not prove a Pattern Maker - it is just the way things are!! And, the way things are, in your view, is that God is not necessary as the Uncaused Cause - or, as I like to think of Him, The Divine Pattern Maker. Things just happen in a repeatedly, orderly fashion (like sunrise and sunset) every day because that is just what happens - I don’t think so!

You have hit your own nail squarely on the head - but, have seriously failed at even acknowledging reality. In the real world, everything tends to wear out, run down, show signs of deterioration and die. But, even this shows a pattern! In the real world, things just don’t happen over, and over, and over, and over again … there must be a causes for these recurring patterns - or else, let to their own devices they would no long repeat - and all would simply revert to chaos.

I can only hope that internally you were just as disappointed with your response as I was with yours. Truly, for someone who prides himself on logic - this was a tragic display. And, while expressing my profound disappointment will probably do little to help you reassess your position - I can only hope that it provides an insight to those who are also running away from God to open your eyes and just at what it is you are running to.

I am requesting those on this CAF thread tho keep you in their prayers.

God bless

Hi. Sorry I haven’t had time to check back in on this thread. I’ll answer your question now.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean – you’re referring to naturally-occurring repeating patterns in nature?

I don’t see at all why you would think that such patterns would require the existence of a supernatural being. It seems to me that such natural repeating patterns are just that: natural. They’re part of the natural pattern of the universe – that is, what the universe does – not the work of a being.

Of course, I don’t need to “explain” these patterns. As an atheist – that is, someone who doesn’t accept god claims – I can simply say I don’t know exactly what accounts for them. They seem to be just the way things are, though we can (and should) keep investigating to learn more. But the relevant point here is this: what about such patterns necessitates the existence of a supernatural being?

I don’t see any reason to think that such patterns come from a supernatural being and thus no reason to see these patterns as evidence for any god claims.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

Let me just address your last paragraph.

If you accept my conceding the notion that you have to be rational to utter true statements, will you consider that a universe does not need to be totally consistent with reason for truth to be possible? To go back to the start, a thinker could still say that the universe is truly irrational, if in some particular way it was. (They could not say that the whole of the universe was irrational, because that would include themselves)

lIt appears as though unless there is a anthropmorphic component (to be rational) truth in any other form just does not exist, Bobber90, I submit that not only is this an overlimited view, it totally distorts objective reality.

Under a standrd light microscope, a scientist is able to realities of plant, insect, and animal cells. These cells have a lot of similarities in addition to having real differences. Any trained scientist can look at a cell and identy certain basic components, and see if they are healthy or diseased. This is a reality in nature based on - you guessed it, repeating patterns. But don’t stop there!

Under an electron microscope, the details missed by the light microscope are brought into sharp relief and focus. This higher powered viewing aid did not show an irrational ‘universe’ under the slide - just a rational and truthful supperficial one! The electron microscope is not being irrational or untruthful either - but, showing another reality that lies beneath the superficial one. We did not think these realities into existence nor can we think them out of existence -they exist independ of our observations. Our responsibility - to be both rational and truthful is to acknowledge their existence and their rational behavior.

To actually acknowledge a reality outside of ourselves that shows predictability because of objective patterns is cause for us to be in awe. This is reall an ordered universe - and, it is this way because there is an Orderer, or Pattern Maker or Uncaused Cause or … dare I say … God!

I have tried to see things from the point of view as the atheist - but, in conscience, I just can not do this. This genuine inability is caused by the fact that everywhere there are these recurring patterns throughout nature. And, to me this is as obvious as watching the sun rise and set for almost 65 years. All I have to do is to make myself present to observe this daily reality that displays itself with mathematical regularity - and that calls for a rational approach to what simply exists. I can, however, understand someone saying that they freely chose the pleasures of this world - whatever they may be and reject the God who made them - and that they recognize the consequences and reaffirm their choice! Surely, there must be people like this because free will really does exist! And, it exists because God made human nature that way.

So, we can either live according to our behavior or live according to our beliefs - it these two are in conflict, we can not ‘cut a deal’ between them and aveage out the difference. You will either conform you belieft to fit faulty behavior or confirm your behavior to fit goodly behavior.

God bless

 

[vontroster]

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

My favorite argument is the argument from time and contingency. It is essentially this (reprinted from Handbook of Christian Apologeticsby Peter Kreeft: We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; its nonbeing is a real possibility
3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist. For
5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed literally nothing at all. But
6. From nothing nothing comes. So
7. The universe could not have begun.
8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But
9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
12. This absolutely necessary being is God.**

 

[tonyrey]

If you accept my conceding the notion that you have to be rational to utter true statements, will you consider that a universe does not need to be totally consistent with reason for truth to be possible? To go back to the start, a thinker could still say that the universe is truly irrational, if in some particular way it was. (They could not say that the whole of the universe was irrational, because that would include themselves)

The universe is irrational to some extent because there is an element of chance within the framework of **order **but the success of science demonstrates that the universe is intelligible, predictable and **rational **- in the sense that it is consistent with reason and provides a basis for the existence of rational beings - so that it is far more reasonable to believe it has a rational origin rather than existing for no reason whatsoever!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I wouldn’t say this argument ultimately makes sense.

Only I am not presenting it as an argument,I’m pointing out where I see ambiguity.

The understanding of the 2 apples existing being a) 2 and/or b) apples doesn’t make it any more or less true that the 2 apples exist…

Not quite what I was talking about. Here you are talking about mathematical value (a numeric quantity). But I’m not talking about a mathematical context. I am talking about “value” in the context of “Objective Morals and Values.” If I strike the word “objective” and speak of “value” than an applicable meaning is the worth/usefulness/desirability/so on of something, and it implicitly implies a relationship between the thing or concept that is of some value and the entity that is finding it of worth, finding it desirable, finding it useful, and so on.

When some one separates the concept of objective value from subjective value it is said that subjective value is dependent on the entity is finding a thing, feeling, or concept to be of value. The meanings provided for objective value come across as more ambiguous to me. I’ve come across statements that it is value that is not dependent on any entity. But this is when you get into the territory of something being useful without a user, desirable without any one desiring it, and so on. (Can you see why talking about thinking without a thinker invoke thoughts of this)

Anyway I’ll just watch the progression the discussion of Bobber90’s conversation. It may bring about clarity.

Are you going to start talk about boxed cats sometime soon? Perhaps lights shining through holes?

I’ve got no clue of why this was introduced.

 

[Perplexity]

danserr:

Good God?

I was drawing a distinction you weren’t. i.e., this argument would show that God exists, but wouldn’t inform us of his moral nature. You’re saying that since God is by definition good, his moral nature needn’t be mentioned explicitly, right? I understand why you took me to be dishonest, but hopefully this distinction will clarify the issue.

Counterfactuals:

“There is no really satisfactory semantics for counterfactual conditionals. But for want of a better alternative, most philosophers use the Stalnaker-Lewis semantics.” - Moreland, James Porter, and William Lane. Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. p. 53

Without a satisfactory semantics it’s difficult to know the truth conditions of counterfactual conditionals, they’re not even truth-functional and can’t work with certain rules of inference like hypothetical syllogism. Which semantics do we accept? This directly effects whether WLC’s argument goes through. Because all we have, currently, is a tentative semantics I don’t feel it’s irrational to suspend judgment on it. I could just as well adopt a semantics which runs afoul for this argument:

“Thus our logic should allow counterfactuals to be contingent statements. Just because a counterfactual is true, it should not follow logically that it is metaphysically necessarily true; and just because a counterfactual is false, it should not follow logically that it is metaphysically necessarily false.” - Sider, Theodore. Logic for Philosophy. Oxford England: Oxford UP, 2010. p. 200.

“The counterfactual conditional should imply the material conditional. We can argue for this contrapositively: if the material conditional p → q is false, then p is true and q is false. But surely a counterfactual with a true antecedent and false consequent is false.” ibid., p. 201

Ted is here describing natural language counterfactual conditionals, and listing those things we desire to see in a semantics, interestingly, the Stalnaker-Lewis semantics agree with this.

Since (1) isn’t contingent, this semantics requires me to reject it. Since (1) is false as a material condition, this semantics requires me to reject it as a counterfactual as well. etc. But, I wouldn’t worry too much. I don’t take it seriously enough.

Objectivity:

I don’t think theists or atheists should accept “objective” as meaning “independent of what human persons think.” What about extraterrestrials or lower forms of moral agents etc? I don’t believe they’d be exempt from moral duties if they’re objective. Christians also believe in angels and demons etc. So, it seems better to just say ‘persons’ without modifying it with humans. It thereby follows that moral values and duties are independent of God. Note, I’m not denying that moral values and duties are grounded in God’s nature. I’m simply saying if they’re objective, then they’re independent of God as well.

My Counter-Argument:

Sorry, you’re right, I hadn’t seen that I’d typoed the second disjunct of (1’). It should read:

1’. Either God exists, or objective moral values don’t exist.

That’s why I was saying (2’) and (3’) followed by disjunction and that (1’) was a rephrasing of (1)

Your defense of (1):

We don’t even know the truth-conditions of (1), but it seems plausible to me that you’ve gotta at least show that no atheistic position can countenance objective moral values and duties. Showing the current dominant atheist position to fail on this, doesn’t really do much for the others. That’s the burden though. However, as I stated earlier, I think objective moral values and duties would exist whether God did or not, so showing that atheism can’t countenance them doesn’t do much for me.

Your defense of (2):

I, like Law, do find (2) initially plausible. However, if WLC’s (1) is true, then I’ll abandon moral objectivism, because of the atheological arguments I find convincing. There’s nothing irrational about this.

 

[Bobber90]

Tqualey and tonyrey,

I am simplifying no doubt, but is it fair to say that your thinking goes like this?:

There is order therefore there was a creator; because of this there is intelligibility; truth itself can only work with a universal reason for everything(; there is truth, therefore God exists.)

There are individual arguments to be had about each point, but all I wish to point out is that the definition of truth as a correspondence between the meaning of a statement and the reality it refers to allows for true statements about disordered and highly unintelligible systems. There can be truth without a creator god, without a rational universe, and without order/patterns etc etc. You may doubt this is the universe we live in, but do you not think that as a set of conditions of a hypothetical universe it still permits truth?

 

[tonyrey]

I am simplifying no doubt, but is it fair to say that your thinking goes like this?:

There is order therefore there was a creator; because of this there is intelligibility; truth itself can only work with a universal reason for everything(; there is truth, therefore God exists.)

I believe it is unreasonable to attribute beings with the power of reason to processes which lack the power of reason!

 

[Bobber90]

I believe it is unreasonable to attribute beings with the power of reason to processes which lack the power of reason!

Sure, I thought that was your view. But what on the question of truth?

 

[tonyrey]

Sure, I thought that was your view. But what on the question of truth?

Truth is, as you pointed out, the correspondence of a statement (or a belief) to reality. Its existence presupposes the existence of at least one rational being, i.e. God.

 

[Bobber90]

Truth is, as you pointed out, the correspondence of a statement (or a belief) to reality. Its existence presupposes the existence of at least one rational being, i.e. God.

Agreed, but I would finish that sentence with ‘the existence of at least one rational being, e.g. God’

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Agreed, but I would finish that sentence with ‘the existence of at least one rational being, e.g. God’

And i would finish that sentence with, “your agnosticism is unreasonable”.

 

[JDaniel]

Agreed, but I would finish that sentence with ‘the existence of at least one rational being, e.g. God’

Bobber:

Not to mention the existence of the factical which we call the futurum exactum, or, future perfect (tense). That we can now say that at some distant point in the future, we will have had this conversation, and that such a statement must be as true then as it is now, i.e., grounded in Truth - even if there are no more people in the universe then to hear it - means that God must exist, as the receptacle and ground of that Truth, or it is not true now. Yet, it must be True because we have it and we understand it to be grounded in factuality.

God bless,
jd

 

[rabbounied]

When they point there finger at the Blessed Sacrament and say they dont believe. I say what are you pointing your finger@

yes amen

the way i see it is if they ask you why do you believe in something so stupid, or something along those lines

explain why you believe it show them its not so an illogical position to hold then from there treat them in a loving way don’t turn it into a back and forth, in an attempt to see who is smarter.

God will give the atheists the grace of faith your job is to prepare them.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Only I am not presenting it as an argument,I’m pointing out where I see ambiguity.

Not quite what I was talking about. Here you are talking about mathematical value (a numeric quantity). But I’m not talking about a mathematical context. I am talking about “value” in the context of “Objective Morals and Values.” If I strike the word “objective” and speak of “value” than an applicable meaning is the worth/usefulness/desirability/so on of something, and it implicitly implies a relationship between the thing or concept that is of some value and the entity that is finding it of worth, finding it desirable, finding it useful, and so on.

When some one separates the concept of objective value from subjective value it is said that subjective value is dependent on the entity is finding a thing, feeling, or concept to be of value. The meanings provided for objective value come across as more ambiguous to me. I’ve come across statements that it is value that is not dependent on any entity. But this is when you get into the territory of something being useful without a user, desirable without any one desiring it, and so on. (Can you see why talking about thinking without a thinker invoke thoughts of this)

Anyway I’ll just watch the progression the discussion of Bobber90’s conversation. It may bring about clarity.

I’ve got no clue of why this was introduced.

Possibly! It’s too easy to stretch these things away from their context, however. I was arguing with all 3 of you by the way… I suppose we might as well await for the real orginal view to announce itself (from Bobber) although, who knows why I should value that any greater than your own understood context, assuming the 2 differ?