How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Bobber90]

I am confused as to why you think this is a cogent rebuttal of what i have stated. You are speaking about our ability to understand the truth and use symbols in-order to describe what we experience - what we discover as true. Note that we are describing true experiences in terms of what is ontologically real. Now you are asserting that the concept of nothing can in fact refer directly to the actual existence of an ontological objective property. But if nothing has an objective property then it is not truly nothing. Besides being a blind assertion, you are blatantly ignoring the fact that the word itself, in respect of its meaning, is referring not to an ontological reality or property, but rather it is purely symbolic of the absence of some possible or impossible reality. Its purely conceptual. Its function as a word is purely negative and its relation to reality and truth is only meaningful in so far as it symbolizes what is not present in reality. At no point do we ever speak about the actual existence of an objective nothing when we utter the word nothing. We speak only of something not being in “reality”. For example, there is no bike in room A. Room A has no bike in it. The bike is nothing. There is nothing in room A. Notice that i am speaking of nothing not in reference to a real thing, but rather i am merely describing the negation of a bike. The negation of the bike does not amount to the actual presence of a being or reality called “no-bike” or nothing. Nothing is not actually present in the reality of the room. There is simply the reality of the room. Absolutely nothing has no reality and thus cannot be real. Because it cannot be real, it cannot therefore be a true reality.

This is a way of saying that there is no such thing as nothing. Am I right? We can both accept that without the concept of truth being affected. As far as our descriptions and concepts convey an approximate description of nothing, they can be (approximately) true descriptions of nothing.

To put my views another way, seemingly unlike you I do not think anything follows from the idea that conceptual nothing is (perhaps) impossible to describe with 100% truth. It may still be real…

 

[Bobber90]

Ah I see the problem.

You said:

‘If objective truth is intrinsically an expression of reality, it cannot be an expression of nothing.’

And I took it to mean that truth is an expression (such as would be made by a person) and cannot be an expression of nothing. We can express the concept of nothing quite clearly, which is what you have been doing, so that is why I protested.

However, you use ‘objective truth’ as synonymous with ‘reality’, so what you were saying was more like reality is ontologically there, nothing is ontologically not there. In that way, nothing is not real.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To put my views another way, seemingly unlike you I do not think anything follows from the idea that conceptual nothing is (perhaps) impossible to describe with 100% truth. It may still be real…

Thats like saying a square triangle might still be real. At this point you have abandoned any meaningful sense of truth since you happily ignore essential distinctions when it suits you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

However, you use ‘objective truth’ as synonymous with ‘reality’, so what you were saying was more like reality is ontologically there, nothing is ontologically not there. In that way, nothing is not real.

Yep.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shedderbeam,

As I appreciate the argument you have provided, it could be accurately summarized by: “I refuse to believe that there is a God and that is that.” And while you are willing to acknowledge the First Cause, you are not willing to acknowledge the Pattern Maker Even though you would like to dance around claiming that maybe the First Cause ‘…was.naturalistic/unintelligent…’ I am left wondering about your verb tense choice (was) and about how obviously intelligent patterns could even hypothetically come from an unintelligent source. Honest, Shedderbeam, you do not have to believe - but, really - it would make nore sense to just say that - then to come up with these hole riddle bits of illogical statements.

Ah, but let me try to appeal to the ‘scientist’ in you… As a general statement, we really do not know how to make life from nothing. We can start with something living (e.g., and egg and a sperm) and later have a recognized life form - but we did not start with nothing - we started with life. A lot of people have tried the ‘Primordial Soup’ mix in an effort to get amino acids to come together and spontaneously generate life - even a zap or two of lightning has not really done the job. Now, life is something we see every day in all kinds of forms - and science can not ‘bottle’ it. That should tell you something.

Do you remember 'cold fusion"? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion Well, the essence of science is finding what is new and having othrs replicate and expand on the idea - until a new idea comes about… and, then it too is challenged and replicated, etc. Cold fusion is simply a fraud. The Wiki item calls it a hypothesis, but as presented by the two scientists it never happened. That should tell you something.

There is no way one can experiment with what happens after your last breath. You have one chance to get it right in this life - and that is that. Look at all the famous atheists who are now just numbered as deceased. None have come back to dance on the graves of others to say, “I was right! There is no God!” But, Christ came back from the dead and said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” That should tell you someting.

It is your call.

God bless

I’m not dismissing Aquinas’s argument - I believe that it does prove the existence of a first cause - but this first cause is not necessarily the same thing as God. One might imagine a naturalistic, unintelligent first cause. (Note: I’m not claiming that the first cause was naturalistic/unintelligent, I’m just saying that it’s a possibility that Aquinas fails to exclude.) So, while I agree with his conclusion of a first cause, I disagree that he has proved the existence of what you and I consider “God”.

This is, I think a combination of Pascal’s Wager and the teleological argument (correct me if I’m wrong).

Pascal’s Wager doesn’t prove the existence of God - it’s merely an argument designed to show that believing in God is the rational choice. I’m interested in what’s actually true (it’s the scientist in me ).

Patterns in the universe don’t necessarily indicate a pattern maker. Snowflakes, for example, form neat patterns based on a few simple rules - they don’t require an intelligent designer to hand-craft them.

 

[atheistgirl]

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

Im not a spokeswoman for atheism so I can only speak for myself, but I can understand the problems of good evil and suffering quite easily in terms of human behavior and interaction, human desire, lifestyles, and earth sciences.

If I interject the idea of a god or God into this, then it makes no sense to me what so ever.

Especially if this God is an all loving God.

How can such an all powerful loving being allow such suffering to so many innocent people all over the world?

As for where I go for comfort - to the arms of those I love and that love me.

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

I think you are wrong on this, because I think the distinction between reality and truth does explain the scenario of future tense.

Bobber:

Think: we are speaking right now about what can, or will, be known and said about this present event, at some time in the future. That is the future perfect. It is not a portent. Current reality is true, is it not? Even if we color it through our perceptional inadequacies, the event is still factical and true. If, or when, we speak of this event, in the future, what we will be speaking of will have been, and therefore is an in-excludable part of the manifold we know to be the Past. The fact that it doesn’t exist any more, is irrelevant to its facticality. If you carve away pieces of the past’s sequential manifold, we shall be left with not sense, but non-sense. With any piece of the past removed, the present can never arrive, nor will the future arrive. Every single piece of the Past is essential for the ongoing-ness of reality.

The future tense thought experiment can happen in reality; the tree can fall over in reality; this true statement can be uttered in reality, but none of that is true either now or in future.

But any statement about it will be, and any statement that I make today about such statement in the future, will be grounded in the factical of this event. It can be no other way.

What is or can be true is a reportage of any of these things. If a reportage is made accurately, it is true, but if it is never made, the truth in the former example does not exist - and yet what could have been stated was always reality.

No. Merely the statement doesn’t exist. The factical that was the real past event will always be true even when it is gone and forgotten. In the same way, the factical that is the referent for today’s truth, stated in the future, will always be true.

I don’t see how there is any real connection between the thing that happened in the past and any future reportage of it and therefore do think that a true statement can be uttered in complete ignorance of its accuracy with no cosmic consequences.

What on Earth does this mean? I have had many conversations with, for example, my brother. During many of these conversations we have recalled that while the past event was occurring, one of us said, that we will “never forget this .” Are we deluded? There are no “cosmic consequences?” Please think this through a little more. I’d hate to think that I don’t belong on the outside!

It is still just as true. Maybe you’ll think this reply is wholly irrelevant, as I must admit that I’m struggling to follow your reasoning.

Does what I’ve said above help? If not, I’ll try to find a website that discusses this much more coherently for you. Let me know.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is good that you’ve brought in a Bible passage that could agree with the idea that everything has to be observed by God to exist, or be thought true in order to be true even when humans do not think it. Perhaps there are other interpretations of the passage above, where Word means something more like ‘law’. It could be like the Logos of Greek philosophy, though, and so encompass rationality and true accounts.

However, the crucial thing is whether there is any evidence to believe that if something is not held to be true by someone, it is not real or there in reality. If there was reason to believe this, it could entail something like a god. But are we really compelled to think this? As per my agnosticism, I think that is something which cannot be known. In addition, there is a plausible account of truth which describes it as simply the correspondence between the contents of a statement and the reality it refers to. In that case, there does need to be a stater for there to be truth.

Bobber:

But it can be known. Consider: that on this planet we have about 4.5 billion “thinker-staters,” (the rest being kids). If truth was dependent upon a “thinker-stater” then what is it if I don’t think or state it? I can simply reject any and all of your statements that ‘you have thought (about) it (and stated it) and therefore it is true.’ And, I’d be perfectly within my rights to do so. Therefore, such dependency is actually on me alone. If I don’t think (about) it and state it, it cannot be true.

Now, if you are correct and truth is nothing more than a “correspondence statement” (between the contents of a thought and its referent) then how can we know that what we think about pre-history is true? There were no “thinker-staters” then. Pre-history and evolution are, therefore, pure fabrications.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Agnosticism is plausible, a facet of which I’m trying to show by pointing out that the concept of truth does not rely upon a deity.

Agnosticism is neither plausible nor implausible because it doesn’t offer any explanation or interpretation of reality. “I don’t know” tells us nothing about anything or anyone except the absence of knowledge about the existence of God - although it suggests that some knowledge is possible. Otherwise how would the agnostic know that he doesn’t know whether God exists?!

He might wriggle out of the difficulty by saying all knowledge amounts to belief but I don’t think it is worth pursuing that argument - at least on this thread.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

Thank you for answering how you view good and evil and suffering.

If you don’t mind responding to this question: how do you explain the patterns that appear throughout all of nature (e.g., day follows night, the orbit of the planets, cosmic events observed in the universe, consistent shapes of flowers year after year, sheep always looking like sheep and not cows, etc.)

My thought is that the presence of patterns - and not just an occasional duplication - but consistent replication of major details with an abundance of evidence for individuality (e.g., no two flowers look exactly alike) requires the direct act of a Pattern Maker. Another way to look at this is that things just do not create themselves out of nothing - so there is a point in time when the Prime Mover acted and caused creation.

We know that we did not make the universe - and our parents did not make it - nor did any human being make it. Yet there it is - big as day as we look into the Heavens.

Looking forward to hearing your response.

God bless

Im not a spokeswoman for atheism so I can only speak for myself, but I can understand the problems of good evil and suffering quite easily in terms of human behavior and interaction, human desire, lifestyles, and earth sciences.

If I interject the idea of a god or God into this, then it makes no sense to me what so ever.

Especially if this God is an all loving God.

How can such an all powerful loving being allow such suffering to so many innocent people all over the world?

As for where I go for comfort - to the arms of those I love and that love me.

Sarah x

 

[Bobber90]

Thats like saying a square triangle might still be real. At this point you have abandoned any meaningful sense of truth since you happily ignore essential distinctions when it suits you.

The correspondence idea of truth is unconnected with whether I think nothing can exist, that would be a poor criticism of it. In any case, I think there was/can be a scenario in which the universe and everything is non-existent. If we were to refer to such a scenario, the word nothing would be a true description of that state of affairs. If you want to avoid calling that state of affairs ‘reality’, so as to be non-contradictory, then so be it.

 

[Bobber90]

Agnosticism is neither plausible nor implausible because it doesn’t offer any explanation or interpretation of reality. “I don’t know” tells us nothing about anything or anyone except the absence of knowledge about the existence of God - although it suggests that some knowledge is possible. Otherwise how would the agnostic know that he doesn’t know whether God exists?!

He might wriggle out of the difficulty by saying all knowledge amounts to belief but I don’t think it is worth pursuing that argument - at least on this thread.

All knowledge is indeed belief, but it is belief which is more or less reasonable to hold. But you’re right, I do not want to start a tangent with that!

Agnosticism is a little more advanced than “I don’t know”; it says “We don’t know,” or “We cannot know”. I don’t think we can know that truth relies upon a deity, or that order does, or morality. In fact, I do not think we can even state that these are likely to rely upon one.

 

[atheistgirl]

If you don’t mind responding to this question: how do you explain the patterns that appear throughout all of nature (e.g., day follows night, the orbit of the planets, cosmic events observed in the universe, consistent shapes of flowers year after year, sheep always looking like sheep and not cows, etc.)

Evolutionary biology and cosmology and astrophysics beautifully explains all of the above. And we are learning more and more as every day goes by. We dont yet know everything about the origins of the universe but we are getting close and close to an answer every year.

Sarah x

 

[shoe]

How can such an all powerful loving being allow such suffering to so many innocent people all over the world?Sarah x

God does not cause suffering, people do; and suffering was never a part of God’s original plan for creation. The reason for suffering, as spelled out in the first three chapters of Genesis, is sin, which is not a very popular word these days. And everyone on earth has the potential of being physically or emotionally wounded by the effects of sin.

(I believe that God has dignified mankind with the gift of free will and free choice. But choice comes with the freedom, and therefore the possibility, to make wrong choices. And it’s this freedom that humans have in choosing between doing right and wrong, and choosing and doing the wrong, that causes most of the suffering in the world. Perhaps if mankind had made the right choice from the very beginning, evil and suffering never would have entered the world. But, on the other hand, if God had not honored mankind with the gift of free will and free choice, mankind probably would not have any of the characteristics of a human being.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

As you know, atheism has been around for a long time - really, there is nothing new about it. But there is nothing inherently wrong with looking back and seeing how things went back then - as maybe an indication of how things may go in the future.

Your mention of cosmology and astrophysics was very popular - it was popular with the ancient Greeks - and a couple of them came up with a sun-centered universe hundreds of years before Ptolemy came up with an incorrect earth-certered that held everyone’s attention for over a thousand years, only to be overturned by Copernicus and others. Here you have very intelligent men all trying to explain a reality that everyone is capable of seeing - yet getting the right answer is neither assured or even promised. All we really have is the quest to find what is true. Looking at the ups and downs of this process it is easy to be critical of why things happend one way when they should have happened another. But, this is the very nature of learning - truly emperical. And, just when we think we have captured a bit of truth - we find more variables and must make adjustments. The ‘take-home message’ here is that we are looking at a very complex system - and this is just the system we can see! And now, this brings us to Newton and his concept that things really do not get more complex - but, rather, they tend to break down.

Entropy is with us throughout our lives until ultimately it takes over our bodies, buildings, gardens, political and economic systems - and anything else you care to name. Things break down by themselves - not build up. And, here we are looking out at the universe and seeing evidence of breakdown - with supernovas and colliding galaxies - yet the promise of rebirth is always out there. But, when we see the patterns that unfold before our very eyes - you claim that this is just happening on its own - do you have any proof of something just happening on its own in any other area? The tea kettle on your stove may have water in it - but only because you put the water there. The water will not boil on its own unless you turn on the heat. And, finally, the water and tea bag will remain apart unless you bring them together. Now, you can believe that hot tea will happen by itself if you just give it enough time - but believing this to be so requires much more faith than I have in my belief in God.

Thowing clay up against a wall will not produce porcelain - this takes a master potter. How much more complex and wonderous are we compared to a plate - and all from the Hands of the Master Potter.

Oh, and evolutionary biology - really that is the easiest to address … Science has yet to create life from nothing. Now, starting with life and then trying to modify it is another story. Try starting with nothing and see what happens. As far as I can tell there is a lot of evidence in the record of those living species that have been preserved that changes in some groups were successful and in other groups were not so successful, mass extinctions and rebirth is also present for anyone who wants to look. But, we still have to come back to how did this all start. I believe God not only chose to start it when He did, but also chose to guide evolution through the path that it took. And, when we got to a certain point - He sent His Son to die on a cross so that we may be saved. But none of this just happened on its own.

God bless

Evolutionary biology and cosmology and astrophysics beautifully explains all of the above. And we are learning more and more as every day goes by. We dont yet know everything about the origins of the universe but we are getting close and close to an answer every year.

Sarah x

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The correspondence idea of truth is unconnected with whether I think nothing can exist, that would be a poor criticism of it. In any case, I think there was/can be a scenario in which the universe and everything is non-existent.

That will not work, because nothing is not a reality. It can never be true that 2+2 does not equal 4. If there was absolutely nothing the sum of 2+2 would fail to be true; and that is a contradiction. Logical truths cannot exist without reality. All truth would fail to be true in absolutely nothing. You seem to be under the impression that there is a distinction between the act of being real and something being true. But you cannot say that absolutely nothing can truly exist without making the contradiction of giving it reality. A thing can only be objectively true in reality. Absolute Nothingness is the absolute absence of all possible reality.

I agree that all contingent truth can cease to exist; the universe being a collection of potential events doesn’t have to be real. But that is not a true description of absolutely nothing. I know this because if everything was truly non-existent, then it would be objectively true that nothing exists, nothingness would be an objective truth and thus would have an actual reality, and that would be a contradiction because there is no objective truth/reality in absolute nothingness. Therefore there is a necessary reality.

Nothing cannot be a true state, it cannot have an ontology, because to be true is the nature of reality; not nothing.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

Maybe we could ‘tweek’ that definition just a bit more … how about, “We can never know” as the working definition of agnosticism?

The reason why this is can be best explained by this link: newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm Ultimately, there are things we can honestly know about the the world - and of patterns - that can lead us to a theistic belief in God. Thomas Jefferson believed that the universe was like a big clock built by God - after making this ‘clock’, God wound it up and walked away. But, even this view - as incredibly limited as it is - is light years ahead of anything offered by the atheist.

As I recall, we are still struggling with the concept that a Prime Mover, or Uncaused Cause, or … dare I say … 'Dare! Dare!.. … God is reasonable - but attributing creation to the Prime Mover is OK - but attributing it to God, isn’t! Truly, this cries out for some kind of rational response. One of the differences between Swiss Cheese and Havarty is that the former is full of holes. While this works well with various cheeses … the ‘Swiss Cheese’ approach leaves logic in a heap on the floor.

God bless

All knowledge is indeed belief, but it is belief which is more or less reasonable to hold. But you’re right, I do not want to start a tangent with that!

Agnosticism is a little more advanced than “I don’t know”; it says “We don’t know,” or “We cannot know”. I don’t think we can know that truth relies upon a deity, or that order does, or morality. In fact, I do not think we can even state that these are likely to rely upon one.

 

[tonyrey]

Evolutionary biology and cosmology and astrophysics beautifully explains all of the above. And we are learning more and more as every day goes by. We dont yet know everything about the origins of the universe but we are getting close and close to an answer every year.

Sarah x

Your faith in science is touching but misguided because science cannot explain itself let alone the whole of reality. It presupposes the power of insight and reasoning that the inanimate universe lacks!

 

[tonyrey]

Agnosticism is neither plausible nor implausible because it doesn’t offer any explanation or interpretation of reality. “I don’t know” tells us nothing about anything or anyone except the absence of knowledge about the existence of God - although it suggests that some knowledge is possible. Otherwise how would the agnostic know that he doesn’t know whether God exists?!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

All knowledge is indeed belief, but it is belief which is more or less reasonable to hold.

Do you really want to have an intellectual war with me? Because that is exactly what we will have if you repeat this one more time.