How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Bobber90]

Hi, OMGJ,

This is a very appropriate analogy - and, one I enjoyed reading.

God bless

It would appear to be a good analogy, but it is not quite there in my opinion.

Yes there is an order to be found in observing many hoof prints each with the same features, but we know exactly what a stag is, and exactly what a hoof print is. Both have been incontrovertibly observed, as well as the actual creation of the prints by the animal.

A better comparison would be seeing marks in the ground and imagining separately that there is a creature that exists, then trying to relate the marks to the creature, whilst maintaining that the unknown creature is the best explanation amongst many possible explanations. Not only that, the investigation often seems to presume that the disparate marks on the ground are related and count as evidence of the same creature.

There are some features that we see in the landscape around us - morality, order, subjective revelation, ecstasy, discovery - but not only are they weak individually as hoof prints of a god, their identification as a single ‘print’ is probably mistaken!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

All analogies have a certain limp … in that they try to describe reality but are not reality themselves. So, we can focus on either there is actual motion in that we get from one point to another with regards to understanding - or - that there is this limp that will be the focus of our attention.

But, I’ve got some flexibility in this … so … now, it is your turn. Feel free to use an analogy or whatever tool best fits your purpose - but describe how the reality of all these patterns: that we see in nature, throuout the universe, in ourselves that can be described in detail so that one culture can know what the other is talking about, ‘just happened that way’.

Correct me if I am wrong … but, as I see your response - you are saying, ‘There’s just enough data for one to draw a conclusion’… yes, there is a hint here and maybe one there… but taken as a whole - we just can not be sure that there is a God. This is the same response that you have been coming up with now as far back as I can remembrer. And, really, this is a truly inadequate methodology to prove your point - saying that I failed to provide enough data. Seriously, change sides - by coming up with a postivie explanation for why all this does not prove this is a God, I feel confident you will get another insight. And, after all - the sharing of ideas is what CAF is all about…

Remember now, I am looking for a logical explaination that dismisses the order of the natural world as something that has just happened. Maybe like taking all parts of a clock, putting them in a box and shaking them for a period of time - opening the box and expect to see an assembeled clock that is keeping time.

God bless

It would appear to be a good analogy, but it is not quite there in my opinion.

Yes there is an order to be found in observing many hoof prints each with the same features, but we know exactly what a stag is, and exactly what a hoof print is. Both have been incontrovertibly observed, as well as the actual creation of the prints by the animal.

A better comparison would be seeing marks in the ground and imagining separately that there is a creature that exists, then trying to relate the marks to the creature, whilst maintaining that the unknown creature is the best explanation amongst many possible explanations. Not only that, the investigation often seems to presume that the disparate marks on the ground are related and count as evidence of the same creature.

There are some features that we see in the landscape around us - morality, order, subjective revelation, ecstasy, discovery - but not only are they weak individually as hoof prints of a god, their identification as a single ‘print’ is probably mistaken!

 

[Bobber90]

Hi, Bobber90,
Remember now, I am looking for a logical explaination that dismisses the order of the natural world as something that has just happened. Maybe like taking all parts of a clock, putting them in a box and shaking them for a period of time - opening the box and expect to see an assembeled clock that is keeping time.

God bless

But here lies the problem! You are asking me to explain a position whose underlying assumptions remain both unchallenged and unjustified.

I mean to say that because we do not know about the general process of universe creation, we cannot make qualitative statements about how the universe began. Might the process have been akin to random throwing together? Might it have begun according to set rules? There is nothing to suggest one view over the other, so I cannot legitimately approach your question, and I believe you cannot answer it.

However, I can suggest how perceptions of the meaning of natural order and human morality take their significance from non-divine sources…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

While profoundly disappointing - it was hardly unexpected…

Your statement: “…because we do not know about the general process of universe creation, we cannot make qualitative statements about how the universe began…” is truly a problem for anyone who claims Science has more answers than anyone else. This statement you have made is the very basis for the development of a hypothesis! Unfortunately, the approach you have taken is that is since we don’t know it does not exist.

So, all of these patterns, observable orders, and progressions in predictable just happened - like the clock parts in the box that are shaken to get a working clock…
It really appears that you have dug a hole and placed your talent in there and simply burried it up - there can’t ba a God because I do not have enough proof. Well guess what… there really isn’t going to be any more proof! Oh, I am confident we will find another star system, more planets that do something a bit strange and explosions and collisions that can be filmed in different energy values - but really, this is just more of the same with slight variations. No more answers than what we have - and now what…?

I think I have done all I can honestly do … if you have no zest for logic for observation for making a hypothesis and call out that nothing is there because of the limitations of the human mind… so be it.

God bless

But here lies the problem! You are asking me to explain a position whose underlying assumptions remain both unchallenged and unjustified.

I mean to say that because we do not know about the general process of universe creation, we cannot make qualitative statements about how the universe began. Might the process have been akin to random throwing together? Might it have begun according to set rules? There is nothing to suggest one view over the other, so I cannot legitimately approach your question, and I believe you cannot answer it.

However, I can suggest how perceptions of the meaning of natural order and human morality take their significance from non-divine sources…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

Well … not quite… I am really going beyond syndromes … and, maybe it would be good to take a look at a defnition…

I had actually checked the definition before using it.

So is the basically an adaptation of the argument from design?

 

[Psalmodius]

I think that any attempt to prove them wrong is more likely to harden their hearts further, rather than convert them. Love, not debate, wins souls.

I love this. I have had a few friends who are staunch athiests. My perspective has always been to be there if they want to have intelligent discussions. I’ve never been forceful with religion because God could force us all to bend a knee – he gives us the choice! If we try to force another to bend the knee, we are not doing God’s will.

Just being there to answer questions and maintaining that friendship and love has worked on at least one occasion already in my life. Heed davidv’s words – he is spot on.

 

[Whadyamean]

Hi, Whadyamean,

You will find that CAF has many different threads and many people looking at many aspects of an issue. And, this, at least to my opinion, brings on a certain richness by showing things that may not have been thought of before.

As I appreciate your post, it is more of a, “Why bother?” approach. Logic won’t work, faith with not work, and since you presented nothing in your post that does work - my guess is that everything in this area of trying to present the Truth to others is a waste of time to say nothing about annoying any musically challenged pigs out there.

Unless I am mistaken in reading what you wrote - it would appear that everyone has whatever it is they need - discussing other views only leads to arguments and unhappy pigs and if just keep everything on the superficial level we will all get along. Simply stated, this is neither the way our Catholic Faith is - we are commanded by Christ to preach the Good news to everyone and baptise everyone in evey nation. Actually, the world is not like you describe, either. There are many well-paid atheistic apologists will (for a price) to tell you that this entire world ‘just happened and we just happened along with it!’. That is their story (like ice cream - all vanilla, but different flavoring and fruit added to give it a different taste!) adn they are sticking with it. They promote a godless universe in the hope that a godless culture will develop (or, in our case, take deeper root).

I notice you claim to be a ‘Roaming’ Catholic and I guess that this was either a typo, or your attempt at humor. If a typo, please, the word is ‘Roman’. If you are actually roaming, may I suggest that you ‘roam’ over to the 25th Chapter of Matthew and take a look at the three parables presented about people who thought they knew better but experienced a truly disasterous end.

God bless

Thanks for the welcome. “Roaming” is not a typo. Many of us call ourselves that. It is not an attempt at humor, but a practical descriptive, though it no longer applies to me as it did some time ago, but in a different sense pertinent to my own perspective at the level of this engagement.

There is exceptionally little that has not been thought of before. The combinations might differ and even produce something technically different, but saying that is true only in the sense that it might apply to one individual.

Far from claiming that one shouldn’t bother, I only described a limitation to the kind of exchanges here as far as the, granted, little I’ve seen. I did some scanning of different fora before writing.

As for Truth, as you capitalize it, That is not a matter of argument, nor intlellection, which is the realm of these threads, nor of mere faith. It is much more than that. And everyone does have what they need,but it is, in the case of any religion I’m familiar with, formally diverted by belief into less than useful areas by linear thinking–if we are talking about Spiritual work, that being a matter of inquiry into the nature of one’s own self, as we are made in That image and likeness. I.e. the structure of the project is inherent in the result and is a matter of discovery, not of habitual faith or of book learning.

And yes, generally arguments do lead to unhappy pigs, insofar as we are mostly in the clutches of an unredeemed animal nature which balks at instruction and as a group tends to crucify its saviors one way or another, even if by misunderstanding. I mean that while the kinds of discussions had here may be very complex and deep relative to intellectual accomplishments and knowledge within a belief paradigm, they may not be so deep relative to something more Universallly and fundamentally True. In that regard I don’t think I gave any description on here of “the world,” but only of a particular kind of dynamic, and a brief one at that. And I applied my comments to atheists as well as the religious, if you recall. I do not agree with atheists and lump them with religious folks for the most part. This doesn’t hinge, as I said, on logic or argument.

As for Matthew, I’ve Rome-ed over those parables for many years. I might refer you in kind to Mark 4:33-34. And if you can get your hands on it, you might enjoy Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man: An Interpretation of Some Parables and Miracles of Christ You might discover that there is more to parables than you imagine, or at least more than you have been taught.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

No, not an adaptation but a direct application.

The argument is really quite straight forward: patterns eixt throughout the universe - we marvel at them in all living and non-living forms. The first thing we have to do is simply acknowledge that patterns exist - and, actually, I have yet to hear any atheist deny the eixtence of patterns.

The second thing we need to do is move from acknowledgement to wonder - and this is done with a hypothesis: “I wonder how all of these various patterns got here?”

What makes this of interest is that there is no experience where things just happen on their own. From boiling a pot of water (by putting sufficient heat to the bottom of the pot) to a supernova (gravitational collapse of a giant star - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova ) something must cause something else - until you get to the First Cause.

As I see it, there is all of these patterns that, using a previous analogy, are like the hoof prints of a lone deer through the forest. There are patterns with regards to the individuality of each hoof, the distance between the hoofs, the speed of the deer that can be caluclated by the position of the prints, the approximate weight of the deer and the purposeful movement of the animal - it does not run into trees but moves around them. So, we can learn a lot about the deer without ever having seen this. We can then apply such knowledge to such things as look at how and where extinct animals moved (paleo.cc/paluxy/ovrdino.htm).

Simply dismissing the evidence of patterns is illogical - they must be acknowledged and addressed. To address them as saying, “They just happened and here we are” truly explains nothing. In nature, things tend to breakd down - not continue and develop. It make no difference if you are looking at one flower or “…a host of golden daffodils…” the pattern and replication calls out that there is surely a Master Pattern Maker existing as there is a deer boundng through the forest.

While there would be some to take the parts of a clock and put them in a box and shake and shake until the parts assembeled … how would it be wound so that it told accurate time?

Note, I am not arguing for a Loving God Who sent His Only Begotten Son to save us from our sins - that could never be discovered by the unaided human mind. But, to actually show prograss from ‘there is on God’ to there is a God (Diest belief) … just not a Personal Savior would be a major step forward.

God bless

I had actually checked the definition before using it.

So is the basically an adaptation of the argument from design?

 

[OMGJ]

I’m new here, but I am very surprised to see allegedly “spiritual” people advancing logic and argument as viable means for changing someone else’s mind. In my experience argumentation from either atheists or religious people of any faith has been an immediate fail. Neither faith nor logic function in that realm, as far as I can tell, except as a very rudimentary area of encounter. Like Mark Twain said, “It is useless to try to teach a pig to sing; it is a waste of time and annoys the pig.” And in all fairness, the “pig” could be on either end of the conversation.

Hi Whadyamean…

Welcome. I too had voiced my opinion and caution regarding “turning the tables” on atheists from intellectual debates in my first post here at CAF. More often than not discussions on that level degrades into mere shouting matches if we are not careful with our words.

But I also believe that we as Catholics need to STEP UP when our faith is challenged. 1 Peter 3:15 says “…always (be) ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” We should not be afraid of engaging in discussions regarding our faith because we trully believe that we stand on solid ground with the Church. But as St. Peter instructs, always defend “with gentleness and reverence (respect in some translations)”. How we treat our unbelieving brothers and sisters is really what will “turn the tables” in their hearts.

I think it is fun to have such discussions as a sharpening of wit, but that can happen in any area and perhaps it is not so wise to believe that such argumentation has any merit as “spiritual” practice, whatever entertainment or pedagogic value we might derive from such exchanges.

From my own personal experience, I’ve been led to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Chruch, the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, devotion to Mary, respect of the papacy, and a deeper revelation of God’s unconditional love through discussions with non-Catholics. Sometimes some of the questions that a non-Catholic would naturally ask wouldn’t even come to mind to us Catholics, especially cradle Catholics. So I believe that there are spiritual merits to engaging non-Catholics in these discussions, but they are mostly benefits for your own spiritual growth.

And why would anyone want to turn the table on an atheist? Being one may very well be a necessary step for some in the same way that a teenager goes contrary to its parents in order to gain the strength of independence necessary for an adult stance. For my part, I have met a few atheists I feel to be far more spiritually advanced than many religious folks. Does belonging to a club make someone better than a non-member simply by virtue of having a membership card? Or is there such a thing by that measure as merit and accomplishment outside that club? So when you are trying to Turn the table" what table are you trying to turn?

Sorry, but this doesn’t sit right with me. Being a Catholic isn’t merely “belonging to a club”. It isn’t merely a status symbol or that it means you have a membership card you can flash to St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven when you die. Being Catholic doesn’t automatically make you a good person either. And no one expects you to be just because you’re Catholic. But with God’s grace, we are expected to try.

So many times I’ve come across people criticizing the Church because of the bad apples that they’ve met who are Catholic. It’s unfortunate but in actuality the Catholic Church is made up of sinners trying to be saints. Consider this, it’s hard enough to be a good person WITH God, how much more of a struggle would it be WITHOUT Him?

Instead of thinking of it as us “having a membership card”, imagine each of us adrift on our individual rafts in the sea of life. Catholics are all given an oar and a map. If you see your atheist friend drift by and you see them without an oar and a map, can you honestly say, “Oh, they’ll be alright”?

In Christ,
OMGJ

 

[Whadyamean]

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi Whadyamean…
But I also believe that we as Catholics need to STEP UP when our faith is challenged. 1 Peter 3:15 says “…always (be) ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” We should not be afraid of engaging in discussions regarding our faith because we trully believe that we stand on solid ground with the Church. But as St. Peter instructs, always defend “with gentleness and reverence (respect in some translations)”. How we treat our unbelieving brothers and sisters is really what will “turn the tables” in their hearts.

From my own personal experience, I’ve been led to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Chruch, the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, devotion to Mary, respect of the papacy, and a deeper revelation of God’s unconditional love through discussions with non-Catholics. Sometimes some of the questions that a non-Catholic would naturally ask wouldn’t even come to mind to us Catholics, especially cradle Catholics. So I believe that there are spiritual merits to engaging non-Catholics in these discussions, but they are mostly benefits for your own spiritual growth.

You kind of answer your own question here. I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis statement “I pray to change myself, not to change God.” That is an admirable stance. And I agree that in some instances cradle Catholics haven’t a clue, only habit and rote. At least you made a decision, which is more than what many can say, although as for all of us, the feild of what we look at to choose from is almost almost way limited compared to what is actually available.

Sorry, but this doesn’t sit right with me. Being a Catholic isn’t merely “belonging to a club”. It isn’t merely a status symbol or that it means you have a membership card you can flash to St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven when you die. Being Catholic doesn’t automatically make you a good person either. And no one expects you to be just because you’re Catholic. But with God’s grace, we are expected to try.

This is true of anyone of any religion or persuasion. It is the reason for my original stance. You can only learn for yourself and change your own mind when it comes down to it, even if you do it by banging your beliefs against those of others. Hopefully some day we get beyond belief, as Taj Mahal advises, lol!

So many times I’ve come across people criticizing the Church because of the bad apples that they’ve met who are Catholic. It’s unfortunate but in actuality the Catholic Church is made up of sinners trying to be saints. Consider this, it’s hard enough to be a good person WITH God, how much more of a struggle would it be WITHOUT Him?

Are we ever without God? no–or no one could ever change, eh?

Instead of thinking of it as us “having a membership card”, imagine each of us adrift on our individual rafts in the sea of life. Catholics are all given an oar and a map. If you see your atheist friend drift by and you see them without an oar and a map, can you honestly say, “Oh, they’ll be alright”?

No, although they have as good a chance, if you wish to call it that, as you or I under the sunshine of God’s Love, and who knows what one goes through to arrive at an end?

 

[OMGJ]

I love this. I have had a few friends who are staunch athiests. My perspective has always been to be there if they want to have intelligent discussions. I’ve never been forceful with religion because God could force us all to bend a knee – he gives us the choice! If we try to force another to bend the knee, we are not doing God’s will.

Just being there to answer questions and maintaining that friendship and love has worked on at least one occasion already in my life. Heed davidv’s words – he is spot on.

Thanks for sharing this.

Sometimes you don’t even have to say anything. They see you and they see something different in you. When the time is proper they may ask. That’s when we need to be ready when they do.

 

[OMGJ]

Thanks for the welcome!

You kind of answer your own question here. I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis statement “I pray to change myself, not to change God.” That is an admirable stance. And I agree that in some instances cradle Catholics haven’t a clue, only habit and rote. At least you made a decision, which is more than what many can say, although as for all of us, the feild of what we look at to choose from is almost almost way limited compared to what is actually available.

But do you see where I may not have sought out the answer if I had never been asked the question in the first place? If I had shied away from engaging in the discussion it would have been an opportunity missed for me to grow deeper in my spirituality. And that non-believer would have walked away still with the question in their mind but no idea where to find the answer. I believe that we CAN have discussions with non-believers as long as we keep gentleness and respect in mind. Like what Psalmodius shared, be available to respond when they ask but always let your love and friendship permeate in their hearts cuz that’s really what’s going to “turn their table”.

This is true of anyone of any religion or persuasion. It is the reason for my original stance. You can only learn for yourself and change your own mind when it comes down to it, even if you do it by banging your beliefs against those of others. Hopefully some day we get beyond belief, as Taj Mahal advises, lol!

Oh I’m not saying to go out and seek out people to argue with. Totally not what I would ever do or would want anyone here to do. But some non-believers who have questions in their hearts can be led to ask you and it could be that your answer would be the spark that starts them down the road to personal revelation.

Are we ever without God? no–or no one could ever change, eh?

We are never without God ofcourse. But there are those that are not aware of God knocking at their door or have refused Him because of a deep hurt, a misunderstanding or misconception of Him. God is always knocking at our hearts – all our hearts. The noise of the world can be deafening and we can be oblivious to His call. Those who can hear though, He calls to point those who can’t towards Him. And that includes Catholics who have lost their way as well.

No, although they have as good a chance, if you wish to call it that, as you or I under the sunshine of God’s Love, and who knows what one goes through to arrive at an end?

Really? I see it differently because of my own struggles. I reflect on my own life and see the difficulties of maintaining a straight course towards Him. Knowing Him and loving Him already, I still stumble and I still fall. Then I reflect on those who do not know Him, where do they go when the well is empty? Who do they turn to when it seems that the world has turned away from them? Where do they find hope when it’s hopeless? When imperfect people disappoint, hurt and fail them, where do they find love?

In Christ,
OMGJ

 

[Bobber90]

Hi, Bobber90,

While profoundly disappointing - it was hardly unexpected…

Your statement: “…because we do not know about the general process of universe creation, we cannot make qualitative statements about how the universe began…” is truly a problem for anyone who claims Science has more answers than anyone else. This statement you have made is the very basis for the development of a hypothesis! Unfortunately, the approach you have taken is that is since we don’t know it does not exist.

So, all of these patterns, observable orders, and progressions in predictable just happened - like the clock parts in the box that are shaken to get a working clock…
It really appears that you have dug a hole and placed your talent in there and simply burried it up - there can’t ba a God because I do not have enough proof. Well guess what… there really isn’t going to be any more proof! Oh, I am confident we will find another star system, more planets that do something a bit strange and explosions and collisions that can be filmed in different energy values - but really, this is just more of the same with slight variations. No more answers than what we have - and now what…?

I think I have done all I can honestly do … if you have no zest for logic for observation for making a hypothesis and call out that nothing is there because of the limitations of the human mind… so be it.

God bless

I’m not surprised you find it disappointing to be confronted with the boundaries of rationally grounded belief, for you have exceeded them!

If it is not possible to see beyond our corner of the universe, then it is not possible to understand the universe as a whole. If we cannot see the very first instant of the Big Bang, we cannot explain it in any wider context. Put those together and you/me/the whole scientific community faces serious limits to knowledge that cannot be wished away. We cannot tell how easy or difficult it is to make a universe, or whether ours is a very specific universe among x number of possible ones. We don’t know if there is a multiverse, we don’t know if anything governs universe creation, etc etc. Don’t you agree? That means that it is pure speculation to say that anything follows from the ability of the universe to sustain life (for a limited time), or from order. How would we know that it is an unreasonable hypothesis that the universe spontaneously generated along with its own laws? Or that it generated according to first cause meta-physics, which by mere chance permit human life? Or that there is a non-personal deity responsible… or an intelligent deity… etc etc? If we could look at the universe and say: “The physics of universe creation would predict x, but the universe was clearly created by process y. Therefore, this universe is unique, and could not have been created by processes 1 through 5, leaving only the credible hypothesis that a personal god made us.”

It is a misunderstanding to think that I am claiming that not being able to know means there is not a god. As stated, I do not think we can justify belief in one.

 

[Whadyamean]

But do you see where I may not have sought out the answer if I had never been asked the question in the first place? If I had shied away from engaging in the discussion it would have been an opportunity missed for me to grow deeper in my spirituality. And that non-believer would have walked away still with the question in their mind but no idea where to find the answer. I believe that we CAN have discussions with non-believers as long as we keep gentleness and respect in mind. Like what Psalmodius shared, be available to respond when they ask but always let your love and friendship permeate in their hearts cuz that’s really what’s going to “turn their table”.

Yes, I agree with Psalmodius. My Mentor agreed within himself to speak if asked, and otherwise remain silent. But if there is an actual and sincere question, then there is receptivity present.

Oh I’m not saying to go out and seek out people to argue with. Totally not what I would ever do or would want anyone here to do. But some non-believers who have questions in their hearts can be led to ask you and it could be that your answer would be the spark that starts them down the road to personal revelation.

I am a fan of questioning, but not of belief, especially in spiritual matters. In my book belief is inherently error, but will do until there is knowledge. Eventually, whether it seems a personal decision to you or not, you will discover a greater and deeper understanding of God through Grace.

We are never without God of course. But there are those that are not aware of God knocking at their door or have refused Him because of a deep hurt, a misunderstanding or misconception of Him. God is always knocking at our hearts – all our hearts. The noise of the world can be deafening and we can be oblivious to His call. Those who can hear though, He calls to point those who can’t towards Him. And that includes Catholics who have lost their way as well.

Yes, God, as misleading as that term can be, is the very power to what we can call our heart.

Really? I see it differently because of my own struggles. I reflect on my own life and see the difficulties of maintaining a straight course towards Him. Knowing Him and loving Him already, I still stumble and I still fall. Then I reflect on those who do not know Him, where do they go when the well is empty? Who do they turn to when it seems that the world has turned away from them? Where do they find hope when it’s hopeless? When imperfect people disappoint, hurt and fail them, where do they find love?

Just as there are grades in school, so it might be said that there are “grades” in spirituality, though not in an Absolute sense. That is in a way acknowledged by Thomas Merton’s Seven Story Mountain, and certainly in other systems of spiritual understanding. What many have turned to is Reality itself, not personalized, and yet Holy, Conscious, and an unfailing font of Love.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

This is not really what I was disappointed about … but … at this point it really makes no difference…

Considering that that there are so many natural wonders that remain unexplained - to dismiss them… pending a thorough explanaition that meets with everyone’s approval … well, just seems like a waste of precious time to me. We do not know quite a lot when you really start looking critically at the statement you have made. While we can know somethings and guess at other things - not is simply not good enough… right?

You know, the Ancient Greeks - were pretty smart guys, especially those in Athens and, it looks like they were predominately polytheists … gods kept on multiplying to the point where it bacame an embarrassment to the Athenian Chamber of Commerce, or whatever the ancient equivalent of this group was - so they put a moritorium on any more gods being recognized! (Now, that is pretty bad by anyone’s standards! ) Naturally, I am telling you this for a reason - a famous writer debated those who tried to negotiate a compromise on this issue - and I offer this as a link: usccb.org/bible/acts/17 The operative section picks up around v16 … read it and let me know what you think…

God bless

I’m not surprised you find it disappointing to be confronted with the boundaries of rationally grounded belief, for you have exceeded them!

If it is not possible to see beyond our corner of the universe, then it is not possible to understand the universe as a whole. If we cannot see the very first instant of the Big Bang, we cannot explain it in any wider context. Put those together and you/me/the whole scientific community faces serious limits to knowledge that cannot be wished away. We cannot tell how easy or difficult it is to make a universe, or whether ours is a very specific universe among x number of possible ones. We don’t know if there is a multiverse, we don’t know if anything governs universe creation, etc etc. Don’t you agree? That means that it is pure speculation to say that anything follows from the ability of the universe to sustain life (for a limited time), or from order. How would we know that it is an unreasonable hypothesis that the universe spontaneously generated along with its own laws? Or that it generated according to first cause meta-physics, which by mere chance permit human life? Or that there is a non-personal deity responsible… or an intelligent deity… etc etc? If we could look at the universe and say: “The physics of universe creation would predict x, but the universe was clearly created by process y. Therefore, this universe is unique, and could not have been created by processes 1 through 5, leaving only the credible hypothesis that a personal god made us.”

It is a misunderstanding to think that I am claiming that not being able to know means there is not a god. As stated, I do not think we can justify belief in one.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Whadyamean,

You know, in a like manner, I had thought that ‘cradle atheists/agnostics’ were quite clueless, too. After all, anyone just looking around and seeing chaotic development without pattern, replication or progress just was into their own world.

But every now and then there is this revelation of hope! Yep… in fact, here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics While you look over this list … you may want to see what they found and you haven’t.

God bless

Thanks for the welcome!

You kind of answer your own question here. I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis statement “I pray to change myself, not to change God.” That is an admirable stance. And I agree that in some instances cradle Catholics haven’t a clue, only habit and rote. At least you made a decision, which is more than what many can say, although as for all of us, the feild of what we look at to choose from is almost almost way limited compared to what is actually available.

This is true of anyone of any religion or persuasion. It is the reason for my original stance. You can only learn for yourself and change your own mind when it comes down to it, even if you do it by banging your beliefs against those of others. Hopefully some day we get beyond belief, as Taj Mahal advises, lol!

Are we ever without God? no–or no one could ever change, eh?

No, although they have as good a chance, if you wish to call it that, as you or I under the sunshine of God’s Love, and who knows what one goes through to arrive at an end?

 

[Whadyamean]

Hi, Whadyamean,
. you may want to see what they found and you haven’t.

God bless

Uh… what part of which of those lists am I supposed to look at and find what???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Whadyamean,

The link is to a list of former atheists who found God in various ways.

Take a look at it.

God bless

Uh… what part of which of those lists am I supposed to look at and find what???

 

[Whadyamean]

Hi, Whadyamean,

The link is to a list of former atheists who found God in various ways.

Take a look at it.

God bless

And how does that apply to me? You are not mistaking me for an atheist, are you, just because I apply critical thinking to religious ideas???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Whadyamean,

Ah, whadyamean, Whadyamean…? I would never make such a mistake … your posts have been perfectly clear and a hallmark for those seeking truth and enlightenment as they just roam around…

Looking at the list is up to you - it just shows some folks who wound up roaming off the edge of the map and then were able to find God. Sometimes - but, not always, people’s experiences in finding God can help others whose critical thinking of religious ideas has wound up drifting with the next current.

God bless

And how does that apply to me? You are not mistaking me for an atheist, are you, just because I apply critical thinking to religious ideas???