How do thiests reconcile the contradictions for God's existence?

[Abu]

That one can come to know what is moral before coming to realise that God is the author of morality is quite evident, since all societies agree on condemning murder, stealing etc. – as well as the fact that most atheists do not support murder, stealing etc. Where they fail is in neglecting the fact of reason which, for instance, shows that the fetus is human, and abortion therefore is murder. But, then they also neglect the facts of God’s existence known from reason alone.

The world renowned former atheist, Anthony Flew, now a theist, can attest to this.

I guess irrationality makes for a DIY morality – selfist.

 

[coolduude]

You say:

A religious persons Insistence that an invisible supernatural being exits and can read the thoughts of every single human being on earth, is a positive claim.

The onus rests on the person making the positive claim to prove their statement true.

So let’s take this and change some words and see what we come out with:

An [atheist]'s Insistence that an invisible supernatural being [does not] exit[sic] and can read the thoughts of every single human being on earth, is a [negative] claim.

The onus rests on the person making the [negative] claim to prove their statement true.

Seems like it goes both ways now, doesn’t it?

 

[Abu]

A taste of reality is always welcome – enjoy: atheist turns deist.

LONDON, November 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Former Darwinian atheist philosopher Antony Flew has published a new book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, to explain his move from being one of the world’s leading exponents of the pure materialist Darwinian philosophy to belief in the existence of a personal deity who created the universe.
Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as “legendary”, first announced his discovery of “a god” in 2004. Flew had been one of the 20th century’s leading proponents of the pure atheistic Darwinian doctrines that categorically reject any possibility of a creative divine being. His ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK’s most virulent opponent of religious belief.

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism.
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

The former atheist Antony Flew has come to a belief in God because he examined the mounting evidence of scientific and natural discoveries especially in the field of DNA, and adhered to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it leads. His conclusion was that nothing else but a Supreme Intelligence could explain its own existence as well as the creation of the world.

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

“Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe. Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.

“Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.”

 

[Heliotropium]

Thanks for sharing that story about Antony. I love reading those stories. Its amazing because you get to see how God chose to reveal Himself to those who open their hearts to Him. We can only pray that Dawkins and the others will do the same.

 

[Abu]

Thanks Heliotropium, I appreciate your perceptiveness – Antony’s heart was open to his attentiveness to God-given reason.

 

[Oreoracle]

Such errors are what help to prevent reasoned thought. A cursory glance at a dictionary will show that evidence = that which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgment: as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.

There’s a difference between using “evidence” as a well defined term in an inductive system and using it in the most ambiguous sense possible. Ambiguity does not make for good reasoning.

Thus that Church which accepts the proofs of God’s existence from reason as evidence of reality, also built Western civilization – and the theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church motivated and enabled the flowering of science. As no other religious society had these crucial ideas, ALL others failed to spark scientific achievement. It is a classic example of cause and effect to produce a watershed in science.

It looks like someone took naps during History class…

“The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive…but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.”

• Mark Twain

 

[Thing]

It looks like someone took naps during History class…

“The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive…but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.”

• Mark Twain

I thought it was a Pope who funded [gave paper and ink] to the Catholic monk/priest Roger Bacon [who had taken vows of poverty] to write his scientific work/s, including the one about the earth not being the center of the universe or whatever. That was in the 1200’s Galileo was born 300 years after the Church knew all about it. Lets face it Galileo was just a pain, his friends did not like him, and he ended up being placed under house arrest, not in his own house mindyou but in a luxury appartment in the Vatican, which was much bigger and nicer than our previous Popes appartment.

I never heard of pain relief being the work of the devil. I know, though that in the 500’s in Irish Catholic monasteries every monk was given 6 pints of beer every day, and if a monk fell ill and could not work, he was sent to the infirmary [bed] and was given 8 pints of beer a day.

“every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition.”
Geologist up to the early 1900’s believed in Noahs Flood and were actively trying to find evidence for it, long after Mark Twain was dead. I think geologist probably argued with geologists.

The Greek culture and civilization was ver good though, but the Truth is not just about art you know, the Truth is of greater significance than any culture or civilization, and where the Ancient Greek culture and civilization are now long gone Christianity is still flourishing.

 

[Zatzat]

You say:

So let’s take this and change some words and see what we come out with:

An [atheist]'s Insistence that an invisible supernatural being [does not] exit[sic] and can read the thoughts of every single human being on earth, is a [negative] claim.

The onus rests on the person making the [negative] claim to prove their statement true.

Seems like it goes both ways now, doesn’t it?

It doesn’t work that way, it truly doesn’t.

I suspect this will go in a giant circle, you’ll insist your right, you won’t change your mind, you’ll ignore every logical assertion I throw at you…

After a back in forth exchange, you’ll continue to insist that it’s the Atheist that has to disprove God and not the believer to prove the existence of his God.

I suppose I’ve got to get busy, I’ve got to find a way to disprove that there are sock eating monsters that sneak into my home at night and eat individual socks out of my dryer.

After all, according to your logic, these sock eating monsters must exist, as I don’t have a single shred of evidence that they don’t exist.

I best get busy…oh yes, and then I must go about disproving the existence of that orbiting pesky tea pot in space.

 

[Thing]

It doesn’t work that way, it truly doesn’t.

I suspect this will go in a giant circle, you’ll insist your right, you won’t change your mind, you’ll ignore every logical assertion I throw at you…

After a back in forth exchange, you’ll continue to insist that it’s the Atheist that has to disprove God and not the believer to prove the existence of his God.

I suppose I’ve got to get busy, I’ve got to find a way to disprove that there are sock eating monsters that sneak into my home at night and eat individual socks out of my dryer.

After all, according to your logic, these sock eating monsters must exist, as I don’t have a single shred of evidence that they don’t exist.

I best get busy…oh yes, and then I must go about disproving the existence of that orbiting pesky tea pot in space.

You have missing socks and a missing creator. A hole is a negative space but its also positive proof that something has vacated that space. We have creation, now youneed to find its creator, whatever that turns out to be.

 

[Oreoracle]

I never heard of pain relief being the work of the devil.

You need to read up on your Bible. It is written that God afflicted Eve and her descendants with intense pain during pregnancy because she ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Of course, I’m sure you’ll dismiss that as a “symbolic” story and try to find a lesson in it. Cherrypicking knows no bounds.

I know, though that in the 500’s in Irish Catholic monasteries every monk was given 6 pints of beer every day, and if a monk fell ill and could not work, he was sent to the infirmary [bed] and was given 8 pints of beer a day.

I’m not sure why that’s relevant.

The Greek culture and civilization was ver good though, but the Truth is not just about art you know, the Truth is of greater significance than any culture or civilization, and where the Ancient Greek culture and civilization are now long gone Christianity is still flourishing.

While I disagree that Christianity is flourishing (just look at the growing number of atheists and the increasing leniency of God’s “moral laws”), I must point out that Greece was conquered by Alexander, who was seeking to propagate Christianity. Greece lost its culture not because Christianity is better, but because Greeks were not good soldiers.
Christians believed their religion would spread, and so they fought tooth and nail to spread it. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy if I’ve ever seen one.

The truth is that brute force is what keeps a civilization alive, not its goodness.

 

[Oreoracle]

We have creation, now you need to find its creator, whatever that turns out to be.

No, we have a universe. You assume that the universe was created.

 

[Thing]

You need to read up on your Bible. It is written that God afflicted Eve and her descendants with intense pain during pregnancy because she ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Of course, I’m sure you’ll dismiss that as a “symbolic” story and try to find a lesson in it. Cherrypicking knows no bounds.

Where does that say pain relief is forbidden.

I’m not sure why that’s relevant.

Tis pain relief don’t ya know.

While I disagree that Christianity is flourishing (just look at the growing number of atheists and the increasing leniency of God’s “moral laws”), I must point out that Greece was conquered by Alexander, who was seeking to propagate Christianity. Greece lost its culture not because Christianity is better, but because Greeks were not good soldiers.
Christians believed their religion would spread, and so they fought tooth and nail to spread it. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy if I’ve ever seen one.

The truth is that brute force is what keeps a civilization alive, not its goodness.

The greeks were among the finest soldiers the world has seen. Everyone has heard of the Spartans, at Thermopylae just 300 Spartan specialist soldiers brought the entire Persian Empire army to a halt.

"Alexander, (who died in 323 BCE) although living over three hundred years before the origins of Christianity, worshipped the ancient Greek gods and was therefore a pagan. He also seems to have seen himself, or at least wanted to be seen by others, as the son of the great god, Zeus. In this respect, ancient sources indicate that he probably saw himself as a ‘hero’ (in the sense of a divine mortal), rather than as a true god. "

What is the exact number of atheists in the world today and what moral laws have been slackened in the CC.

 

[Thing]

No, we have a universe. You assume that the universe was created.

The universe is here so it came from somewhere, thats what I assume.

 

[traillius]

Nor do Atheists have a single shred of proof that magical unicorns aren’t presently living in deep space.

A religious persons Insistence that an invisible supernatural being exits and can read the thoughts of every single human being on earth, is a positive claim.

The onus rests on the person making the positive claim to prove their statement true.

So no, it isn’t the other way around.

Any assertion, whether positive or negative, automatically places burden of proof for that assertion on the claimant. For the record, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Gravity, for instance, is provable only by experience, or at least it was for thousands of years. The apple fell, something made it fall. Lets call it gravity. The world exists, something made it exist. Lets call it God.

 

[Heliotropium]

It looks like someone took naps during History class…

“The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive…but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.”

• Mark Twain

Sadly Mark Twain and many others must have also taken naps as well. Not to mention the examples he gives are hardly justification for making the statment that the Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from Galileo to present time. Same with the statement that the christian/catholics religion was not the motivating force behind their scientific work! Both of these statemnts made by Mark Twain can be refuted with one word and that is: “Jesuits”! The Jesuit order has been a driving force in the scientific community and its members are even sciences pioneers. The best part is it was the Jesuits faith and love for God that motivated their work. The postion that the Catholic Church is some kind of enemey of science is ill founded and not one that can be justified when one actually researches hsitory. You should read the book “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”.

 

[Zatzat]

The world exists, something made it exist. Lets call it God.

The world exists, something made it exist. Let’s call it ( Insert the name of anything you like and insist it’s the truth)

 

[coolduude]

The world exists, something made it exist. Let’s call it ( Insert the name of anything you like and insist it’s the truth)

Why can’t it be the truth? Why is that so impossible?

 

[Abu]

As an “oracle” is supposed to be “a person of great authority” a name change is called for, obviously, until the poster faces up to reality and the facts. The realization of the world’s most notorious atheist Antony Flew that God exists, based on the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe, and his recognition of free-will underlines the need for much clearer thinking by some agnostics and atheists.

Readers will notice how every half-baked prejudice is trotted out against Christ and His Church with nary a care for the facts, from one who labours under the mirage that ”there is no such thing as non-scientific evidence.”

Oreoracle
"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive…but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery

The denigration of the Church’s role in the development of science had been prevalent until the early twentieth century when historian Pierre Duhem underlined the Church’s crucial role and more and more historians have recognised this fact. (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 75).

As that poster feels akin to doubters, their testimony particularly is relevant:

Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (*Genealogy of Morals *III, 23-24).

Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., who once considered himself an agnostic, knew that Catholic theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, while stifled elsewhere. He explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; in *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 15].
[See *Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) at:
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm ]

The reason why there were many faithful Catholic scientists needs some explanation.

As Rodney Stark explains the great figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries confessed their absolute faith in a creator God whose work incorporated rational rules awaiting discovery.

“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” [Stark, op.cit. p 22-23]

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m not sure what you mean. The idea of “evidence” exists in no other field but science. There is no such thing as non-scientific evidence, just as there is no such thing as a non-geometrical shape.

There is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. There is such a thing as logical evidence. To make something evident does not necessarily require the scientific method. You cannot prove by science that the only valid means to all knowledge is through science. We would never of left the caves if it was invalid to draw purely philosophical conclusions about the world around us.

Nonsense. We acquire data in the form of perceptions. We use this data to arrive at conclusions. For example, if you see someone walking down a hallway, or hear steps further down the hallway, you may conclude there is a person there. You wouldn’t arrive at that conclusion without the evidence.

We arrive at reasonable rational conclusions without scientific evidence, such as, there are other minds out side of my own. Or, what i see, is what i get. Or, i exist.

In cases where the existing evidence is not particularly favorable to either theory, I find that it is best to withhold judgment until further evidence is gathered. There’s no reason for haste.

Within in a scientific context i agree. But not everything can be viewed in scientific context, since the degree of knowledge that science can attain is limited to a particular kind of qeustion and method.

Of course, If something doesn’t matter to you, you can use the smallest possibility of error as an opportunity to excuse oneself. But those interested, if something follows to exist necessarily or if some attribute makes something intelligible, then one has a rational reason to accept that thing as being true and objective. For example, your responses to me are as such that they are intelligible only if i apply the attribute of a person to your behavior patterns. It is completely reasonable for me to draw this conclusion. I did not need “science” to do that, although i never denied that we need “observation”, although this kind of evidence implies the existence of something in an indirect fashion. Of course, one is not coerced to accept it. One can be skeptic about anything including scientific evidence if one desires. Have you ever seen a quark personally?

Again, there’s no such thing as “logical evidence.” There are valid arguments, but the truth of the premises is quite tentative. For example, logic tells us that the following is valid:

1. All substances above 90 degrees are frozen.
2. My blood is a substance above 90 degrees.
   C. My blood is frozen.

This is nonsense, of course, because scientific observation has revealed that many substances above 90 degrees are not frozen. Thanks to logic, arguments such as this are classified as valid. Thanks to scientific evidence, such arguments are also classified as unsound. It’s beneficial to understand that logic alone cannot make sound arguments, nor can it produce evidence. The evidence comes from observation, like it or not.

Who has ever made the logical argument that all substances above ninety degrees is frozen? This is not a logical argument; it is an assertion that assumes the truth of its premise. Its a circular argument. Moreover, how can something be frozen at 90 degrees?
In any case, logic cannot know the truths of essences accept in respect of being as being, and even in this case, what we can know of essences in particular, is limited. In other-words we can know that there are natures, but i cannot know the identity or the attributes of natures by logical alone, accept when i can infer certain attributes as necessarily true in-order to account for a potential nature. I do not deny that there are some Questions that only science can answer.Science deals with particulars which logic can’t prove definitely, because while we have a general knowledge of being, we cannot argue to the knowledge and existence of potential natures and what behavior they will perform. We have no way of knowing by logic what the universe will produce in respect of particulars. In this sense, logic alone is epistemological weak. However the more general we are about being, the more powerful logical arguments become and the more limited the scientific method is. This is especially true when arguing to a first cause. You cannot apply logic alone to scientific entities; this i agree. Metaphysics is different.

Many scientific theories have been replaced in the past. Does that mean that i cannot use science to build a case for my experiences? By the way i never said that science does not have its place. I am saying that it doesn’t apply to all forms of knowledge. We can know some things without it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Many gods have been said to possess the qualities Christians claim for their god. The only difference between God and Allah is their respective histories–one has done certain things in the past, while the other did slightly different things. Both are supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and both are creators of the universe. Imagine that.

Its irrelevant. Firstly “Allah” is the same God that Christians worship, accept that Christians and Muslims disagree about the nature of Jesus Christ. A being with the attributes of God follows from logic. You don’t have to image it.

Faith is belief without evidence. It isn’t something worthy of praise.

That is false.
If what your saying is true then i guess that some guy in a burning building should just give up hope of saving ones self and burn, since it isn’t worthy of praise to take chances or leaps of faith without the scientific justification to do so. Instead he should waste his time doing experiments and die. In any case, in order to speak of something as being “worthy”, there would have to be an objective standard; so unless you are using God as you standard to make objective judgments about the moral qualities of human beings, i cannot understand you. I say that anybody that values their humanity, would be wise to seek fulfillment of their humanity; since they would be opposing their humanity do otherwise.There is nothing necessarily unreasonable about that.

Open a history book and look at what “educated” guesses have done for mankind. It once seemed perfectly reasonable to believe in a geocentric universe, and it was certainly an “educated” guess of that era. People were killed because people like you wanted to arrive at a conclusion without evidence. “Any answer is better than no answer” was a popular mentality back then, and it’s still popular today.

Educated guesses can also do wonders for man kind when all else fails. Its a fallacy to say that because there is a possibility of error that therefore something is unreasonable to believe.