How do you feel about atheists?

[MrEmpiricism]

I agree with you on this one. In my opinion, I don’t see a single reason of why Genesis would explain the scientific origin of the universe. It wasn’t meant to be literal, so why try to fit literal scientific truths into a mythological story?

Totally agree, they are two totally different things.

 

[Faithdancer]

I agree with you on this one. In my opinion, I don’t see a single reason of why Genesis would explain the scientific origin of the universe. It wasn’t meant to be literal, so why try to fit literal scientific truths into a mythological story?

No it wasn’t meant to be strictly literal, but neither is it “mythological.” You set up a false, “either / or” dichotomy, which is more sophistry.

Genesis cannot be understood in two minutes. It cannot be fully interpreted in isolation from the rest of the Bible, either. Hence the discipline known as systematic theology.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

youtube.com/watch?v=3L15e2sNZsU

^^^^^ George Coyne who greatly impresses me.

 

[Lou2U]

Name a few here on CAF, please do! And tell us what seminary they attended, or at least what comprised their “study.”

Of course I’m not going to name anyone. I’m speaking more of people I know in real life. These people have read the Bible, have read other books, spoken to people of the Catholic faith, visited websites and asked questions. At the end of it all? They decided they didn’t agree with it.

Like I’ve said, some Atheists have studied the Christian faith before deciding, and are in no way “intellectually lazy”.

Lou

Lou

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Given the inability of many atheists to distinguish between “a god” and “God,”

All we ask is evidence which shows that the Chirstian god differs in kind from the other currently and/or once-previously worshipped deities.

These two statements are radically different. A god is a superhuman being, who by definition exists within a greater universe of which he/she is a part. God is the intelligent source of the universe posited by philosophical monotheism.

That is special pleading unless you can demonstrate the Christian god’s in-kind difference.

Because, in devotional versions of monotheism, this ultimate Source is also held to be the only legitimate object of ultimate worship, I can see why atheists confuse the two terms and mistakenly believe the typographical difference to be a mere convention of respect. But in fact it isn’t.

The typographical difference is merely the common usage of proper names. If I had a cat named Cat others would have to work with the same usage as with “God” versus “a god”. If I want to demonstrate Cat to be unique in some way I must present evidence for that.

What you have presumably been told, in other words, is that the existence of the universe is best explained by an eternal intelligence from which the intelligibility and order of the universe derive, and this intelligence, being the ultimate object of worship in many religions, is conventionally called “God.”

That is correct.

Same question. Are you sure they didn’t say “God”?

Because, again, there’s no reason that “a god” would be particularly necessary for a moral framework. But God is. Unless you believe that moral values reflect an eternal reality from which the entire created reality of the universe derives, then no, you don’t have a rational basis for morality. Unless, of course, you are a utilitarian, which many atheists are.

Some have said God and some have said a god (or a higher power, that sort of thing). The fact that you say “But God is” is, yet again, reflective of special pleading. If one can’t demonstrate the bright line that separates why the Christian god is the ultimate source of morality then we can’t give it any more credence than when another faith does the same with their deity.

My response as to where I get my morality is often chided as being less than perfect. It is then that I usually explain that my morality often times far exceeds that of ones based on the teaching of certain deitites.

And this is in no way an endorsement of the even more hideous “divine command theory” which many insufficiently thoughtful Christians adhere to, and which many atheists mistakenly think is the standard theistic point of view.

If the Christian god is the source of morality, if he isn’t just good, but is goodness itself then why should a Christian ignore any morality handed down by the Christian god?

Well, why wouldn’t it be? I haven’t heard your explanation that I recall, but all the atheist explanations I’ve seen were either incoherent and question-begging or resolved into some form of utilitarianism.

I lean closer to humanism, although I’m not myself a Humanist. Be good to each other is as good a strarting point as any basis of morality.

Disagreement is not condescending.

I agree. At no point did I say as such.

Put that way (and I agree that this is how many Christians put it–you even used the term “God” correctly this time) it is indeed condescending.

I would put it a bit differently: the only good that can truly be desired is God. Everyone desires God, even if you don’t call it that. But it certainly isn’t true that atheists only try to “fill the void” with material things.

That’s good.

My own view of atheists is that they are the great enemies of idolatry in our age. The versions of “God” most atheists attack need to be attacked. I just wish atheists would be open-minded enough to consider the possibility that behind the idols they rightly destroy is something real.

That’s why I never rule out the possibility of a god. The problem I see is that the definition of god (including the Christian god) is so nebulous that it’s impossible to pin down any aspect that is either provable or falsifiable

 

[Faithdancer]

I have watched plenty of Hugh Ross FYI, now you can skip the discussion if you like, if not you are going to need to do better than an appeal to authority. I can read what the bible says, and genesis has no correlation to our understanding of development of the universe. I pointed out what genesis says and where it is wrong, feel free to counter, but please do so with reason and evidence, not logical fallacies.

BTW you would be far better listening to the likes of George Coyne than people like Ross.

God, the ultimate authority, revealed His creation to the author of Genesis in a way that made sense to the author of Genesis, and to his readers. I never said there was perfect, linear accordance between Genesis and modern cosmological theory. If you argue that, you are playing the straw man game again. I do say that unless you have a background in systematic theology you cannot fully understand Genesis to the level necessary to understand how it does accord with modern cosmology. I have sufficient knowledge of both systematic theology and modern cosmology to understand that there is significant correlation. Most atheists here on CAF demonstrate no knowledge of systematic theology whatsoever, unfortunately.

 

[Faithdancer]

I"m sorry, I can no longer respond to posts wherein the name of our God is deliberately spelled with a lower case g. If I do so, I am giving my tacit acceptance of the insult to Him, and that, I will no longer do.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I invite you to study Genesis and Job, ponder their correlation with current theories of cosmology, in particular the Big Bang and the expanding universe, and then to explain how these theories support Thor, or the Easter Bunny, or whatever other straw man you choose to erect.

Your post is lengthy, but contains nothing that we haven’t seen here on CAF a thousand times before. Study the Bible, thoroughly, if you want to be taken seriously here.

To be taken seriously is to back one’s assertions. You have not yet done so. Demonstrate why self-evident works can be used to support God (the Christian version) and not any other god.

 

[JD1789]

No it wasn’t meant to be strictly literal, but neither is it “mythological.” You set up a false, “either / or” dichotomy, which is more sophistry.

Genesis cannot be understood in two minutes. It cannot be fully interpreted in isolation from the rest of the Bible, either. Hence the discipline known as systematic theology.

Mythological in the sense that it’s a non-literal story that explains the origins of man. There is certainly truth in it, but I believe it tells us more of our spiritual origins than anything to do with the creation of energy and matter. It explains the important religious questions like “who created us”, “why are we here”, “why is there sin”, etc.

 

[Contarini]

To be taken seriously is to back one’s assertions. You have not yet done so. Demonstrate why self-evident works can be used to support God (the Christian version) and not any other god.

There are two questions:

1. Whether God exists, and
2. Whether Christian claims about God are true.

But there is not a set of possible “gods” out of which Christians believe in one.

As long as you frame the issue that way, we will talk at cross-purposes

Edwin

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I made no such comparison. I use the Easter Bunny to illustrate the point that atheists often resort to childish straw man comparisons using the Easter Bunny as one of their favorites. “Thor” is really just another version.

Plugging in Thor into your argument to show its fault is not a straw man.

Again, please show why God (the Christian version) is evidenced in self-evident works and not other creation deities. Don’t just assert, but show.

And if you continue to use the lower case “g” in referring to the Christian God, that is also very immature, and completely disrespectful to the vast majority of members here.

I will now use “God (the Christian version)” so as to keep the capital g while at the same time making it crystal clear as to who I am referring to.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First off, there have been a lot of posts in the 12 hours since I went to bed so this kind of feels like the initial post was forever ago even though it wasn’t.

Anyway, I don’t think he was denigrating your faith just the method by which Faithdancer claimed he was sure his faith was correct.

The argument boiled down to:

1. There is a method that claims to show that X is true.
2. But that same method could also show that Y is true.
3. All parites in the discussion claim that Y is not true.
4. Therefore the method is incapable of demonstrating that X is true.

It’s as straightforward a demonstration as possible, and in doing so we need to present a Y (something in the same category as X but not true). As MrEmpricism said he’s not comparing X to Y. He is showing that self-evidence of works can’t be used for something that may or may not be true (Yahweh) if there is no difference if used for something that is certainly not true (Thor).

How else could MrEmpiricism have been able to show the fault in the idea of self-evident works as a means to satisfy the burden of proof if he didn’t apply the same method to a known false deity?

What else there is to do is take the argument on its merits. If Faithdancer or anyone feels that self-evidence of works can be used to demonstrate Adonai and not Thor then that person can lay that out in a post.

Here from my deck with the DH, dogs and a beverage. I understand. What I disagree with is excluding human experience. We all experience things differently, while at the same time, completely similar. To discount experience is to deny our humanity.

 

[Faithdancer]

To be taken seriously is to back one’s assertions. You have not yet done so. Demonstrate why self-evident works can be used to support God (the Christian version) and not any other god.

Thank you for your politeness (“G”) first of all.

Where did I ever say that self-evident works are the only basis for believing in God? Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me. Faith is also critical. Fides et ratio, faith and reason.

Most of modern cosmology-- excepting the fanciful multiverses and such— does nothing but support my faith. And I don’t need to alter or falsify cosmological theory to do so. It is there. Self-evident, as you say.

 

[JD1789]

To be taken seriously is to back one’s assertions. You have not yet done so. Demonstrate why self-evident works can be used to support God (the Christian version) and not any other god.

What other God is claimed to be the un-moved mover, un-caused causer, and outside of space and time? God is not just another being amongst other beings. I can see why you would think that would be ridiculous for Chrisitians to believe.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

God, the ultimate authority, revealed His creation to the author of Genesis in a way that made sense to the author of Genesis, and to his readers. I never said there was perfect, linear accordance between Genesis and modern cosmological theory. If you argue that, you are playing the straw man game again. I do say that unless you have a background in systematic theology you cannot fully understand Genesis to the level necessary to understand how it does accord with modern cosmology. I have sufficient knowledge of both systematic theology and modern cosmology to understand that there is significant correlation. Most atheists here on CAF demonstrate no knowledge of systematic theology whatsoever, unfortunately.

How on earth is that a straw man, I am guessing that does not mean what you think it does. The book says A, A is wrong… where is the straw man? Furthermore, it really calls gods communication skills into question don’t you think? How can it be that I could produce a MUCH clearer account of the development of the cosmos than the so proclaimed greatest force of all?

 

[JD1789]

Most of modern cosmology-- excepting the fanciful multiverses and such— does nothing but support my faith. And I don’t need to alter or falsify cosmological theory to do so. It is there. Self-evident, as you say.

Have you read any of Fr. Robert Spitzer’s work? He does a good job with the possabity of multiverses and the relationship to existence of God.

 

[Faithdancer]

Most of modern cosmology-- excepting the fanciful multiverses and such— does nothing but support my faith. And I don’t need to alter or falsify cosmological theory to do so. It is there. Self-evident, as you say.

Have you read any of Fr. Robert Spitzer’s work? He does a good job with the possibility of multiverses and the relationship to existence of God.

I am aware that a number of apologists have considered the possibility of multiverses and how they might accord or conflict with creatio ex nihilo. However, the concept of the multiverse is no more evidential to the rationalist / materialist / reductionist / skeptic etc. than Christian creationism is, right? Regardless, if for the sake of argument multiverses, or baby universes, or Boltzmann brains, or cosmic bubble collisions are real, they don’t affect my faith whatsoever. They are still very speculative, compared with the widely accepted Big Bang theory. Either way they’re just all part of God’s providence and ultimately, one still comes up against the problem of infinite regression.

 

[Faithdancer]

Have you read any of Fr. Robert Spitzer’s work? He does a good job with the possabity of multiverses and the relationship to existence of God.

And btw, thank you for the respect (“G”).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

There are two questions:

1. Whether God exists, and
2. Whether Christian claims about God are true.

But there is not a set of possible “gods” out of which Christians believe in one.

As long as you frame the issue that way, we will talk at cross-purposes

The reason why I have framed the discussion as I have is because it’s imperative that any methodolgy used to show evidence of God (the Christian version) is accurate. One of the easiest ways to do so is to apply the same methodology to other deities, other gods, and see if the methodology gives the same results. If so, then the methodology fails.

I am here to ask questions so that there is no room for error. I can’t be openminded while at the same take a position (like God (the Christian version) being innately different than other deities) without evidence to support that position.

 

[Faithdancer]

What other God is claimed to be the un-moved mover, un-caused causer, and outside of space and time? God is not just another being amongst other beings. I can see why you would think that would be ridiculous for Chrisitians to believe.

That was a previous point I made, that I wouldn’t believe in such a little g god either. And I will add Aquinas’ third, fourth and fifth arguments of the quinque via to your list, just for starters (then there is all the purely Christian belief, separated from Judeo-Christian belief, which takes coursework in Christology and Trinitarian theology for most people to really start to understand).