T
tonyrey
Guest
I will make it even simpler. According to you physical constants did not exist without observers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
You still don’t understand. The physical constants are the proprety of physical objects.I will make it even simpler. According to you physical constants did not exist without observers.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I understand that they are abstract and intangible.You still don’t understand. The physical constants are the proprety of physical objects.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
You misunderstand. That are not “abstract” themselves. They are the properties of the physical world. Just like “mass” is not abstract. If you would talk about the numerical representation; for example of the speed of light (in the metric system 299792458 km/sec) then this numerical representation is contingent upon us, and the numerical system being used. But the value is objective and independent from our understanding. It is what it is whether there is anyone who realizes it. Go back and ponder the “mass”, “weight” and “heaviness”.I understand that they are abstract and intangible.
D
Dameedna
Guest
Their position is not challenged at all, since they are simply rejecting your views. They percieve your beliefs as little more than unicorns. Athiest, do not “seriously” think god exists, hence the analogy. They think the entire idea is ridiculous and when you say you take it seriously? they laugh harder.Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist.
People thought a great deal about viking Gods back in the day, or the sun gods. They were also wrong.
You want to debate with an athiest? Stop presuming they can ever possibly view your faith as anything more than Thor, or Zeus. Want to know how they feel and think?Want to truly understand the athiest. Here’s an excercise for you.
Try to figure out a way to convince yourself, that Thor god of thunder exists .I dare you to try. You can’t do it. That is athiesm. No part of an athiest believes in what you do. Thor, does not exist.
The difference is, you think thiestic God IS true. They do not. You cannot convince them of that.
Why , do you want to convince an athiest is the real question.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Edna:Their position is not challenged at all, since they are simply rejecting your views. They percieve your beliefs as little more than unicorns. Athiest, do not “seriously” think god exists, hence the analogy. They think the entire idea is ridiculous and when you say you take it seriously? they laugh harder.
People thought a great deal about viking Gods back in the day, or the sun gods. They were also wrong.
You want to debate with an athiest? Stop presuming they can ever possibly view your faith as anything more than Thor, or Zeus. Want to know how they feel and think?Want to truly understand the athiest. Here’s an excercise for you.
Try to figure out a way to convince yourself, that Thor god of thunder exists .I dare you to try. You can’t do it. That is athiesm. No part of an athiest believes in what you do. Thor, does not exist.
The difference is, you think thiestic God IS true. They do not. You cannot convince them of that.
Why , do you want to convince an athiest is the real question.
Because God expects us to. Now, I have a question for you: Why do Atheists show up HERE month after moth and year after year? Hmmm?
God bless,
jd
T
tonyrey
Guest
Let me refer you to a famous essay by an empiricist Q.V.Quine:You misunderstand. That are not “abstract” themselves. They are the properties of the physical world. Just like “mass” is not abstract. If you would talk about the numerical representation; for example of the speed of light (in the metric system 299792458 km/sec) then this numerical representation is contingent upon us, and the numerical system being used. But the value is objective and independent from our understanding. It is what it is whether there is anyone who realizes it. Go back and ponder the “mass”, “weight” and “heaviness”.
“Physical objects, small and large, are not the only posits. Forces are another example; and indeed we are told nowadays that the boundary between energy and matter is obsolete. Moreover, the abstract entities which are the substance of mathematics – ultimately classes and classes of classes and so on up – are another posit in the same spirit. Epistemologically these are myths on the same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse except for differences in the degree to which they expedite our dealings with sense experiences.”
ditext.com/quine/quine.htmlditext.com/quine/quine.html
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Well, he refutes himself by accepting that matter and energy (forces) are the same category. So “forces” are not an example of something else."Physical objects, small and large, are not the only posits. Forces are another example; and indeed we are told nowadays that the boundary between energy and matter is obsolete.
Very unclear structure. What the heck is “in the same spirit”? This is why I disregard most professional philosophers, because they use their own vocabulary, and use esoteric, outlandish words, without a defined meaning. Also they are not very well versed in natural sciences, they substitute their own musings instead of attempting to learn what they are talking about.Moreover, the abstract entities which are the substance of mathematics – ultimately classes and classes of classes and so on up – are another posit in the same spirit.
No, they are not the same epistemologically speaking. Physical objects are studied by the natural sciences, which are inductive. Abstract entities (like mathematics) are deductive.Epistemologically these are myths on the same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse except for differences in the degree to which they expedite our dealings with sense experiences."
Go back and ponder the “mass”, “weight” and “heaviness”. Analyze them, and tell me your findings.** I am not interested in anything else until that is done.**
C
ContegoFides
Guest
Turning back to the original question, there’s a huge difference between belief in God and belief in Fairies. Comparing the two beliefs is usually an argument set forth by atheists to belittle and demean those who acknowledge the Truth as being benighted and silly. However, the fairy argument is really a strawman because, even though both fairies and God cannot be measured, the analogy does not hold. The analogy does not hold because there are no compelling reasons to believe in fairies; in fact, there are reasons to believe they do not exist; however, there are compelling reasons why belief in God is reasonable even if it is not provable in the positivistic sense of the word “proof.”Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?
The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot. I think the comparisons are faulty for several reasons. Except in folklore and legends, no one has ever seriously believed in such entities. Asserting otherwise, then, would be just that, an arbitrary and contrived assertion, and there could only ever be arbitrary and contrived reasoning to support it. The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary. Epistemologically, the comparisons are nonsensical.
…
Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?
Fairies: If you acknowledge that unmeasurable things may exist, then you must acknowledge the possibility that fairies might possibly exist. However, belief is not without reason. We have no reason to believe in fairies because we see no results that are measurable and that must derive from fairies, there exists no single, internally consistent philosophy explaining their existence or their nature, and I’m sure plenty of other arguments. Because there is no reasonable basis to believe fairies exist, we have no reasonable basis to make a leap of faith (trust) that they do exist. Rather, we come to the opposite conclusion.
God, as revealed through the Catholic Church: There are many good reasons to believe He exists in the manner revealed through the Church. I believe the best one is First Cause - and no one, not even Stephen Hawking, has an answer for this. All atheists must make the “leap of faith” that the “first cause” is physical in nature - but logically this leap of faith is less reasonable than the one required to believe in God because no physical processes could take place before time began. Therefore, even without physical measurement, we have at least one (and in fact many) reasonable bases to make the leap of faith that says “there is a God.” Combined as a whole with other arguments and observable events (lives of the saints, unexplainable miracles associated with holy people, the existence of abstract and unmeasurable concepts, the abject and undeniable evil that results from adopting atheism culturally, the good that results from truly following the teachings of the Church, the other ontological arguments for God’s existence, the near universality of belief in the spiritual, the fact that no human institution has ever lasted unchanged in its core teachings for 2000 years (as the Church has done)), we have reasonable basis to believe in the nature of God as proclaimed through His Church.
Even if any one of them might be suspect, and even if First Cause alone is not enough to promote belief, the whole of all reasons for faith is greater than the sum of their parts.
This argument stands in stark contrast to fairies, the nature of which does not correspond to reality as does the nature of God as the Church proclaims Him to be. This argument also stands in stark contrast to other “gods” - such as “Thor” or “Zeus” (more favorites of atheists) because these gods do not logically fit with the nature of the First Cause, as does God as revealed through the Catholic Church. Appeals to these mythical gods are ontologically and epistemologically the same as the appeal to fairies, and suffer from the same fundamental flaw from which the fairy argument suffers.
Additionally, calling the First Cause “fairies” would be unjust as you would be merely playing a game of semantics and transposing names which do not correspond to the commonly understood underlying natures of the things being discussed. The underlying nature of the First Cause would not change, so calling it “fairies” or “Thor” or “Zeus” disingenuously attempts to apply commonly understood natures of those concepts to the First Cause, but in a way that conflicts with the underlying natures of the concepts under discussion. In other words, while a “rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” if you called a “rose” a “hockey puck” you’d just create confusion without contributing to the discussion of what the nature of a rose actually is.
To sum up: The fairy argument fails because there are no good reasons to believe fairies exist; whereas there are a whole host of reasonable bases, especially when considered together as a whole, to believe that God (as proclaimed by the Catholic Church) exists. Cultures also lose nothing good by believing there are no fairies, whereas abject evil results when cultures believe there is no God. In the end, the fairy argument is a strawman that simply does hold as analogy to arguments for belief in God as proclaimed by His Church.
C
ContegoFides
Guest
Good question. From my experience, responses from atheists vary tremendously, but they always seem to have an underlying theme based in fear or anger (e.g., because religions promote evil, bad agendas, trample my rights, sexually stifle me, a priest kicked my dog, or what have you).Edna:
Because God expects us to. Now, I have a question for you: Why do Atheists show up HERE month after moth and year after year? Hmmm?
God bless,
jd
In contrast, good apologists for the Faith should be motivated by Jesus’ mandate to love your neighbor as yourself; i.e., to bring people to the Love of God - to achieve the true inner peace and happiness seen in the lives of the saints.
Huge, telling difference.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Only in your opinion (which is shared by millions of others - but the number of the believers is not relevant). In the eyes of the atheists there is exactly as much evidence for fairies as there is for God. There is no physical evidence for either one of them. There is assumed logical evidence for God, but the evidence presented is always founded on some fallacy (usually the fallacy of composition, but there are others). There is testimonial evidence, which is not sufficient.To sum up: The fairy argument fails because there are no good reasons to believe fairies exist; whereas there are a whole host of reasonable bases, especially when considered together as a whole, to believe that God (as proclaimed by the Catholic Church) exists.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You obviously haven’t bothered to glance at the essay because you don’t get the point he is making.Well, he refutes himself by accepting that matter and energy (forces) are the same category. So “forces” are not an example of something else.
The flaw in your argument is that you regard the natural sciences as the primary and supreme form of knowledge.Very unclear structure. What the heck is “in the same spirit”? This is why I disregard most professional philosophers, because they use their own vocabulary, and use esoteric, outlandish words, without a defined meaning. Also they are not very well versed in natural sciences, they substitute their own musings instead of attempting to learn what they are talking about.
You obviously don’t understand the basic principles of knowledge. Both physical objects and abstract entities are posits.No, they are not the same epistemologically speaking. Physical objects are studied by the natural sciences, which are inductive. Abstract entities (like mathematics) are deductive.
That simply demonstrates your mind is closed…Go back and ponder the “mass”, “weight” and “heaviness”. Analyze them, and tell me your findings.** I am not interested in anything else until that is done.**
C
ContegoFides
Guest
It’s not just a matter of opinion, it’s a question of what is Real - or, what is reasonable to believe is real in the absence of physical proof. That is why the debate matters so much to everyone involved. Is atheism real or is God real? The question affects us all at the deepest levels.Only in your opinion (which is shared by millions of others - but the number of the believers is not relevant). In the eyes of the atheists there is exactly as much evidence for fairies as there is for God. There is no physical evidence for either one of them. There is assumed logical evidence for God, but the evidence presented is always founded on some fallacy (usually the fallacy of composition, but there are others). There is testimonial evidence, which is not sufficient.
You appear to assert that it is most reasonable to believe that there is no God absent some kind of physical proof. If so, that is a leap of faith that you make that I cannot through logical argument compel to be a false conclusion. In other words, I can’t “prove” that you are “wrong” (if I could, then I would also “prove” God’s existence). However, I can establish that it is more reasonable to make the leap of faith for belief, than it is to make the leap of faith against belief.
The eyes of atheists are covered by blinders because they assume that the only kind of proof for existence of a thing must be physical in its essence. So, an electric field does not exist unless I can measure the electric field. I can measure an electric field in its essence (the thing itself), so you will accept that it exists.
However, the existence (reality) of things may also be inferred by effect. I might not measure the Higgs boson, but I can measure the effects of what it should do and speculate as to its existence. Naturally, the analogy between the Higgs boson and God fails because the latter might possibly be measured in its essence (we might see it in a new collider), but God can never be measured in His essence (you can’t meaure God Himself).
The point I’m making, though, is that we can infer the existence of things by observations of effect. A more proper analogy to God than the Higgs boson is an abstract concept. An abstract concept (such as atheism) cannot be physically measured. Nevertheless, the effects of this abstract concept can be observed. I can observe the effect of the abstract concept of atheism on your behavior. So, non-physical things have existence (are Real) and can be observed in effect if not in substance. The question is whether it is reasonable to believe any given non-physical thing is Real.
The logical “evidence” for God (more properly reasons for the rationality of belief) is based not only on pure reason, but also observation of effect for which the cause is unknown or unknowable - and as a whole all point to the same thing. Examples: We can observe the results of truly accepting and living the teachings of the Church; they result in a deep seated happiness and peace that reach far beyond mere contentment with one’s lot, along with demonstration of virtues that are nearly universally considered heroic. We can observe the universe and think about its First Cause and logically determine what properties the First Cause must have.
More importantly, each of these observations and speculations as to cause or source fit with one another. Conclusions regarding the nature of God as a result of contemplating First Cause align with conclusions regarding the lives of the saints (truly living the Church’s teachings) and therefore point to the same place even though these two subjects do not at first coincide directly. In a sense, to borrow a mathematical term, you triangulate. Rationality of belief in God is not just based on the observation of any one effect, but on the fact that they all align and mesh with each other in a way that defies mere coincidence. This is what I mean by the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
I can go on. We can observe that some of the smartest people who have ever lived had profound faith in God. We can observe the results of adopting atheism as a culture, and they are pretty grim. We can observe miracles which defy modern scientific explanation. And more.
Sure, you can address any one of them and try to explain each away - or to simply conclude that you don’t know the answer to a particular question but there’s insufficient “evidence” for belief in God. However, again and again, each “pointer” consistently goes to the same center. Proof? No. Rational? Emminently.
In any case, my original point on this subject was more narrow - which was to refute the Fairy argument as a strawman created as a result of an inappropriate analogy dealing with the rationality of belief in the reality of a non-tangible thing. That I have done. Arguments for the belief in fairies or Norse or Greek gods simply can’t hold a candle, rationally speaking, to the arguments supporting the rationality of belief in God as proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
For everyone interested in this subject, I recommend the following book - which was interesting: “From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to Truth” by Kevin Vost. Psy. D. (b. 1961). He is a Research Review Committee Member for American Mensa.
amazon.com/Atheism-Catholicism-Scientists-Philosophers-Truth/dp/1592766382
For atheists, even if you still do not believe in God, I still recommend the book. You will find it edifying to see how converts think.
Once you make that act of will (a conscious decision) and honestly start to try to develop a relationship with the Lord on His terms, then personal spiritual experience and the Holy Spirit will do the rest. If you refuse to do so, then of course you have that freedom.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Well God surely enters into the question of the creation and/or preservation of the cosmos. Causes may be natural or supernatural for creating and/or preserving the universe, the exhaustive alternatives. Our natural laws hold that what comes into existence by natural processes does not come into existence out of nothing. What passes out of existence does not pass into nothingness. The natural process of coming to be and passing away consist in a transformation of matter, not in the annihilation or “exnihilation” of matter.Their [atheist] position is not challenged at all, since they are simply rejecting your views. They percieve your beliefs as little more than unicorns. Athiest, do not “seriously” think god exists, hence the analogy. They think the entire idea is ridiculous and when you say you take it seriously? they laugh harder.
O.K. Two options which exist for our universe: 1) our universe has its existence from, through, and in itself, or 2) it has its existence from through, and in another. A contingent being (1) is any existent being which has its existence from, through, and in another. A necessary being (2) is a being that is independent, unconditioned, and uncaused.
Is the existence of our universe Contingent or Necessary?
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Well God surely enters into the question of the creation and/or preservation of the cosmos. Causes may be natural or supernatural for creating and/or preserving the universe, the exhaustive alternatives. Our natural laws hold that what comes into existence by natural processes does not come into existence out of nothing. What passes out of existence does not pass into nothingness. The natural process of coming to be and passing away consist in a transformation of matter, not in the annihilation or “exnihilation” of matter.
O.K. Two options which exist for our universe: 1) our universe has its existence from, through, and in itself, or 2) it has its existence from through, and in another. A contingent being (2) is any existent being which has its existence from, through, and in another. A necessary being (1) is a being that is independent, unconditioned, and uncaused.
Is the existence of our universe Contingent or Necessary?
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Sorry the last sentence in the above post should read: "O.K. Two options which exist for our universe: 1) our universe has its existence from, through, and in itself, or 2) it has its existence from through, and in another. A contingent being (2) is any existent being which has its existence from, through, and in another. A necessary being (1) is a being that is independent, unconditioned, and uncaused.
Is the existence of our universe Contingent or Necessary?
(sorry just had to clear up numbers)
Is the existence of our universe Contingent or Necessary?
(sorry just had to clear up numbers)
R
R_Daneel
Guest
I agree that this is a good starting point. I will not quote the whole text, but will reflect on it. We seem to agree that physical proof would be the best, it would unquestionable. One lithmus test turning the paper red would prove acidity and trump all the indirect evidence pointing toward alkalinity, or would trump the testimonial evidence of millions of people to the contrary. Alas, no physical evedence is available, even though God could provide it if he so chose. (Side remark: why is God so shy these days, when he allegedly walked around among us in the past? This is yet another question which had never been answered by theists.)It’s not just a matter of opinion, it’s a question of what is Real - or, what is reasonable to believe is real in the absence of physical proof.
Now, for indirect evidence. It could be of three different kinds. It could be some observation of the physical world, from which we could infer the existence of God, or it could be some abstract principle, which would lead to God, or it could be the testimonial of some humans.
Of these three kinds, the first two ones could be accptable, since they would rely only on logic, and the inherent fallibility of human testimonials could be avoided. The testimonials offered are never first hand, they are almost 2000 years old. They can be safely discarded. But the rest could be convincing, if they were accurate.
When it comes to physical objects, this is undoubtedly true, but I would not call it “wearing blinders”. Since there are certain activities of God, which interfere with the physical existence, this method cannot and should not be avoided.The eyes of atheists are covered by blinders because they assume that the only kind of proof for existence of a thing must be physical in its essence. So, an electric field does not exist unless I can measure the electric field. I can measure an electric field in its essence (the thing itself), so you will accept that it exists.
Yes, but this is basically the same as measuring the particle itself. If a hypothesis is verified by its prediction, it is more than reasonable to accept the hypothesis.However, the existence (reality) of things may also be inferred by effect. I might not measure the Higgs boson, but I can measure the effects of what it should do and speculate as to its existence.
This is not accepted. We must differentiate between physical existence (P-existence), and conceptual existence (C-existence). Atheism is a concept, but atheistic behavior is not. Nevertheless, having an atheistic view on the world, is reflected by brain-states, which are physical - and therefore they can be measured - in theory at least.The point I’m making, though, is that we can infer the existence of things by observations of effect. A more proper analogy to God than the Higgs boson is an abstract concept. An abstract concept (such as atheism) cannot be physically measured. Nevertheless, the effects of this abstract concept can be observed. I can observe the effect of the abstract concept of atheism on your behavior. So, non-physical things have existence (are Real) and can be observed in effect if not in substance. The question is whether it is reasonable to believe any given non-physical thing is Real.
That is not a good example at all. First, it commits the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, and assumes a causative relationship, where there is no correlation. It assumes that being “deeply religious” can lead to “happiness and peace”, which is not availabe to atheists. There is no statistical evidence for this, just like there is no statistical evidence for the “miracles” at Lourdes.The logical “evidence” for God (more properly reasons for the rationality of belief) is based not only on pure reason, but also observation of effect for which the cause is unknown or unknowable - and as a whole all point to the same thing. Examples: We can observe the results of truly accepting and living the teachings of the Church; they result in a deep seated happiness and peace that reach far beyond mere contentment with one’s lot, along with demonstration of virtues that are nearly universally considered heroic.
The “first cause argument” is based upon the logical fallacy of composition. Observing the universe does not lead to a “first cause”. And even if it did, it would not lead a personal god, much less the Christian God.We can observe the universe and think about its First Cause and logically determine what properties the First Cause must have.
Oh, give me a break. We can also observe the deeply religious people at Jonestown whose life ended in collective suicide. We can observe the horrible theocracies and their behaviors. We can observe the non-religious states of Scandinavia, and their tolerance, high standard of living and peaceful society. You cannot just go around cherry-picking the examples which would support your argument! That would be very bad form, indeed.I can go on. We can observe that some of the smartest people who have ever lived had profound faith in God. We can observe the results of adopting atheism as a culture, and they are pretty grim.
Continued below…
R
R_Daneel
Guest
There are no properly documented “miracles” which defy science. There may be a few interesting occurrences, which are unexplained.We can observe miracles which defy modern scientific explanation. And more.
I would be more than willing to examine and contemplate real evidence. I know you have enumerated only a few, but none of them stands up to scrutiny. And adding up one billion of unconvincing pieces of evidence will not be more convincing.Sure, you can address any one of them and try to explain each away - or to simply conclude that you don’t know the answer to a particular question but there’s insufficient “evidence” for belief in God.
Sorry, will not accept. The arguments you brought up are all bogus. Maybe you could find better ones.In any case, my original point on this subject was more narrow - which was to refute the Fairy argument as a strawman created as a result of an inappropriate analogy dealing with the rationality of belief in the reality of a non-tangible thing. That I have done. Arguments for the belief in fairies or Norse or Greek gods simply can’t hold a candle, rationally speaking, to the arguments supporting the rationality of belief in God as proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
Ouch, that hurts. This is the final cop-out - almost an insult. Blame the atheists for not making an “honest” effort. The atheists are unwilling to “wait” (how long?) are unwilling to “meet God on his turf”, etc… I have seen it so many times. Always blame the atheists…Once you make that act of will (a conscious decision) and honestly start to try to develop a relationship with the Lord on His terms, then personal spiritual experience and the Holy Spirit will do the rest. If you refuse to do so, then of course you have that freedom.
Now, I will reiterate that I am not going to discard the possible indirect evidence at all. I agree that even in the lack positive, physical evidence a case for some god could be built, in principle. During my years of studying the subject and having read quite a few books about it, I have never seen even one piece of evidence which would hold up to rational scrutiny. It does not mean, of course, that there can not be such evidence, only that I (or the other atheists who start with an open mind - though not with an open “heart”) have not seen it.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
What would matter/energy be contingent upon? Matter/energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Its form may change, of course.Is the existence of our universe Contingent or Necessary?
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Does matter/energy have a cause of its existence, or is it uncaused?What would matter/energy be contingent upon? Matter/energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Its form may change, of course.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.