F
fred_conty
Guest
Here is a little science by St. Catherine of Siena that you might find helpful.
About the things that magically rearrange themselves, here is an observation that someone once made.
- Status
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Atheists tend to be philosophical naturalists. So the justification for logical conclusions references reality to justify those conclusions. Such as the logical conclusion of A=A. Only after you’ve looked at reality to see if the first A actually is the same as the second A. Since we have never had an example of “nothing” to study to see what is justified in making conclusions about what is possible or impossible about “nothing” and it’s abilities, to philosophical naturalists it is not logical to make absolute statements about it without first being able to detect it in reality. Otherwise it is just a philosophical concept, a mathematical conclusion. We can make inferences about it, but not absolute statements. Philosophical naturalists do not make adjustments about their understanding of reality solely based on mathematical conclusions alone. They use those models to then go test it in reality. Once those tests of reality come back, those results is what they adjust their understanding of reality about. Such as Einstein’s mathematical conclusions about gravity waves. We did not teach that gravity waves were part of reality until 2015 when we were actually able to detect them. Before that date, we were not justified in concluding they were there at all.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Belief isn’t a choice, belief = conclusion, the results of data (name removed by moderator)ut that someone observed and then applied their understanding of reality to come to a conclusion, a belief, about what happened. Sit in a chair and then choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. No one can do this honestly. They can have “faith” that they are not sitting in a chair though. The active choice to misrepresent reality as you understand it is how I see people applying the description “faith”. It is the conscious, active choice to promote unjustified conclusions that offers positive social feed back from your peer group over the promotion of what reality is actually presenting. If you have justified conclusions that reflects an accurate description of reality, then that is just belief. When you have an unjustified description of reality, that is faith.Well saidI’ve had a similar debate with a muslim guy and it was turning ugly. My wife then told me there is no point in arguing with someone who is not ready to listen. A priest once told me 'If anyone is truly searching for the Truth, they will find the Truth and the same Truth will set them free. I’m inspired by Dr.Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home, which tells how you’ll find the Truth when you’re truly searching for it. So, first get to know if the person is really searching for the Truth or simply trying to attack you with the little knowledge which he’d have learnt. If the first, then pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and then prepare yourself with what is been suggested by others. There are famous debate videos on Youtube related to this topic. I forgot the one which I had watched… let me know if you’re interested, I can get you the link.
God Bless You!:knight1::harp:
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Your version of “blessed” is great for you, but please don’t ever teach that horrible idea to anyone else as something of virtue. Credulity is never something to be respected. In your world, the devil had all the evidence presented to it and it still turned away. Attaining justified knowledge that something exists in reality does not remove your ability to decide to have a relationship with that deity or not. My coworkers exist but I still have a choice to befriend them or not. I do not have a relationship with my friend’s girlfriend because I have never met the woman. Everyone understands this and understands what is required for there to be a relationship. So how many times do religious people need keep claiming that there’s a wolf before nonreligious people stop the “come running” to see if there is a wolf. You deity knows what every person needs to change their minds about it’s existence and what it would take to have a relationship with those people. Since that is all in the control of your deity and it’s still not doing that for million’s of people and me, it’s not my problem. It’s your deity’s issue for not coming into my life.
F
fred_conty
Guest
I’m not trying to be picky but aren’t there many things that exist and yet can’t be proven with a scientific instrument of detection? Just take one idea … that of love. I think you would agree that love exists. Yet we do not have any kind of outside detection for this … but just ourselves.
Would it be true to say that love doesn’t exist because it can’t be proven by measurement in objective reality? If this were true then love wouldn’t be a part of our reality. Aren’t we justified in concluding that it is?
Now some may argue that love really isn’t in reality as a “thing”. But it has to be a “thing” for it to exist, for only “things” exist. If it were not a “thing” then it can’t have existence. Everything that is, is some"thing". So love must be some"thing" for it to be and therefore it exists tho there is no outside tool for authenticity.
Trust and faith are among those “things” that can’t be detected by an outside instrument. So would we have to say that they do not exist for that reason?
Tho I do not believe in the Muslim faith, I do accept that there was a man who started it and have no problem with that. And also for Jesus and the faith he taught, I have no problem with accepting that it was He who started Christianity. That is just a part of factual history.
As part of Jesus credentials of his authenticity as God, he performed miracles of all sorts. There were people who witnessed these and were written down in four accounts by four different writers all basically saying the same things about Jesus and his activities. But the one miracle that they told that outclassed all other religious men in the world, was that he rose himself from the dead. No one has every done that for obvious reasons. Yet he did it and many witnesses were there to see him after it was done.
For many … most of the known world at the time … this was enough to prove to them that he was indeed who he said he was. And since that time there have been many of his followers who have performed so many same kinds of miracles as well. Many others saw these miracles with their own eyes and have written works about their wonderous activities … Lourdes is one example.
God has put the obvious right in front of our eyes, although this trust and faith cannot be and never will be measured by an outside physical instrument. Does it mean that these “things” of trust and faith do not exist?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Violently Spits Coffee onto Computer Screen
So “free will” isn’t a “thing”? The whole “point of it”, I whimsically imagine, is that God delights in our choosing Him. Thus we’re not automatons. That naturally requires the option of “not choosing Him” in order to be a valid decision.
Just throwing that bone out there. Back to my popcorn. And coffee.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I hate to be self-promoting, but I have several videos on atheism, but I will warn you the early ones aren’t as great as they could be (I got better)
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Emotional states are an emergent property of a brain. We have instruments now that allow us to look at brain patterns and see that certain patterns match up with specific emotional states. Do you have examples of emotional states that exist outside of a physical brain? We’ve observed people’s behavior towards one another and labeled those actions as someone being in love. So you can use the idea of the label of love as a brain state that we can observe through scans and/or by observing one’s behavioral actions. That includes them making communication declarations of love. Ideas of love, hate, happy, sad, etc. are all just describers that we’ve labeled for social interactions that people display. All of this is observable in reality and as such, manifests in reality. You know this, the readers know this, stop this tom foolery. You seem to want to argue the idea of the old arguement, do numbers exist? Numbers, as with emotional descriptors like love, are all just ADJECTIVES. They are describers of things that manifest in reality. So no “love” does not exist, the same way that “4” does not exist. Love is an adjective that describe what we as social creatures identify as loving expressions. Same as “4”. 4 describes the quantity of an item. They’re both just ADJECTIVES…so please stop attempting to argue that adjectives are nouns. Can’t believe I have to point this out with a literate audience.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Knowing someone exists and then choosing to have a relationship with that person are two separate things. You know this, the readers know this, stop this absurdity.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
So it’s the deity’s fault for not personally knocking on your door? BUT your refusal to introduce yourself to that deity has no element of culpability in the lack of a relationship?
Srsly, how do you even make friends, bro?
Your logic is the absurdity!
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Ok ok. That was a smidge “troll-ie”
Blame it on the post-lunch “jollies”. Had a “win” at my office.
But the point stands that Russell obviously stated that one of his objections is that the Deity hasn’t made itself known to him. And as we all know, the culpability for “knowing” is, at best, a two-way street. It’s usually a one-way street - with you driving.
It’s awesome when a truth or a person just drops out of space and lands in our laps. Sadly, this isn’t the way it usually works. We must strive to learn. We strive to make friends. The growth of our intellectual and social awareness is incumbent on ourselves.
Ultimately, my poorly-made point was that “I don’t know the Deity because the Deity hasn’t made itself known to me” is a trash argument. It’s like saying “I don’t know my future wife because my future wife hasn’t made herself known to me.”
#1 Maybe you’ve met her and you’ve just not materialized the relationship.
#2 If not, are ya waiting for her to fall into your marriage bed? Ya gotta get searching!
So there. Better now? :blushing:
Blame it on the post-lunch “jollies”. Had a “win” at my office.
But the point stands that Russell obviously stated that one of his objections is that the Deity hasn’t made itself known to him. And as we all know, the culpability for “knowing” is, at best, a two-way street. It’s usually a one-way street - with you driving.
It’s awesome when a truth or a person just drops out of space and lands in our laps. Sadly, this isn’t the way it usually works. We must strive to learn. We strive to make friends. The growth of our intellectual and social awareness is incumbent on ourselves.
Ultimately, my poorly-made point was that “I don’t know the Deity because the Deity hasn’t made itself known to me” is a trash argument. It’s like saying “I don’t know my future wife because my future wife hasn’t made herself known to me.”
#1 Maybe you’ve met her and you’ve just not materialized the relationship.
#2 If not, are ya waiting for her to fall into your marriage bed? Ya gotta get searching!
So there. Better now? :blushing:
R
Russell_SA
Guest
I’ll appeal to the fair mindedness of the readers. This person is presenting the idea that someone could have a relationship with white noise. One person kept picking up the phone and there is nothing on the other end of the line. Nothing but white noise. That is what is being presented here. That someone could have a relationship with white noise. Not my problem that you don’t believe these people when they tell you that they are actually only receiving white noise. Your deity is picking you out specifically to communicate with you, but not with the rest of us. So again, can’t have a relationship with that person if they are coming across as not there at all. Not my problem that your deity is choosing to be no different that white noise to me.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
We have all experienced people existing. Apparently not everyone has justified data that supernatural deities exist. Knowing that people exist is needed first before you can begin to have a relationship with those people. We all know what it takes for people to become a part of our lives for a relationship. Existence is absolutely necessary first off. Secondly, we can only have a relationship with people that come into our world. That’s why we do not marry people we’ve never met in china. Third, we have to see if the person wanting a relationship with us is someone we want a relationship with. Atheists are seriously stating that this deity you guys seem to have a relationship with really does come across to us as white noise. We can not tell a difference and we can not find a way to make that change, so it’s up to your deity to bridge that gap. So it’s either choosing to appear that it doesn’t exist or really doesn’t exist. Either way, not our problem.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
6.4 billion religious
2.2 billion Christian
1.2 billion Catholic
Law of Large Numbers suggests there’s more than white noise. Maybe your communication/investigation methods require expansion to the non-material in conformity to your personality (in the most literal sense of the word).
There’s a category error in your assumption that people know the Deity like they know another person. Obviously, not the case. Perhaps chalk it up to the inherent problem of simile/metaphor?
That’s not entirely true if atheists wish to address all the “effects” that change when you remove “Deity” as the common “cause”. There’s still the “problem of evil/problem of good” that deist-derived systems currently answer. Other than denial of the problems, how does an atheist answer those without non-material conjecture like ever circular and relative “common sense” that suffers from the same critiques used against deistic morality?
You can’t change your moral “power plant” from DC to four-phase power and then feign non-obligation to solving how all the things hooked up to the power-grid will work afterward.
One example being everyone’s “Why Be ‘Good’” appliance. How does THAT ONE keep working in a purely material, deterministic system?
R
Russell_SA
Guest
An argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.
How many millions of children in the world believe in santa claus?
Are you suggesting that people can have relationships with their imaginary friends? Because that is what this deity is reduced to apparently. Being no more detectable than a group of people all discussing the commonalities of their personal favorite imaginary friend. Anyone can come up with an idea of someone that they would like to hold themselves accountable to. It’s called the ideal version of ourselves, we all do this.
This is now changing the topic. I was only addressing what it takes to have a relationship with two people. We all know what is required for that. Atheists are telling people that, yes we have picked up that phone and tried to talk to the person at the other end. There never was anything else there than just white noise. Every time they attempted it. So sorry, but not falling for the “cried wolf” one more time. Your deity knows what it would take to convinced them, first that it does exist, and then that it’s an entity worth having a relationship with. I know my neighbors exist, but that doesn’t mean I want to have a beer with them on a regular basis and befriend them to the point of family. At this point the deity is still coming across as indistinguishable than white noise. Once we can tell the difference, then we’ll start moving down that road. But right now, it’s stuck at this point.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
What I offered was a scientific argument, not a logical one. If you can’t distinguish between the two, your education is not sufficient for these discussions. Please explain how “The Law of Large Numbers” was misused if you actually want to stay on topic.
…And your reply is textbook “argument from ignorance”. Perfectly textbook. You reply with macro-social theory and imply you’re right until proven otherwise. Classic.
In consideration of your typing, however, Dr. Jordan Peterson of the University of Ontario has written and vlogged extensively on the religious truth of societal archetypes and their importance to the existence of society on the macro and individual levels. I suggest you “Youtube” him or pick up his book “Maps of Meaning”. It’ll develop your education a bit further.
Abstract religious concepts are arguably more material in their societal results than they are in their tenets. Western atheism will never escape the theoretical, one dimensional bubbles it has only existed in if you’re unwilling to solve the obvious problems its implementation creates.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think that this is a rather unscientific position.
Declaring that it’s possible for something to come from nothing…when there’s never been an instance of this, *ever, *in the entirety of our observation of the world…seems rather…
unscientific, no?
And rather faith-based, right?
R
Russell_SA
Guest
The law of large numbers only applies here to the limited idea to show that you can find social value in cultural myths and legends, such as deities, ghosts, hero characters of king author, woodland sprites like Puck in Shakespeare, etc. to discuss moral issues of that culture. That is found in every culture in human existence. However, that does not mean that those mythical creatures exist in reality. IE: santa claus, deities, tooth fairies, etc. Appeal to many people believing in magic does not make magic actually exist. That is the textbook definition of argumentum ad populum. Try to work on your Ad hominem’s too. But feel free. Takes a lot to make me cry.
The use of “western atheism” is wrong here. Atheism is the description of one question to a single issue. Do you believe the supernatural exists? No, no I don’t. That’s it. It is not a world view, philosophy, etc. It’s like people on a jury finding the defendant not guilty of the crime they were accused of. They are not stating that they believe the person is innocent of the crime, only that the prosecution has not met their burden of proof to convince the jury that this person did the crime. The person may have actual committed the crime, but the jury just wasn’t convinced of it. Now from the conclusion that the jury members did not believe that the person is guilty, can you make any assumptions about their world view, politics, philosophies, etc.? No no you can not. Atheism has no creed, tenets, leaders, books of who to hate, burn, slaughter, loop holes of how to get out of moral responsibility, etc. Religion has that. There are many world views that one can apply to possibly get someone to find god not guilty of existence, but you can’t know that about someone until you ask them. I find many philosophical naturalists tend to find this result, also Buddhists, pragmatists, people that just don’t care about this cultural conversation and about ghosts and goblins, etc.
As to how to ground your conclusions into an absolute, that’s your problem, not mine. Mine works just fine. I don’t need your world view and never have to live the moral life. Your world view as just as irrelevant as anyone else’s.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. This is true. Atheists are quite capable of a discernment of what is good and evil without being informed by any religious ideology.
The problem, however, comes when you try to defend your moral views, and also when you try to stop another person from endorsing an immoral view.
Then a religious framework is quite necessary.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
I’ll appeal to the fair mindedness of the readers. Did I say that it was possible for something to come from nothing? This is soooo much a problem with discussions with religious people. Because I don’t believe your conclusion it means I believe the other. Such as, Do you believe in the supernatural. No no I do not. So that means you believe that the supernatural does not exist. No no it does not. There is a difference between “I do not find the proposition true” and “I know this proposition is not true.” Can you please, if ever, understand this difference?!! I stated that it is not a justified conclusion to make about the idea of “nothing” until you have an example of “nothing” to study to see what it can actually do. Since we have never had an example of “nothing” to study, how can you make any absolute claims about what can or can not interact with it and what it can or can not do in reality. See here’s another problem that is soooo much an on-going issue. You can be logically correct but still factually wrong. Because of how ignorant we all are about reality, we think it is ok to say that A1=A2 if all we know about A1 is 4 things and A2 has the same four identities. But then later, when we’ve learned more about how reality works, we go back and look at A1 and A2. Only to find out that A2 actually has 8 truths about it. So we were originally logically correct, but factually wrong and didn’t find this out until we went to reality to check our logical conclusions. If you can’t use reality to check your logical conclusions about the supernatural, then you can make any logical conclusion you want and feel justified about it because you can’t falsify it by checking your logic against reality in any way. It’s a no loss situation every time. At least my world view you can go to reality and throw a fossil at me if I deny evolution.
- Status