How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[CandideWest]

uch:uch:uch: Really, that was quick.

Yeah, I went away for a few minutes, refreshed the page and there was your reply, so sent one back myself

This I believe is one of the most powerful arguments for theism, because without God, the words true or false simply become meaningless,

Ahh, that old chestnut. Absurd, obviously. You see

True - a statement which is accords to reality
False - a statement which does not accord to reality.

So take the statement “there is a pen on my desk” at the moment that statement is true, because there IS a pen on my desk.

If no gods exist, then that pen is there and the statement is true.

If on the other hand some god exists, well then then pen is still there and that statement is STILL true.

See, no need to go tying yourself up in knots over this, gods existence or otherwise has no impact on things being true or false. Problems only arise when you start using some weird “special” definitions of “true”. Those may not work without some god concept if you define them carefully enough.

so the question I ask the atheist is if there is no God, why do you believe it to be true?

Actually I don’t. I don’t believe in any gods, but neither do I believe that no gods exist. It’s possible that they do, but if they do then I’m awaiting the evidence before believing it.

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?

Because it works. We test the developing tools of thinking against reality again and again during a period of our life called “childhood” and if we do it right we come out the other side with a reasonable understanding of how our brains work and how they relate to what’s going on in the universe.

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. C.S. Lewis

Indeed, “true”, and “false” apply to statements about physical reality. Not to physical reality itself. That pen on my desk isn’t itself “true” it is the referent of a true statement.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

Theories aren’t “accidentally by products” they are the end result of a systematic approach to thinking to determine what is true or false. The most reliable method of discovering what is true that we’ve yet developed - science.

I believe in God because I believe there is evidence for God, for example, in the very fact that we can do science, we believe that the universe is rationally intelligable. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligable?

Because there seem to be reliable rules which apply to how the universe behaves. Science is a process of discovering statements about those rules which are true.

Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case?

No, atheism tells you nothing of the sort, atheism is a lack of belief in god claims, it offers no information about brains. It’s biology and biological science which tell us those things.

Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science. So part of the evidence for God would be the fact that we can do science.

Ironically this wouldn’t qualify as evidence in science.

Thus I believe it’s not science and theism that are in conflict as most atheists like to claim,

Actually it’s mostly scientists and theists who are claiming that science and theism conflict as far as I can tell.

Science tells the world how something probably happened based on the available evidence. Atheists say “ok, cool”, but some (not all) theists say “no it didn’t, I KNOW it happened this other way because GOD said so!” And try to stop the scientific position being taught. Mostly atheists just observe this happening.

it’s actually science and atheism that are in conflict, because atheism cannot trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science,

Still wrong, our brains work. That’s reality, whether or not a god exists has no impact.

“If you turn devoutly to the wounds and precious stigmata of Christ, you will find great comfort in suffering, you will mind but little the scorn of men, and you will easily bear their slanderous talk.”

I see nothing in that event other than vicarious human sacrifice. An event which had I been present I would have been morally bound to try to prevent.

 

[CandideWest]

I’m not disappointed in the least. Endless denials right down to the last breath.

Denial implies the lack of a rational argument for rejecting some opinion. I have rejected your opinions and given solid, rational reasons for doing so. Hardly “denial”.

To be honest, nothing I’ve explained to you is very complicated, nor is understanding of these things very rare. So I’m really surprised you haven’t had them explained to you before.

I mean, have you just not talked to any atheists on this site before? Or have have you not tried these arguments on them before? Or did they just not explain things as I have? Or do you just forget the explanations when you get them?

I’m happy to help answer your questions in any case except the last. Because if you’re just forgetting the explanations then you’ll probably just forget I gave them to you as well and there’s little value in me explaining these things to you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Denial implies the lack of a rational argument for rejecting some opinion. I have rejected your opinions and given solid, rational reasons for doing so. Hardly “denial”.

To be honest, nothing I’ve explained to you is very complicated, nor is understanding of these things very rare. So I’m really surprised you haven’t had them explained to you before.

I mean, have you just not talked to any atheists on this site before? Or have have you not tried these arguments on them before? Or did they just not explain things as I have? Or do you just forget the explanations when you get them?

I’m happy to help answer your questions in any case except the last. Because if you’re just forgetting the explanations then you’ll probably just forget I gave them to you as well and there’s little value in me explaining these things to you.

Right out of the ideological play book. I have met, on this Forum, only two non-believers even slightly open to reason. Most merely parrot responses from the play book. So I am not surprised, its what I always expect.

The point not specifically mentioned by C.S. Lewis and Lennox is that if God does not exist, then nothing else would exist either. Non-believers universally adhere to materialism, and demand, " show me God, give me a sign at least. " This, and similar demands, are forms of escapism. Since, by definition, neither God, nor spiritual forms of any sort, are susciptible of scientific measuring techniques. Non-believers pretend to escape the consequences of God’s existence. But God demands not only moral integrity, but intellectual as well. Christ’s response to the non-believing Jews was, " …you demand signs, I tell you, you have the Prophets. If you will not believe them, neither will you believe signs…"

I have not neglected your responses. I do not regard them as " arguments, " but rather as " excuses, " attempts to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized. Well turned phrases and ready wit are not substitutes for reason. Nevertheless, I have addressed them all in previous posts here, in one fashion or another.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

Right out of the ideological play book. I have met, on this Forum, only two non-believers even slightly open to reason. Most merely parrot responses from the play book. So I am not surprised, its what I always expect.

Any chance I could borrow this “play book” of yours? Or could you give me a title I could look up?

In any case, it rather sounds as if you already know that the issues you are raising aren’t problems for atheists, because you’ve already read the explanations in this book of yours.

So I’m curious why you raise objections which you know are so trivially easy to answer? Are you trying to test my ability to work them out? Are you trying to trick someone reading this thread into thinking that these are real problems for atheists? Are you just waiting for me to be unable to answer one so you can step up yourself and show why it’s not a problem?

The point not specifically mentioned by C.S. Lewis and Lennox is that if God does not exist, then nothing else would exist either.

Ok, so how do you support that assertion? I can just as well say that “if invisible pink unicorns don’t exist then nothing else would either”. But since I can’t support that assertion nobody takes it seriously.

So, the question is, can you support your assertion?

Non-believers universally adhere to materialism,

Actually many don’t. Many believe in non-physical reality without believing in a god concept. And I personally don’t assert materialism although I don’t have any belief in any non-physical reality (again due to the lack of evidence or justification for such a thing). But I don’t hold the contrary to be true either, I just await evidence in one direction or the other prior to assigning a belief position.

and demand, " show me God, give me a sign at least. " This, and similar demands, are forms of escapism.

Wait, you think not believing in things for which you have no evidence is a form of “escapism”? Are you being serious here? If so then I’m afraid that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Since, by definition, neither God, nor spiritual forms of any sort, are susciptible of scientific measuring techniques.

Well that’s just not true, the Christian God for example has (according to Christian beliefs at least) supposedly interacted with the universe many times, even just on the one little tiny rock we live on. Obviously any interaction with the real universe above the quantum level is (at least in principle) measurable. Therefore those interactions are measurable so we can at least in principle get some measurements on the Christian God (if it exists).

If you’re looking for an unmeasurable god then you’d be best off becoming a deist.

Non-believers pretend to escape the consequences of God’s existence. But God demands not only moral integrity, but intellectual as well.

Indeed? Well I should be fine then, because I am a highly moral person and I keep on sticking to my intellectual integrity despite regular and repeated attempts of people throwing fallacious arguments at me for lots of different erroneous propositions.

So, if your God exists, then he should be fine with me

Christ’s response to the non-believing Jews was, " …you demand signs, I tell you, you have the Prophets. If you will not believe them, neither will you believe signs…"

Which is of course silly. It’s rather like saying “if you don’t believe that aliens exist based on these people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, then you wouldn’t believe that they exist if an alien spaceship landed outside your house and they came in for coffee either”.

Well of course you would, because second hand stories without supporting evidence is really unconvincing, while first hand experience is very convincing.

I have not neglected your responses. I do not regard them as " arguments, " but rather as " excuses, " attempts to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized. Well turned phrases and ready wit are not substitutes for reason. Nevertheless, I have addressed them all in previous posts here, in one fashion or another.

Well you can regard them any way you like. The structure of our conversation thus far appears to be as follows:

• you make an assertion claiming to show something means there must be a god.
• I point out the gaps and errors in your assertion (often asking you to support some statement rather than just asserting it).
• you abandon your previous assertion and make new assertions claiming that these show there must be a god.
• I point out the gaps and errors in your new assertions.

… Rinse and repeat.

This isn’t a very convincing way to proceed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Any chance…?

Not a chance, I keep it in my safe deposit box!!

In any case,…

The only thing that bothers atheists is a religion founded on belief in a Almighty Supreme Being, Who created the universe, guides it to its proper end, and Who is Intelligent, is a Person, Who loves all He created, and to Whom man is responsible.

So I’m curious…

Hold on now, you are the one raising the objections, I am merely trying to answer those objections. In that process I have posed some obvious counter questions. So?

Ok,…

If one arbitrarily rejects the legitimacy of philosophical reasoning and its conclusions, and the legitimacy of Divine Revelation and the Faith founded upon it, you can’t prove it. So my assertions are supported by two sources of legitimate knowledge you and all atheists reject ipso facto… So all I or any Christian can do is keep repeating our arguments in hopes that some day they may sink in. And by the way, those of us on this Forum are
mere amatures, unskilled, as it were.

Actually many don’t. Many believe in non-physical reality without believing in a god concept. And I personally don’t assert materialism although I don’t have any belief in any non-physical reality (again due to the lack of evidence or justification for such a thing). But I don’t hold the contrary to be true either…

So, technically, you are merely an agnostic.

Wait, means.

God Himself has provided the evidence. Non-belief, except in very rare cases, is a personal, conscious choice for which we will be held accountable. I don’t for a minute believe the personal stories you gave and that Greta repeats ad nauseam. Nothing new in them by the way. You don’t reject what you know to be true because a bunch of idiots, here and there around the world, continually make asses out of themselves and cause a lot of evil and suffering in consequence. To do so is to reject rationally itself. The correct response is to be a Saint oneself, another St. Francis.

Well that’s just not true, the Christian God for example has (according to Christian beliefs at least) supposedly interacted with the universe many times, even just on the one little tiny rock we live on. Obviously any interaction with the real universe above the quantum level is (at least in principle) measurable. Therefore those interactions are measurable so we can at least in principle get some measurements on the Christian God (if it exists).

Now you make me wonder if you understand what a spiritual Being really is? A spiritual being, soul, angel, God, ipso facto transcends the physicality of the material universe. They cannot be touched or measured. Yes, angels and God can communicate - to each other through the intellect, the mind ( which is a faculty of the human soul as well,) I am communicating with your soul right now. But angels and God can manifest their presence through materal substances. But they cannot be directly accessed by physical tools or human senses, which have as their proper and only object only material substances. The angels that " appeared " in the Scriptures fashoned bodily forms out of the earth or other material substances out of condensation to the weakness of man. What Abraham, Tobit, Zacariah, Mary and the others saw were manifestations, not the essences of angels.

If you’re looking for an unmeasurable god then you’d be best off becoming a deist.

I have no idea what a deist believes in. I only know what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. The God we believe in is a Spirit, transcending all physicality, who shows himself or communicates through his works, through the Fathers, the Prophets, and finally through His Son, and now through His Church - but occasionally through a theophony.

Indeed? Well I should be fine then, because I am a highly moral person and I keep on sticking to my intellectual integrity despite regular and repeated attempts of people throwing fallacious arguments at me for lots of different erroneous propositions.

Good for you, I am happy for you. Except, I, at least, am not consciously attempting to propogate fallacious arguments. I wouldn’t tell you a lie intentionally.

So, if your God exists, then he should be fine with me

I’m sure there will be many atheists in Heaven, and won’t they be surprised :extrahappy:.

Which is of course silly. It’s rather like saying “if you don’t believe that aliens exist based on these people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, then you wouldn’t believe that they exist if an alien spaceship landed outside your house and they came in for coffee either”.

Well of course you would, because second hand stories without supporting evidence is really unconvincing, while first hand experience is very convincing

I think you comparison is grossly exagerated. It is perfectly reasonable to believe the universe was created by God and is guided by Him. And this conviction has been verified by the Fathers, the Prophets, His Son and His Witnesses, and now His Church. The evidence, aside from its reasonableness, is the verification of the prophacies, and continual miracles to this very day and the lives of the saints who have lived the Faith handed down…

This isn’t a very convincing way to proceed.

An impartial public will judge that - and our angels and God.

Pax
Linus2nd

P.S. to throw out the word " gap or gaps, " willy nilly, seems to be a very annoying habit of non-believers. It is no substitute for rebuttle and is nothing more than another ad hominem, having the added advantage of being a personal slurr, a pejorative aimed at crippling the arguments offered by one’s opponent. Non-believers are quite adept at is uses and its advantages…

 

[CandideWest]

Not a chance, I keep it in my safe deposit box!!

Dang.

The only thing that bothers atheists is a religion founded on belief in a Almighty Supreme Being, Who created the universe, guides it to its proper end, and Who is Intelligent, is a Person, Who loves all He created, and to Whom man is responsible.

Er, can’t speak for others but personally any gratuitous suffering bothers me, including that which is caused by religion. We’ve been over this before.

Hold on now, you are the one raising the objections,

Apologies, I should have said “incredibly weak arguments”, not “objections”.

If one arbitrarily rejects the legitimacy of philosophical reasoning and its conclusions,

I certainly don’t reject reasoning, indeed it’s been what I’ve been using to demonstrate the errors you’ve been making.

and the legitimacy of Divine Revelation and the Faith founded upon it,

But I certainly reject “revelation” unless there is some significant evidence that the event was something more than just someone’s imagination at work. Thus far I have heard of no such event.

you can’t prove it. So my assertions are supported by two sources of legitimate knowledge you and all atheists reject ipso facto…

No, we don’t reject the former, and we reject the latter for very good reasons. Primarily the inability to tell the difference between “true” and “false” revelations. ie, some reliable method which can be applied to a revelation claim to determine if it is true or not.

And here it’s important to remember that dozens of religions from all over the world have many competing and contradictory things which are known by various forms of revelation. So we can’t base our method on any of the existing religions teachings as that would be tautological, and in fact end up with multiple contradictory positions being held as true (which we already have).

So all I or any Christian can do is keep repeating our arguments in hopes that some day they may sink in.

Or, when someone points out the errors in your arguments you could try to find better arguments.

This is I should warn you, a dangerous path. It was in trying to find good arguments to defend my religion and by facing the replies I received honestly that I came to the realisation that I didn’t have a rational justification for my beliefs and ceased to hold them.

It’s definitely not a path I would recommend to everyone. Some people find it much too hard to let go.

And by the way, those of us on this Forum are mere amatures, unskilled, as it were.

Ok… Me too.

So, technically, you are merely an agnostic.

No, technically I am an gnostic atheist. The two words are different answers to different questions. Here’s a brief explanation:

Theist - believes some god exists
Atheist - does not believe any gods exist

Gnostic - believes its possible to know about the existence of a god
Agnostic - believes it is not possible to know about the existence of a god.

Note, I don’t claim to know that there are no gods, only that it is possible to know about it.

God Himself has provided the evidence.

Well, he’s offered no evidence to me alas, so I guess I’ll just have to wait my turn.

Non-belief, except in very rare cases, is a personal, conscious choice for which we will be held accountable.

I didn’t choose not to believe, indeed when I realised that I didn’t believe any more I realised that I hadn’t for a long time but had been pretending to myself that I did.

You don’t reject what you know to be true because a bunch of idiots, here and there around the world, continually make asses out of themselves and cause a lot of evil and suffering in consequence.

You’re right, I don’t reject god claims because of the bad things people do because of them. I reject god claims because of the lack of a rational justification or evidence for them.

The horrors around the world motivated by religious beliefs are however what causes me to care about other people’s belief in these claims.

To do so is to reject rationally itself.

Nope, we’ve covered this already, logic works whether or not any gods exist. Statements are still true or false either way.

 

[CandideWest]

Now you make me wonder if you understand what a spiritual Being really is? A spiritual being, soul, angel, God, ipso facto transcends the physicality of the material universe. They cannot be touched or measured. Yes, angels and God can communicate - to each other through the intellect, the mind ( which is a faculty of the human soul as well,) I am communicating with your soul right now. But angels and God can manifest their presence through materal substances. But they cannot be directly accessed by physical tools or human senses, which have as their proper and only object only material substances. The angels that " appeared " in the Scriptures fashoned bodily forms out of the earth or other material substances out of condensation to the weakness of man. What Abraham, Tobit, Zacariah, Mary and the others saw were manifestations, not the essences of angels.

Now you make me wonder if you understand what measurement is. You realise that we don’t need to stretch something out on the floor and go along it with a tape measure right?

Scientists are continuously making use of a variety of indirect means to measure some property. All we need is some interaction with the physical world and we can measure it.

In other words if some god, or angels or demons, or ghosts, or souls or whatever, have some impact on the physical universe then there must be a point of interaction. That interaction must be (at least in principle) measurable.

Once we find some of those interactions we can start to find out more about them, when they occur, where, how frequently, what impact they have on the universe…

And of course none of that relies on us having any means to detect anything “spiritual” or “non-physical” etc. it’s just using the physical universe as an “supernatural activity interaction detector”.

I have no idea what a deist believes in. I only know what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

Ok, might be interesting for you to broaden your knowledge of other religious beliefs at some point. They really are fascinating.

Good for you, I am happy for you. Except, I, at least, am not consciously attempting to propogate fallacious arguments. I wouldn’t tell you a lie intentionally.

Great, glad to hear it

I’m sure there will be many atheists in Heaven, and won’t they be surprised :extrahappy:.

Ok.

I think you comparison is grossly exagerated.

No, the comparison is a pretty much exact. They both involve arguing that someone who won’t believe a story also wouldn’t believe their first hand experience. Both are silly.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe the universe was created by God and is guided by Him.

I disagree, I have yet to see a rational justification for such a belief.

The evidence, aside from its reasonableness, is the verification of the prophacies, and continual miracles to this very day and the lives of the saints who have lived the Faith handed down…

Ok, there are no verified prophecies I’ve ever heard of. There are many cases of New Testament authors writing things to fulfil what they perceived (often incorrectly) as Old Testament prophecies. But no actual specific prophecies which were met except where they were so vague as to be irrelevant (ie that there would be more wars.).

The vast majority of miracle claims are trivially weak, most turn out to be errors or deliberate hoaxes after a slight examination. Most of those that remain turn out to be errors or hoaxes after more examination… For a very small number of cases that remain we have something unexplained. Which COULD have been caused by some deity, or COULD have another unidentified cause (of which there are many possibilities).

None of this meets the bar as being evidence.

An impartial public will judge that - and our angels and God.

Ok.

P.S. to throw out the word " gap or gaps, " willy nilly, seems to be a very annoying habit of non-believers. It is no substitute for rebuttle

I used the term in its literal sense as a hole in the argument. A step which is not there. I also called this an unstated assumption and said it would have been much easier if Aquinas had simply stated these assumptions at the outset.

I have no interest in ad hominem etc.

 

[polytropos]

I know, that was my point about having other ways to distinguish between twins. We wouldn’t necessarily have such means to distinguish between separate instances of pure act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there can only be one. It just means that if there is more than one we won’t be able to tell one from the other, but that does nothing to eliminate such a possibility.

That was not my argument. My point is that even “identical twins” (supposing that, unlike actual identical twins, they do share all of their characteristics and are, say, physically indistinguishable) have potentialities relative to one another. “Two instances” of pure act could not have any sort of analogous potentialities relative to the other (obviously they could not be spatial, as immutability precludes materiality).

I am not sure if I spelled this out here or if I was just thinking of it recently, but simplicity and complete subsistence preclude multiplicity in the sense that pure act is not even properly “an individual” in the sense that created things are. Pure act does not belong to any genus and has no specific difference. It is not bounded by any potentialities. What it is is not distinguished from the fact that it is. Ascribing number to it is technically speaking not appropriate. Aquinas argues that to say God is “one” is really to attribute a negation of division to him.

??? Really? That didn’t seem to be your argument at all, it seemed to be trying to argue that we define the cause of a thing as necessarily being something which has at least all of the attributes of the effect therefore whatever caused the universe must have a mind as there are minds in the universe.

What? That was not at all my argument. I said that the forms that God creates and sustains must be contained virtually and eminently (though not actually) in him, analogous to the way in which forms are contained virtually and eminently in our own intellects. (As one would argue is the nature of intellection if one were to defend Aquinas’s philosophy of mind. And it seems a bit pointless to pronounce on Aquinas’s arguments with respect to the divine intellect without first grasping his philosophy of mind.) It has nothing to do with God being what he creates.

Ok, but with this lone starting point, what can we show in terms of attributes? I haven’t yet seen a method to show that this “pure act” is some agent (as opposed to a thing), even with all 5 of the ways assumed. If we strip out 4 of them then I don’t think we’re getting any closer.

Well, I’ve sketched one argument for the first cause being an intellect above. But if we were to grant the Fifth Way as well as the First Way, then it would be easier, as the Fifth Way argues that there exists a supreme intellect that directs things to their final causes.

There are quite a few definitions floating around, one which rather appeals to me is that it includes “all that ever was, is or will be and everything that could have been, could be or could ever be.”

Do the “coulds” here imply that that construal of the multiverse assumes something like Lewis’s modal realism?

Anyway, my point with regard to the multiverse is that if it is defined as a mereological entity (ie. the collection of universes, or the collection of things that exist, or the collection of things that could exist), then its causing anything to be must be cashed out in terms of its constituents.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Denial implies the lack of a rational argument for rejecting some opinion. I have rejected your opinions and given solid, rational reasons for doing so. Hardly “denial”.

To be honest, nothing I’ve explained to you is very complicated, nor is understanding of these things very rare. So I’m really surprised you haven’t had them explained to you before.

I mean, have you just not talked to any atheists on this site before? Or have have you not tried these arguments on them before? Or did they just not explain things as I have? Or do you just forget the explanations when you get them?

I’m happy to help answer your questions in any case except the last. Because if you’re just forgetting the explanations then you’ll probably just forget I gave them to you as well and there’s little value in me explaining these things to you.

I think I have talked to most of the atheists on this Forum at one time or another. Their objections have been the same as yours, and just as unconvincing and unreasonable.

I haven’t forgotten your explanations, I find them faulty, so do most Christians. Indeed, some well known one time atheists have found them faulty. For example, Anthony Fluw who said at the end, "
Continued from above post -

I would also like to share with you a quote from Anthony Flew (Atheists turned Theist) in his book “There is a God - How the worlds most notorious atheist changed his mind”

"Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the constants follow certain laws. 'We’re still left with the question of how these “deeper” laws originated. No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow “emergent,” their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.'1 So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.”

Edward Feser was once an atheist. And here are lists of many more converting out of atheism: google.com/search?q=atheists+who+converted+to+christianity&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

So it looks like there are obvious holes in the arguments of non-believers. And of course it goes the other way as well.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Dang.

Er, can’t speak for others but personally any gratuitous suffering bothers me, including that which is caused by religion. We’ve been over this before.

Apologies, I should have said “incredibly weak arguments”, not “objections”.

I certainly don’t reject reasoning, indeed it’s been what I’ve been using to demonstrate the errors you’ve been making.

But I certainly reject “revelation” unless there is some significant evidence that the event was something more than just someone’s imagination at work. Thus far I have heard of no such event.

No, we don’t reject the former, and we reject the latter for very good reasons. Primarily the inability to tell the difference between “true” and “false” revelations. ie, some reliable method which can be applied to a revelation claim to determine if it is true or not.

And here it’s important to remember that dozens of religions from all over the world have many competing and contradictory things which are known by various forms of revelation. So we can’t base our method on any of the existing religions teachings as that would be tautological, and in fact end up with multiple contradictory positions being held as true (which we already have).

Or, when someone points out the errors in your arguments you could try to find better arguments.

This is I should warn you, a dangerous path. It was in trying to find good arguments to defend my religion and by facing the replies I received honestly that I came to the realisation that I didn’t have a rational justification for my beliefs and ceased to hold them.

It’s definitely not a path I would recommend to everyone. Some people find it much too hard to let go.

Ok… Me too.

No, technically I am an gnostic atheist. The two words are different answers to different questions. Here’s a brief explanation:

Theist - believes some god exists
Atheist - does not believe any gods exist

Gnostic - believes its possible to know about the existence of a god
Agnostic - believes it is not possible to know about the existence of a god.

Note, I don’t claim to know that there are no gods, only that it is possible to know about it.

Well, he’s offered no evidence to me alas, so I guess I’ll just have to wait my turn.

I didn’t choose not to believe, indeed when I realised that I didn’t believe any more I realised that I hadn’t for a long time but had been pretending to myself that I did.

You’re right, I don’t reject god claims because of the bad things people do because of them. I reject god claims because of the lack of a rational justification or evidence for them.

The horrors around the world motivated by religious beliefs are however what causes me to care about other people’s belief in these claims.

Nope, we’ve covered this already, logic works whether or not any gods exist. Statements are still true or false either way.

O.K., no new ground covered here. I think I have already given my opinion on these points.
No need to rehash them ad nauseam. I respect the right of everyone to have different opinions.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Now you make me wonder if you understand what measurement is. You realise that we don’t need to stretch something out on the floor and go along it with a tape measure right?

Scientists are continuously making use of a variety of indirect means to measure some property. All we need is some interaction with the physical world and we can measure it.

In other words if some god, or angels or demons, or ghosts, or souls or whatever, have some impact on the physical universe then there must be a point of interaction. That interaction must be (at least in principle) measurable.

Once we find some of those interactions we can start to find out more about them, when they occur, where, how frequently, what impact they have on the universe…

A spiritual being cannot, even in principle, be detected by material tools, the spiritual is directly contrary to the material.

And of course none of that relies on us having any means to detect anything “spiritual” or “non-physical” etc. it’s just using the physical universe as an “supernatural activity interaction detector”.

No idea what you are trying to say here?

Ok, might be interesting for you to broaden your knowledge of other religious beliefs at some point. They really are fascinating.

More pressing things to do and I’m not really interested either.

No the comparison is a pretty much exact. They both involve arguing that someone who won’t believe a story also wouldn’t believe their first hand experience. Both are silly.

No, many of the witnesses were still living when the New Testament was written and they verified their truth and well as the truth of the Old Testament.

Ok, there are no verified prophecies I’ve ever heard of. There are many cases of New Testament authors writing things to fulfil what they perceived (often incorrectly) as Old Testament prophecies. But no actual specific prophecies which were met except where they were so vague as to be irrelevant (ie that there would be more wars.).

The vast majority of miracle claims are trivially weak, most turn out to be errors or deliberate hoaxes after a slight examination. Most of those that remain turn out to be errors or hoaxes after more examination… For a very small number of cases that remain we have something unexplained. Which COULD have been caused by some deity, or COULD have another unidentified cause (of which there are many possibilities).

None of this meets the bar as being evidence.

A good bible with copious footnotes is what you need. I recommend the Douhay-Rheims with A Comprehensive Catholic Commentary by Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock. Then you can find direct references to the Old Testament from the appropriate citation in the New.

The destruction of Jerusalem was foretold by Christ. It occurred seventy years later. But the Christians escaped because they had been warned in a dream to leave a few days before the Romans arrived.

I have made no assumptions. There is a difference between assumptions and valid inferences.

Pax

Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

I think I have talked to most of the atheists on this Forum at one time or another. Their objections have been the same as yours, and just as unconvincing and unreasonable.

This seems to imply that you have already had it explained to you that atheism and agnosticism are different answers to different questions… That you already know that atheists aren’t necessarily materialists and certainly don’t need to assert such a position… That you already know that truth and falsehood of statements are not dependent on the existence of some god…

But you continue to assert these errors anyway. I’m curious, why? I mean I can understand your not understanding Aquinas argument regarding knowledge (after all it’s not straightforward) and respect you for coming out and saying so. But the stuff in the paragraph above is really trivial, mostly just a matter of understanding definitions.

So I find it difficult to understand why you would keep repeating points which are just factually wrong, despite knowing that they are factually wrong.

So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.”

And that’s were he went wrong. Essentially he ran into an unanswered question and decided to just say “god did it”. This is a classic “god of the gaps” argument. The same thing humans have used for everything from lightning to illnesses down through the ages. And no more convincing now for the gap that god is being wedged into being so far away.

Edward Feser was once an atheist. And here are lists of many more converting out of atheism:

Ok… So? Numbers don’t relate to truth. And if such things impress you, I’m sure you know there are entire organisations out there for helping atheist Christian preachers. Yes you read that right, vicars and priests who are actually currently atheists.

O.K., no new ground covered here. I think I have already given my opinion on these points.
No need to rehash them ad nauseam. I respect the right of everyone to have different opinions.

Ok, I’m glad to have helped you to correct your misunderstandings.

A spiritual being cannot, even in principle, be detected by material tools, the spiritual is directly contrary to the material.

You seem to have misunderstood the entire point so I’ll try explaining again.

Right… I already stated that I assumed that we couldn’t detect “spiritual” things. Which is why we couldn’t detect the existence of some “spiritual” thing which doesn’t interact with the physical universe.

BUT, again as I already explained, if some spiritual being DOES interact with the physical universe. Then those interactions must (at least in principle) be detectable. Not by detecting the spiritual cause, but by detecting the physical effect.

So, for any of the spiritual beings from Christian mythology (angels, demons, spirits, God himself etc) who supposedly interact with the physical universe. Those interactions can in principle be detected if we can develop sufficiently sophisticated tools.

Once we have detected this interaction point (where some undetectable thing interacts with the physical universe) we can then start studying it. Determining when these interactions occur, where, what they consist of etc.

More pressing things to do and I’m not really interested either.

Fair enough. I only suggested it as I think it might help you with some of your misunderstandings about those with differing views.

No, many of the witnesses were still living when the New Testament was written and they verified their truth and well as the truth of the Old Testament.

Indeed, and some of those alien abductees are still living right now. But you don’t seem to believe their stories. Again, the point is that second hand unsupported stories of extraordinary events are highly unconvincing. While direct personal experience of that same extraordinary event is highly convincing.

That’s why the idea that someone who doesn’t believe stories won’t believe personal experience is absurd.

You seem to be just defending this position on the basis that Jesus said it rather than because it makes any sense. So if it helps, there’s a biblical reference which shows it to be false as well - Saul / Paul’s road to Damascus experience. He had heard all the stories and didn’t believe them, then had a personal experience and changed his mind.

A good bible with copious footnotes is what you need. I recommend the Douhay-Rheims with A Comprehensive Catholic Commentary by Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock. Then you can find direct references to the Old Testament from the appropriate citation in the New.

And some comparative religion study is what you need. Look into what parts of the Old Testament the experts (Jewish scholars) say are prophecies and put them against the prophecies which are claimed as being fulfilled by the New Testament.

The destruction of Jerusalem was foretold by Christ. It occurred seventy years later. But the Christians escaped because they had been warned in a dream to leave a few days before the Romans arrived.

Strange, so you’re saying that they had 70 years warning and yet only evacuated a few days before, at the point when everyone in the city and for miles around would have been well aware of the advancing army and impending siege…

Weird.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 1

This seems to imply that you have already had it explained to you that atheism and agnosticism are different answers to different questions… That you already know that atheists aren’t necessarily materialists and certainly don’t need to assert such a position…

Well, I thought I understood the difference until you enlightened me. The point is that, whether atheist, agnostic, or gnostic, they, one and all, raised the same objections except one or two. And I answered the objections satisfactoraily for most Christians, and not a few Jews and Muslims. I must say that the Eastern Cult religions are even tougher nuts to crack than your " brand. " Mind you, I don’t take any of them seriously, neither theirs or yours are logically coherent.

But you continue to assert these errors anyway. I’m curious, why? I mean I can understand your not understanding Aquinas argument regarding knowledge (after all it’s not straightforward) and respect you for coming out and saying so.

I understood art.1 jusy fine. It was arts. 2 & 3 I don’t understand. Then I gave you an explanation of my own which was perfectly Thomistic and which was in line with Catholic Church teaching.

But the stuff in the paragraph above is really trivial, mostly just a matter of understanding definitions.

Unsure of your reference here. What paragraph?

So I find it difficult to understand why you would keep repeating points which are just factually wrong, despite knowing that they are factually wrong.

Oh come on. If I ever accuse you of making factually erroneous statements, I will cite the statements. Please do me the same favor. I know you have a great dragon to slay which makes you pressed for time, but still…

And that’s were he went wrong. Essentially he ran into an unanswered question and decided to just say “god did it”. This is a classic “god of the gaps” argument. The same thing humans have used for everything from lightning to illnesses down through the ages. And no more convincing now for the gap that god is being wedged into being so far away.

I know that’s what you folks like to say. It is such a catchy phrase, and just to utter it makes all those young skulls full of mush squeal with glee. All it really means is that your crowd doesn’t unerstand what an inference is - except, of course, when you want to use one yourself.

Ok… So? Numbers don’t relate to truth. And if such things impress you, I’m sure you know there are entire organisations out there for helping atheist Christian preachers. Yes you read that right, vicars and priests who are actually currently atheists.

Never said they did. I just mention it because it means that a lot of people who went through a reasoning process similar to your own reached a point where they couldn’t accept it any more. And yes, I know there are wolves wearing the cloth, the most pitiable of men, afraid to give up their " living. " Very sad, but not surprising. But I’ve known it for a long time. You forget, the Church has been around for 2,000 years, she has seen everything.

Ok, I’m glad to have helped you to correct your misunderstandings.

Hardy, har, har. And just what misunderstandings did you clear up for me, other than your explanation of the difference between atheism, agnosticism, and gnosticism? And by the way, the Church understands it differently. So I would say your definitions are unique to you alone, certainly they are not so understood universally.

You seem to have misunderstood the entire point so I’ll try explaining again.

Thank you.

Right… I already stated that I assumed that we couldn’t detect “spiritual” things. Which is why we couldn’t detect the existence of some “spiritual” thing which doesn’t interact with the physical universe.

BUT, again as I already explained, if some spiritual being DOES interact with the physical universe. Then those interactions must (at least in principle) be detectable. Not by detecting the spiritual cause, but by detecting the physical effect.

So, for any of the spiritual beings from Christian mythology (angels, demons, spirits, God himself etc) who supposedly interact with the physical universe. Those interactions can in principle be detected if we can develop sufficiently sophisticated tools.

Once we have detected this interaction point (where some undetectable thing interacts with the physical universe) we can then start studying it. Determining when these interactions occur, where, what they consist of etc.

Thank you, I hate to misunderstand what is being said. But you see they have would still have to draw an inference, the exact kind of a’ posteriori inference Thomas uses in his philosophy and which Aristotle and Plato used as well. So if it is O.K. for science to do it, why can’t Thomas and the philosophers use it? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Besides, they have already detected the human soul. They have detected the effects of the mind’s activity in the brain and have not been able to make the necessary inference to the existence of the spiritual sould. Consequently they will never be able to make the jump to angel or God.

Besides, all that effort isn’t required, all they have to do is look at all of nature about them. But you see, the sciences have undergone 400 years of brain washing and have brow beaten governments, institutions of learning, the press etc. into accepting and promoting their ideology. So now they are blind to the inferences that Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas were able to make and which St. Paul spoke about. Of course when I say science I am speaking of a few influential individuals who used their influence and prejudice to infect all the institutions mentioned above.

end part 1

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 2

Indeed, and some of those alien abductees are still living right now. But you don’t seem to believe their stories. Again, the point is that second hand unsupported stories of extraordinary events are highly unconvincing. While direct personal experience of that same extraordinary event is highly convincing.

More hoots and squeals from all those young skulls full of mush. You forget, the witnesses I spoke of had direct experience. Futher, many of them were still alive when the New Testament had been written and was in circulation among them. But none of them disowned what had been written. Also, those of them that were Jews knew the Old Testament well and judged the prophacies they contained to be fulfilled in Christ.

In addition, that small group of " no counts " suffered ostracization by the Jewish leadership and expulsion from the Synogogues. In spite of that, their sect grew by leaps and bounds throughout the Roman World - literally every where except the East, Africa, and the Americas. Your comparison fails.

You seem to be just defending this position on the basis that Jesus said it rather than because it makes any sense. So if it helps, there’s a biblical reference which shows it to be false as well - Saul / Paul’s road to Damascus experience. He had heard all the stories and didn’t believe them, then had a personal experience and changed his mind.

So? Paul was a tough nut, as were most of the Jews. But Christ had a special use for Paul, who knows why. Yes he had a personal experience. And the same has been true for most believers at one time or another, but not so dramatic.

And some comparative religion study is what you need. Look into what parts of the Old Testament the experts (Jewish scholars) say are prophecies and put them against the prophecies which are claimed as being fulfilled by the New Testament.

As I said, I have no wish to, I already know where the truth lies. And I don’t have time to argue with all those any more than I would have time to argue with the great intellects in your crowd who are roaming the around the world today. I do what I can with the tools I have.

Strange, so you’re saying that they had 70 years warning and yet only evacuated a few days before, at the point when everyone in the city and for miles around would have been well aware of the advancing army and impending siege…

No the warning came only a few days before the Romans arrived. It came and they fled into Asia Minor. It is recounted by Josephus I believe. Any way, one of the early historians.

Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

That was not my argument. My point is that even “identical twins” (supposing that, unlike actual identical twins, they do share all of their characteristics and are, say, physically indistinguishable) have potentialities relative to one another. “Two instances” of pure act could not have any sort of analogous potentialities relative to the other (obviously they could not be spatial, as immutability precludes materiality).

I agree, that was the point I was addressing. Two instances of pure act would not have potentialities relative to each other. So would be truly indistinguishable. But that’s only a problem for our observation of them, not for the existence of them.

What? That was not at all my argument. I said that the forms that God creates and sustains must be contained virtually and eminently (though not actually) in him, analogous to the way in which forms are contained virtually and eminently in our own intellects.

Ok, well then that doesn’t seem to be a problem if our pure act is not self aware in itself. Like the multiverse concept.

Well, I’ve sketched one argument for the first cause being an intellect above. But if we were to grant the Fifth Way as well as the First Way, then it would be easier, as the Fifth Way argues that there exists a supreme intellect that directs things to their final causes.

Sure, but then you’d go back to having to show that the 5 ways are all referring to the same thing again. Which is where we came from.

Do the “coulds” here imply that that construal of the multiverse assumes something like Lewis’s modal realism?

How much do you understand about quantum mechanics? For example, do you understand the way that electrons in the double slit experiment. The interference pattern there is caused by the interaction of probability waveforms of places where the electron could be.

Similar thing applies here.

Anyway, my point with regard to the multiverse is that if it is defined as a mereological entity (ie. the collection of universes, or the collection of things that exist, or the collection of things that could exist), then its causing anything to be must be cashed out in terms of its constituents.

Ok, but again that doesn’t seem to be a problem if the thing which is purely actual includes all the things which we are trying to explain the existence of.

 

[CandideWest]

Well, I thought I understood the difference until you enlightened me.

Cool, happy to have helped.

…Mind you, I don’t take any of them seriously, neither theirs or yours are logically coherent.

Ok, well if you feel like identifying some logical incoherence then I’d be interested to hear it.

I understood art.1 jusy fine. It was arts. 2 & 3 I don’t understand.

Ok.

Oh come on. If I ever accuse you of making factually erroneous statements, I will cite the statements. Please do me the same favor. I know you have a great dragon to slay which makes you pressed for time, but still…

??? I did. I identified 3 of them in the post you replied to…

“This seems to imply that you have already had it explained to you that atheism and agnosticism are different answers to different questions… That you already know that atheists aren’t necessarily materialists and certainly don’t need to assert such a position… That you already know that truth and falsehood of statements are not dependent on the existence of some god…”

I know that’s what you folks like to say. It is such a catchy phrase, and just to utter it makes all those young skulls full of mush squeal with glee. All it really means is that your crowd doesn’t unerstand what an inference is - except, of course, when you want to use one yourself.

Er, no. It really is a classic “god of the gaps” argument. It’s a particular type of the “argument from ignorance” fallacy. What it essentially says is

“I don’t have an explanation for X other than Y, therefore the cause must be Y”

People used to make the argument like this

“I don’t have an explanation for Lightning other than Zeus, therefore the cause must be Zeus”

Now they say

“I don’t have an explanation for The Big Bang other than God, therefore the cause must be God”

Never said they did. I just mention it because it means that a lot of people who went through a reasoning process similar to your own reached a point where they couldn’t accept it any more.

Or maybe they (like Anthony Flew) fell into making a logical error like the one above. Or maybe they were given access to some evidence which is currently denied to me. Or…

And yes, I know there are wolves wearing the cloth,

Yes, and as I said also people who simply no longer hold the beliefs they teach. Some of them still do a good job as ministers incidentally.

Hardy, har, har. And just what misunderstandings did you clear up for me, other than your explanation of the difference between atheism, agnosticism, and gnosticism?

Well there’s three of them at the top of this post. Other recent examples include your misunderstanding of why atheists care about religious beliefs. The reason that most people reject your religions “revelations” as a source of truth. That we could detect some of the activities of spiritual things even if we couldn’t detect spiritual things at all. That personal experience is convincing while unsupported claims are not…

Etc.

And by the way, the Church understands it differently. So I would say your definitions are unique to you alone, certainly they are not so understood universally.

It doesn’t seem to be. The catholic dictionary has quite a lengthy article about gnosticism etc but it’s quite clear that this relates to knowledge, not belief. There seems to be little debate that theism and atheism are believing and not believing in god claims.

Thank you, I hate to misunderstand what is being said. But you see they have would still have to draw an inference, the exact kind of a’ posteriori inference Thomas uses in his philosophy and which Aristotle and Plato used as well. So if it is O.K. for science to do it, why can’t Thomas and the philosophers use it? Sounds like a double standard to me.

They can, whoever said otherwise? But obviously they would need to be able to support their premises, just like scientists do. Hence the challenge.

Besides, they have already detected the human soul.

To the best of my knowledge this is not true. If you know of a paper showing the detection of a soul then please could you provide me with a reference? I’d be very interested to read it.

They have detected the effects of the mind’s activity in the brain and have not been able to make the necessary inference to the existence of the spiritual sould.

Right, because as far as we can tell the mind is an emergent property of the activity of the brain. So when we have a physical activity which appears to explain what is going on, and no evidence of anything non-physical going on. People tend to apply Occam’s razor not posit the additional “soul” element.

Consequently they will never be able to make the jump to angel or God.

But angels and gods should also all be detectable if they interact with the universe. That’s the point really, at whatever point they interact with the universe we live in we must be able to detect them if we’re watching carefully enough.

 

[CandideWest]

Besides, all that effort isn’t required, all they have to do is look at all of nature about them.

Thus far, all the things we’ve discovered causes for, none of them have turned out to be supernatural. So thus far at least your claim here is inaccurate.

But you see, the sciences have undergone 400 years of brain washing and have brow beaten governments, institutions of learning, the press etc. into accepting and promoting their ideology…

Er, what? Science has had a pretty rough ride over the years, especially from powerful political and religious organisations. But has slowly triumphed by virtue of the fact that it WORKS. Over and over again the scientific method has run into challenge from religious beliefs or popular opinion but it keeps on turning out to be the most reliable way we have of discovering the truth.

As a result our society has advanced more in the last few hundred years than it did in the thousand before that. In every respect, not just in the astonishing leaps in technology, but socially and morally as well.

You forget, the witnesses I spoke of had direct experience.

Indeed, just like the alien abductees claim direct experience. But you don’t believe them.

Futher, many of them were still alive when the New Testament had been written and was in circulation among them.

And those abductees are still out there walking and talking and telling their stories right now. And you still don’t believe them.

But none of them disowned what had been written.

And the abductees haven’t either.

It seems whatever way you cut this your arguments apply as well to alien abductees.

Also, those of them that were Jews knew the Old Testament well and judged the prophacies they contained to be fulfilled in Christ.

And their scholars disagreed with them and said they didn’t understand the prophecies.

In addition, that small group of " no counts " suffered ostracization by the Jewish leadership and expulsion from the Synogogues.

Yes, because they were claiming prophecies to have been fulfilled which were either not fulfilled or not prophecies (according to Jewish scholars).

In spite of that, their sect grew by leaps and bounds throughout the Roman World - literally every where except the East, Africa, and the Americas. Your comparison fails.

So, the only difference you have identified then is one of popularity. Many people believe in the Christian God, but not many believe in alien abductions, so one belief is justified while the other is not. I’m sure you’re aware how silly that is.

So? Paul was a tough nut, as were most of the Jews. But Christ had a special use for Paul, who knows why. Yes he had a personal experience. And the same has been true for most believers at one time or another, but not so dramatic.

Right, so you agree then that someone can hear and reject claims made by “prophets” and then be convinced to change their mind by a personal experience?

As I said, I have no wish to, I already know where the truth lies. And I don’t have time to argue with all those any more than I would have time to argue with the great intellects in your crowd who are roaming the around the world today. I do what I can with the tools I have.

Fair enough, but without knowledge of the prophecies which are made you can’t really back up claims about prophecies being fulfilled.

No the warning came only a few days before the Romans arrived. It came and they fled into Asia Minor. It is recounted by Josephus I believe. Any way, one of the early historians.

Ok, I’m confused. You said that Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem 70 years before it happened. So how did the warning arrive only a few days before?

Incidentally, you are aware that in those times people would have known of the approach of a large army days or weeks before it arrived anyway right? Armies in those days were large slow moving beasts with large baggage trains and usually small towns of camp followers behind them. News could travel further in a day than an army could move in a week.

So a warning a few days before an attack would have arrived AFTER the news of the approaching army. Which makes it rather less impressive.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Cool, happy to have helped.
Ok, well if you feel like identifying some logical incoherence then I’d be interested to hear it.

I have already done so.

??? I did. I identified 3 of them in the post you replied to…

“This seems to imply that you have already had it explained to you that atheism and agnosticism are different answers to different questions… That you already know that atheists aren’t necessarily materialists and certainly don’t need to assert such a position… That you already know that truth and falsehood of statements are not dependent on the existence of some god…”

You seem to have applied one definition, and I a different. Some atheists may not realize they are materialists, yet, in fact they must be. I never said the truth or falsehood of statements depended on the existence of God. But some certainly do.

Er, no. It really is a classic “god of the gaps” argument. It’s a particular type of the “argument from ignorance” fallacy. What it essentially says is

“I don’t have an explanation for X other than Y, therefore the cause must be Y”

People used to make the argument like this

“I don’t have an explanation for Lightning other than Zeus, therefore the cause must be Zeus”

Now they say

“I don’t have an explanation for The Big Bang other than God, therefore the cause must be God”

Of course you would say that. Any time you disagree with an inference made from philosophical reasoning, you drag out the same old carnard.

Or maybe they (like Anthony Flew) fell into making a logical error like the one above. Or maybe they were given access to some evidence which is currently denied to me. Or…

The point is that if your arguments were so solid, a brilliant man like Flew would not have changed his mind. Of course he is not the only well known abdication. Just google the question.

Yes, and as I said also people who simply no longer hold the beliefs they teach. Some of them still do a good job as ministers incidentally.

So? I can’t help what they do.

Well there’s three of them at the top of this post. Other recent examples include your misunderstanding of why atheists care about religious beliefs. The reason that most people reject your religions “revelations” as a source of truth. That we could detect some of the activities of spiritual things even if we couldn’t detect spiritual things at all. That personal experience is convincing while unsupported claims are not…

I’d call that grabbing at straws. The reasons for abandoning one’s Faith are many. I never pretended to know them all. I certainly don’t know that most people reject Revelation, how did you reach that conclusion? Your contention that we could be able to detect the existence of spiritual beings is definitely wrong. I don’t think you will find much agreement to that. On the last point, the men I cited have a real history behind them.Besides the message they have given us is internally coherent and the moral system they handed on is unsurpassed in the history of man. That alone is evidence of no mean sort. It is evidence that they spoke the truth.

It doesn’t seem to be. The catholic dictionary has quite a lengthy article about gnosticism etc but it’s quite clear that this relates to knowledge, not belief. There seems to be little debate that theism and atheism are believing and not believing in god claims.

Well, you just didn’t read far enough. " A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labour "

A little too quick to jump to conclusions, huh.

They can, whoever said otherwise? But obviously they would need to be able to support their premises, just like scientists do. Hence the challenge.

But how do you think that possible, if you reject, out of hand, philosophical reasoning, which is reasoning, by use of inference, from the things which exist. You and your crowd have rejected the God of creation for the god of science. Or eased your consciences by the middle road of postponing decision.

To the best of my knowledge this is not true. If you know of a paper showing the detection of a soul then please could you provide me with a reference? I’d be very interested to read it.

I can refer you to books, You can start with Aristotle and Thomas. Would you like the links? Of course they reason from inference.

I merely pointed it out to show how silly ( to use one of your favorite pejoratives ) it is to suppose you can detect the presence of a spirit using some sophisticated instrument

end part 1

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

I agree, that was the point I was addressing. Two instances of pure act would not have potentialities relative to each other. So would be truly indistinguishable. But that’s only a problem for our observation of them, not for the existence of them.

You have it backwards. The two twins have potentialities relative to each other and yet are still indistinguishable (ie. identical in the non-logical sense). Two instances of pure act, to be non-identical in the logical sense (as twins are non-identical in the logical sense) would have to have potentialities relative to each other. But that would produce an immediate contradiction, so there cannot be two distinct instances of pure act.

Ok, well then that doesn’t seem to be a problem if our pure act is not self aware in itself. Like the multiverse concept.

How is that a consequence of what I have said? As I alluded when we started discussing the topic of how a Thomist would show that pure act is “self-aware” (#367), God’s self-cognition can be derived from earlier conclusions that God is an intellect and is metaphysically simple.

Sure, but then you’d go back to having to show that the 5 ways are all referring to the same thing again. Which is where we came from.

Yes, and that is a corollary of the argument that multiple instances of pure act are impossible. So one would argue that the supreme intellect, ie. the conclusion of the Fifth Way, is pure act, so that it is identical to the unmoved mover, and so on.

Ok, but again that doesn’t seem to be a problem if the thing which is purely actual includes all the things which we are trying to explain the existence of.

Well, then the suggestion faces a further difficulty in that the multiverse is composed of composites which are mutable, but composition and mutability are excluded by pure act. (And it does not help to say that the components of the multiverse are only mutable in time, for that is the relevant sense of mutable. If the divine substance had mutable parts in time, then divine immutability would be contradicted. And the idea of the divine substance having parts would, of course, contradict divine simplicity.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 2, Candide begins.

Right, because as far as we can tell the mind is an emergent property of the activity of the brain. So when we have a physical activity which appears to explain what is going on, and no evidence of anything non-physical going on. People tend to apply Occam’s razor not posit the additional “soul” element.

As I said, the soul is there, but they refuse to make the connection. Thus proving my point. Occam’s razor has nothing to do with it or with anything else. It is just an irrational excuse for refusing to accept a difficult conclusion one does not want to face.

But angels and gods should also all be detectable if they interact with the universe. That’s the point really, at whatever point they interact with the universe we live in we must be able to detect them if we’re watching carefully enough.

Absolute nonesense, pure science fiction. Your soul is interacting with your brain right now, it is giving you life, it governs hundreds of your activities automatically and you refuse to recognize the interaction. That is why I say you assertion is hopeless.

Linus2nd