How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[PRmerger]

Nope. Incorrect.

Fair enough.

Correct me, then.

Unsupported metaphysical assumption.

LOL!

Again, the cognitive dissonance this engenders.

No sane person believes that whatever begins to exist can just pop up magically, without a cause.

Of course, to preserve the semblance of sanity, someone here can use quotation marks to reassign new distinctions to “a cause” or to “begins to exist”.

But we all recognize the special pleading that is going on when this occurs.

 

[PRmerger]

Neither of us have any. We are reduced to wishful speculation. But as you said somewhere, if you have no evidence I am wrong, then why wouldn’'t you believe it?

So, there is a double standard here again, friend?

“I’ll consider the possibility of this concept without a shred of evidence”

BUT WAIT!

“I won’t consider the possibility of this concept since there’s not compelling evidence”.

 

[Bradski]

But if someone thinks that life has no meaning, is “utterly tragic”, has no dignity, and is pointless without a god…I think it’s better that he believes in one of them if it makes her happier.

I’ll second that. The guy sounded suicidal. Whatever gets you through the night…

 

[Bradski]

So, there is a double standard here again, friend?

“I’ll consider the possibility of this concept without a shred of evidence”

BUT WAIT!

“I won’t consider the possibility of this concept since there’s not compelling evidence”.

I’ll consider any reasonable concept without needing any hard evidence in order to be able to consider it. But whether I ultimately reject it ot not will depend on the evidence you supply.

 

[PRmerger]

It surely matters to me if it’s true or not.

And it would matter to you if your mentally sane children believed in a lie, right, even if it made them happy?

But if someone thinks that life has no meaning, is “utterly tragic”, has no dignity, and is pointless without a god…I think it’s better that he believes in one of them if it makes her happier.

What if your 26 yr old daughter, otherwise mentally sane, decided that she was happier living her life as a 6 yr old?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...en/derivatives/article_307/trans13n-2-web.jpg

She is ecstatically happy now, and was on the edge of the ledge before this.

You’d be ok with this, yeah?

 

[Solmyr]

Right.

No one asserts that because he knows how absurd it sounds.

But, of course, it’s the only conclusion one can conclude when one denies God’s existence.

No, it is NOT the ONLY logical conclusion. The other one is that the universe simply exists. Just like the assumption that God simply exists. And God’s alleged existence STILL has no explanatory value.

So you can see why we Believers are scratching our heads at the cognitive dissonance.

Atheists have to embrace some really ludicrous ideas in order to remain atheists.

Nothing more ludicrous than “God simply exists”.

I have no problem with having a conversation with someone who has a different starting point of view. But I would expect a logical line of reasoning. To assume that “God simply exists” is exactly as logical as to assume that the “universe simply exists”. For you to prove that yours is correct you need to establish that the “universe simply exists” contains a “logical error”. That is impossible.

No sane person believes that whatever begins to exist can just pop up magically, without a cause.

Where is the “magic”? You MUST prove that whatever begins to exist MUST have an external cause for its existence. As the saying goes “freely asserted, freely denied”.

And free decisions made by humans are still “uncaused”, so they are not part of any “predetermined causative chains”.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it is NOT the ONLY logical conclusion. The other one is that the universe simply exists.

This is in direct contrast to science and philosophy.

Science indicates that the universe had a beginning.

So to say that the universe “simply exists”, or is eternal, is to deny science.

It also is not a concept that is logical.

If the universe “simply exists”, and has always existed, and is therefore eternal, we could never get to the moment in time that is “now”.

But we are at T=0.

Therefore, the universe cannot have simply always existed.

Take this metaphor: if you have a train with an infinite number of cars you’re never going to get to the present day car.

 

[PRmerger]

One big difference here is…Bradski isn’t telling you that you should believe his theory…and he’s not telling you that if you don’t, your life is meaningless and you will most likely suffer eternal damnation after you die.

If there’s any Catholic here who tells you that you should believe in God, and that your life is meaningless, and that you will go to hell after you die, you can tell him that what he’s asserting is contrary to Catholic teaching.

And that would make me very, very delighted to see this exchange.

Oh, the irony of a non-Believer telling a Catholic what his faith teaches and knowing it better than he does!

Sweet, sweet amusement to me!

 

[PRmerger]

And free decisions made by humans are still “uncaused”, so they are not part of any “predetermined causative chains”.

LOL!!

You do realize, Sol, that in this very statement you have just argued for the existence of God, yes?

In order to have a “decision” you need a Decider, yeah?

Think about it…

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know all the details of that story, but I think that woman–and the couple she’s living with–is working out a **deep psychological problem **with what she’s doing, from what I’ve read. I hope you are not making fun of her. She seems very troubled.

I find it very, very curious indeed that you have this attitude.

“Deep psychological problem”, hmmm…

Isn’t this exactly what folks said decades ago about homosexuals?

Now, the meme is that this is who they are and they are quite sane, thank you very much!

One would think that you would recognize this and attach the same meme to this type of behavior.

After all, what’s the difference, really, in the thought process?

This is who she is, she was “born that way”. Her true self is being set free,

How curious indeed that you would call this a “deep psychological problem.”

Yes, it would matter to me very much if my mentally sane children believed in something that was a lie or wasn’t true.

Egg-zactly.

That’s why I’d bring them up without religion.

So it’s odd to see you say that as long as that atheist-convert is happy, you’re good with it.

Truth should matter, right?

And then happiness comes secondary to that.

Not happiness first.

At the expense of truth.

Does it matter to you if you or your children believe in something that is not true?.

Well, it depends. If they believe in Mother Goose, and talking animals, and fairies and leprechauns, then I’m good with that until they come to the realization of the truth. Usually somewhere around age 8 or so.

But if they believe that they can defy gravity, or buy a plane ticket with monopoly money or get through life believing that “Your a good man, Charlie Brown” is correct grammatically, or that Bruce Jenner is a woman, or that 2 women can marry each other, or that 5 people can marry each other, then…

 

[chris62]

I’d love to respond to your question about Our Lady of Guadalupe and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration…but I’ve asked you twice to further explain your question–which I find unclear–and I’m still waiting for you to do so.

.

infallible-catholic.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/miraculous-image-of-our-lady-of.html

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Science indicates that the universe had a beginning.

This is factually incorrect.

If the universe “simply exists”, and has always existed, and is therefore eternal, we could never get to the moment in time that is “now”…
Take this metaphor: if you have a train with an infinite number of cars you’re never going to get to the present day car.

Your assertion is that “if the universe is infinite then there exists a past time from which it is impossible to reach the current time.”

Let us define the current year as year = 0. Next year will be year 1, and last year was year -1. By numbering the years this way, all years will receive a number, n, such that n∈ℤ (that means that n must be an integer.)

Returning to your assertion, can you please provide number of the year from which it is impossible to reach the current year? Keep in mind that ∞∉ℤ

 

[chris62]

It seems that pointing out that those who are doing the investigating are far from what you would describe as being unbiased and are not qualified in their areas of so-called expertise is the sign of an immature mind.
.

It is beyond the pale when some anonymous atheist on the other side of the world calls a Noble Prize winner in Chemistry a liar.

 

[Solmyr]

This is in direct contrast to science and philosophy.

No, it is NOT.

Science indicates that the universe had a beginning.

No, it does not.

So to say that the universe “simply exists”, or is eternal, is to deny science.

No, it does not.

It also is not a concept that is logical.

Says who?

If the universe “simply exists”, and has always existed, and is therefore eternal, we could never get to the moment in time that is “now”.

Again. you simply do NOT understand. The concept “simply exists” does not imply “always existed” nor does it imply “eternal” - whatever that may be.

In order to have a “decision” you need a Decider, yeah?

We are the deciders, Think about it,

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It is beyond the pale when some anonymous atheist on the other side of the world calls a Noble Prize winner in Chemistry a liar.

He did win the Nobel prize. He also worked to develop nerve agents for the Nazis. But hey, only one of those tidbits gives the impression you’re looking for.

 

[Bradski]

If there’s any Catholic here who tells you that you should believe in God, and that your life is meaningless, and that you will go to hell after you die, you can tell him that what he’s asserting is contrary to Catholic teaching.

Here’s a list of what Catholics in this forum consider the atheist’s lot (mine in particular):

I believe that nothing has value
I’ve been tricked.,
I think that life is Random.
I ignore evidence.
The only bonds I have with others are due to my selfish reasons.
My conscience has been socially engineered.
My values are fantasies.
I don’t consider evidence.
My beliefs are circular.
I am immune to reason.
I embrace hopelessness.
I am a nihilist.
I think that life is empty of reason.
I consider good and evil are not really relevant.
I claim to be righteous.
My spirit is weak.
I can’t be trusted with life.
I have no soul.
I’m dim and fading out of life (?).
I believe in dead matter.
My values are small.
I believe that nothing matters.
I have no direction.
Existence for me is meaningless.
My beliefs are inhuman and limited.
I am not philosophically adept.
I’m dishonest in some things.
I don’t accept that I exist.
I don’t read philosophy.

And all that from a few dozen posts in one single thread. It would seem that everyone in that thread thought that a belief in God would not result in any of those negatives. That a belief in God would cure me of those ills. I don’t think anyone actually said I was going to hell, but the message was loud and very clear.

If you don’t believe in God, then life is meaningless, values are fantasies, nothing matters etc etc ad nauseum.

 

[Bradski]

It is beyond the pale when some anonymous atheist on the other side of the world calls a Noble Prize winner in Chemistry a liar.

Did someone call someone else a liar? I must have missed that.

I do recall calling into question the prospect of bias in regard to two of the investigators. Seeing as they both were members of an organisation that existed to perpetuate the matter as a miracle, it seemed that they were opening themselves up to accusations of bias in carrying out their own investigations. The term ‘confirmation bias’ might be applicable.

And I also remember mentioning that quotes from Kuhn (the nerve gas guy) were unattributed and I asked you if you had any confirmation that he actually said what he was reported to have said.

The only response I have had so far is a demand that I grow up (you sound like my wife) and an accusation that I called Herr Kuhn a liar. The first I’ll take on advisement and the second is untrue.

Feel free to retract the second at your convenience.

 

[Bradski]

An anonymous blog?
You’re getting your information from an anonymous blog?

Who wrote this?

I’ll take a look-see.

You must read the bit about the images in the eye. One eye was magnified to such a resolution that they could apparently make up 13 figures reflected in the iris. Pretty good, eh? And they could tell who was who. Because one was apparently Bishop Zumarraga so what they did was to magnify HIS eyes and discovered a reflection of the guy who presented the painting to the bishop - Juan Diego, back in whenever.

Not sure why they didn’t enlarge his eyes as well. Maybe because we’re down to the size of bacteria here. A dust particle would be about 100 times larger than the image of Snr Diego.

 

[Bradski]

Hey Bradski,

I’m offended that you capped “Random” and not “circular”.

Do the two “matter” ones cancel each other out?.

Like matter and anti-matter.

 

[chris62]

You must read the bit about the images in the eye. One eye was magnified to such a resolution that they could apparently make up 13 figures reflected in the iris. Pretty good, eh? And they could tell who was who. Because one was apparently Bishop Zumarraga so what they did was to magnify HIS eyes and discovered a reflection of the guy who presented the painting to the bishop - Juan Diego, back in whenever.

Not sure why they didn’t enlarge his eyes as well. Maybe because we’re down to the size of bacteria here. A dust particle would be about 100 times larger than the image of Snr Diego.

Once again, the anonymous atheist labels the professionals liars.
Pathetic, but oh so typical.