I’m an atheist. My Catholic father thinks I’ll go to heaven

[Atreju]

The problem with this is that you’re just defining the first causes ‘God’, but that means God could be anything, including something with no intelligence, no personality, no consciousness. God by this definition could just be like some sort of esoteric quantum field or something unrecognizable like that.

 

[Kima]

We may disagree, but just as @MagdalenaRita said, someone or something has always been there. That is something we have to agree upon. I truly believe that is God, and that God has always existed. You may have some other way to explain it in, but you have to believe that something have always existed, and you mights as well call that something for God.

Atheism requires a lot more faith to believe in. It´s illogical. How could any human being be completely different if it wasn´t for the fact that there is a God? How could every single snowflake be different if it wasn´t for God? How do you and I manage to speak to each other from opposite parts of the world, even in different timezones if it wasn´t for the fact that God let it happen?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Well first we know it has to have intelligence because it had to be intelligent to create our world and to be the first cause He has to be eternal.

 

[Kima]

You will be forgiven from your sins if you choose to turn to God and ask for it.
God wants to forgive you, and all of your sins and wrongdoings.
You just simply have to believe in Him and ask for His forgiveness.

God loves you and want you to believe in Him. He is constantly ready and wanting to forgive you and He will do so, as long as you believe in Him and choose to ask for His grace and mercy.

If you are Christian but struggling to see how God may forgive your sins I would recommend you to talk to a priest. If you go to confession, you will be absolved from your sins and fully reconziled with God.

 

[Atreju]

We may disagree, but just as @MagdalenaRita said, someone or something has always been there. That is something we have to agree upon. I truly believe that is God, and that God has always existed. You may have some other way to explain it in, but you have to believe that something have always existed, and you mights as well call that something for God.

Atheism requires a lot more faith to believe in. It´s illogical. How could any human being be completely different if it wasn´t for the fact that there is a God? How could every single snowflake be different if it wasn´t for God? How do you and I manage to speak to each other from opposite parts of the world, even in different timezones if it wasn´t for the fact that God let it happen?

I dont understand, we talk to people in different time zones because Alexander Graham bell invented the telephone. Snowflakes and humans are explained by physical chemistry and genetics.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Where did Alexander Graham bell come from? Where did snow flakes come from?

 

[Wesrock]

The problem with this is that you’re just defining the first causes ‘God’, but that means God could be anything, including something with no intelligence, no personality, no consciousness. God by this definition could just be like some sort of esoteric quantum field or something unrecognizable like that.

Well, the First Cause can be demonstrated as purely actual, non-composite, not extended in space, immutable, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and acting voluntarily. So quantum fields or invisible unicorns don’t quite fit the bill.

 

[Atreju]

Well first we know it has to have intelligence because it had to be intelligent to create our world and to be the first cause He has to be eternal.

Neither of those actually follow logically. It is logically possible for an unintelligent thing to cause something to happen, and it is logically possible for the first cause to not be eternal, it could just initiate causality then cease to exist.

Again I feel a need to stress that I believe in God but am just trying to show how these arguments are not good logically. They often require you to assume the conclusion. That’s why some people dont believe them, and why no one is really convinced to believe in God because of logic. People come to believe in God because of spiritual experience, not logical argument.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s not really being explained very well in the few posts I read, so I don’t fault you for your objections here.

 

[Atreju]

Atreju:

The problem with this is that you’re just defining the first causes ‘God’, but that means God could be anything, including something with no intelligence, no personality, no consciousness. God by this definition could just be like some sort of esoteric quantum field or something unrecognizable like that.

Well, the First Cause can be demonstrated as purely actual, non-composite, not extended in space, immutable, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and acting voluntarily. So quantum fields or invisible unicorns don’t quite fit the bill.

I bolded the bits which dont follow logically.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Mr Bell came from the sexual reproduction of his parents, snowflakes are formed in a natural crystallization process of water.

 

[Wesrock]

MagdalenaRita:

Well first we know it has to have intelligence because it had to be intelligent to create our world and to be the first cause He has to be eternal.

Neither of those actually follow logically. It is logically possible for an unintelligent thing to cause something to happen, and it is logically possible for the first cause to not be eternal, it could just initiate causality then cease to exist.

As I said, it’s not being explained well. Theologians have presented rational arguments for why it cannot be other than eternal, immutable, etc… And it hasn’t been explained in this topic what’s meant by causation either, or a difference between accidental efficient causation and essential efficient causation established, yadda yadda… such that these objections don’t work, though one might backtrack further and object on the basis of transcendental idealism perhaps being a more rational position to take than realism, or something along those lines, not that I agree.

I’m just rambling now.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Atreju:

The problem with this is that you’re just defining the first causes ‘God’, but that means God could be anything, including something with no intelligence, no personality, no consciousness. God by this definition could just be like some sort of esoteric quantum field or something unrecognizable like that.

Well, the First Cause can be demonstrated as purely actual, non-composite, not extended in space, immutable, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and acting voluntarily. So quantum fields or invisible unicorns don’t quite fit the bill.

I bolded the bits which dont follow logically.

They do follow logically, they just haven’t been logically presented here.

 

[Kima]

His parents didn´t create him. God chose to create him. Many couples have intercourse without it ending up with a pregnancy. It´s a meaning by every single one of them, and only God get´s to have the final word on whether a life is going to be created or not. God creates and values every single life.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

And where did all that start?

 

[TheLittleLady]

What you state is a religious belief.

You and I believe that God created a natural world and set to motion natural laws that govern everything including sexual reproduction.

The vast majority of women have reproductive cycles where the are fertile for a couple of days each month. Should those women have intercourse during that fertile time, or a couple of days before that fertile time, the chances are high that she will conceive.

The bodies simply work according to the way they were designed.

Using religious beliefs, that God is the author of life, is not an effective apologetic for the modern atheist.

I’d suggest speaking from philosophy.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The arguments follow logic. If you want deeper, more in depth explanation, I suggest the Kolbe center. I am not going deep into the argument while typing on a cell phone but I think if you check out credible sites you will find God can be explained with logic also.
The concept of an eternal necessary being is not arbitrary but required by reason.

 

[Atreju]

The big problem is the assumption that the first cause must be unchanging and eternal. To prove that you would need to prove that it could not have changed at the inception of the universe. Usually this is done by some hand waving about how the first cause would exist outside of our time. But by affecting causality initially, it becomes subject to the possibility of change. It is just too easy to suppose a state that exists at t=0 that causes the causal chain to begin, and then stops existing in that way.

 

[Wesrock]

I’d suggest speaking from philosophy.

Your post just brought something to mind for me. I don’t at all underestimate the power of a faith experience in converting someone. I think many people operate that way. But what philosophy has done for me is help me truly grasp in a concrete way that we do not believe in a “sky wizard” and why objections based on comparisons to invisible unicorns and magical elves are completely missing the point. I have a much fuller apprecation for who I have faith in knowing what God is not.

 

[Wesrock]

The big problem is the assumption that the first cause must be unchanging and eternal. To prove that you would need to prove that it could not have changed at the inception of the universe. Usually this is done by some hand waving about how the first cause would exist outside of our time. But by affecting causality initially, it becomes subject to the possibility of change. It is just too easy to suppose a state that exists at t=0 that causes the causal chain to begin, and then stops existing in that way.

None of this objection makes sense in response to Aquinas’ Prime Mover argument, for example, as it completely misses the line of argument, which has nothing to do with the start of the universe or a t=0.