I am an atheist thread 2

[mgrfin]

Justin:

Philosophy is an art and a science that has several disciplines, some of which are ethics, logic and theology. One might accurately say that all theology is philosophy but not all philosophy is theology. A’s question is regarding this discipline of theology, as he is asking the question whether God or gods exist.

So, yes, i agree that A’s discussion thread would be at home in the Philosophy forum, as would just about every other discussion thread! Since his topic is about theology, i don’t see a problem with keeping it here. Now, if he had started a discussion about logical fallacies or about a specific philosopher, the Philosophy forum might be the best place for such a conversation. However, his question is addressed to all who believe in a God or gods, which includes others besides Catholics, so this is, in my opinion, the best place to post it.

Philosophy is not a science. Neither is Theology.

Last time I went to college, Theology was not part of Philosophy.

Theology depends on Revelation. That is a ‘deus ex machina’ as far as philosophy is concerned.

peace

 

[ontologysue]

That is entirely possible. You may need to clarify for me what you think there is besides the material though. I mean, those logical abstractions you mention are still representations of the material realm.

No, they’re not. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical truth, it is not dependent on any experiment or verification in the material realm. The concept of an isosoles triangle exists, it is not material, nor does it depend on anything material. A tautology, ie., either it’s raining outside or it’s not–that’s true whether there’s any such thing as rain. You don’t even need to go look out your window to know if that’s true.

It wasn’t an explanation though, was it? It was a “there is a mystery about the precise origins of our language, therefore goddidit.” When you say "Your “buts” here make my point, “it doesn’t appear to be used for language,” etc. " It kind of sounds like you are expecting other primates and animals to be naturally using some kind of human language, which would be far more mysterious than the current unknown origins, if you ask me.

This all seems a little confusing to me. I never said “goddidit” to fill in the gaps in our current understanding of language. You put those words in my mouth. My point was, 1) scientists cannot find any evolutionary evidence that credibly supports a natural progression in evolution from the “trousered ape” to the human syntax/meaning triad. 2) the examples you give of semiotic scholars supports my view that, although, on a gross level similarities can be demonstrated, still, the human capacity seems more and more an “anomoly” in the sense that it appears to be another “animal” all together in mind/brain development: 3) What the implications of current scholarship in language and consciousness, along with the irreducible complexity found in the fields of micro-biology and quantum physics, indicates is that of a meta-physical reality (intelligence, information, wisdom, a thought) underlies these processes, perhaps the material is “embedded” in this meta-physical reality?

As Richard Feynman is supposed to have said "“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” but rather than postulating the non-physical (if you prefer that term?) it is perhaps better to rethink “what IS physical?”

Feynman also said, “truth can be recognized by its beauty and simplicity.”
What quantum studies are demonstrating, is the possibility of a perfectly “simple” reality, not limited by the limitations of atoms, the physical. “A multiplicity of atoms can possess no unitary indivisible thought and cannot compare two ideas. That which makes the comparison must have simultaneously in itself both states. But, a material atom cannot have two different conditions simultaneously, or simultaneously execute two different motions. Matter of itself cannot be eternal or uncreated, as it is inert. If it existed, in itself, in virtue of its own nature, it would be in either of two conditions, rest or motion.” This from a German physicist, “Der Kosmos.”

I’'m not sure what findings in neuro-biology you are referring to, unless of course you are classifying electricity and organic chemistry, etc outside the scope of material concepts?

For example, from David Berlinski, “each molecule of DNA is embodied intelligence, because it contains information in a set of signs that have their own meaning.” The complexity and purposeful processes, the finely tuned laws that allow natural selection to operate, for example, or, who came up with the idea of replication and embedded ‘instruction sheets’ for the reproductive capabilities that run natural selection?

This fragment is like fingernails on a blackboard.

C S Lewis says it better: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be made up of atoms.”

Hence, my question to you, if you’re a materialist, you must believe that there is only matter, no purpose, no meaning, just random ‘motions of atoms,’ therefore, you refute your own argument.

 

[_A]

I thought that the ‘irreducible complexity’ idea was old and forgotten. Why use it here? Is there something which you have found is irreducibly complex?

 

[dolphinlove]

I thought that the ‘irreducible complexity’ idea was old and forgotten. Why use it here? Is there something which you have found is irreducibly complex?

hows the fishing going A?

 

[_A]

hows the fishing going A?

I haven’t been lately. The lakes are freezing, and I am a big chicken about being out on the ice (a pal of mine died doing that a little while ago). I think I will wait for Feb/March before I even walk out there.
I was mostly more of a summer fisher anyhow.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If this god you describe knows everything, and has no other characteristics, I don’t even think you are claiming that he exists.
Let’s get a fuller description before we begin.

A:

For the sake of argument, i think you might agree that if God exists, and this God created the universe in which we live, he she or it would know all there is to know about that which he, she or it created. He, she or it would also have the power to create it all, of course. The very laws of physics and even the four dimensions in which we live and might even be the creation of this God, which he, she or it might alter to suit his, her or its purposes. I believe you might also agree that if such a God exists, we might know nothing more about this God unless he, she or it reveals himself, herself or itself to you or i.

The starting place for believing (or rejecting) the idea of God is the universe itself. If you or i come to the conclusion that it has not always existed and that it has been designed by some intelligent force or being, that leaves us with God (or whatever you want to call him, her or it). If my conclusion and yours is that the universe could not possibly be an accident, we might reasonably conclude that this God is:

A. Omniscient

and

B. Omnipotent
If you cannot accept these two conclusions, then you and i cannot move beyond this simple definition of the essence of God. It would take more discussion to convince you, if indeed you are willing to be confused by the facts!



If you are willing to concede that it is possible, though not certain, that an all-knowing and all-powerful being or force exists, then we may discuss a more detailed definition of the nature of he, she or it.

What do you say, A?

 

[_A]

A:

For the sake of argument, i think you might agree that if God exists, and this God created the universe in which we live, he she or it would know all there is to know about that which he, she or it created.

I have to disagree here, S4J. Just because someone created something doesn’t mean that they know everything about it. Look at the internet - some few people created it, and those few have no way of knowing all of it’s contents.

He, she or it would also have the power to create it all, of course. The very laws of physics and even the four dimensions in which we live and might even be the creation of this God, which he, she or it might alter to suit his, her or its purposes. I believe you might also agree that if such a God exists, we might know nothing more about this God unless he, she or it reveals himself, herself or itself to you or i.

I don’t agree with this, either. If there were a god who created everything, assuming that this god is hiding from us is just a little paranoid to me. Why would I agree that we can’t know about this god just because he doesn’t want us to? We learn plenty from beings that don’t cooperate.

The starting place for believing (or rejecting) the idea of God is the universe itself.

The universe is not evidence of a god, or a creator. It is evidence only of the universe.

If you or i come to the conclusion that it has not always existed and that it has been designed by some intelligent force or being, that leaves us with God (or whatever you want to call him, her or it).

If we did, yes. What would lead me to that conclusion?

If my conclusion and yours is that the universe could not possibly be an accident, we might reasonably conclude that this God is:

A. Omniscient

and

B. Omnipotent

Excellent, here we are at evidence that your described god could not exist.
If he knows all, and is all powerful, how is it that he keeps failing utterly in his attempts to eliminate sin? He created sin, and satan, so why does he ‘lose’ so many souls? If he were really all-powerful, wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to tell which religions were nonsense and which were not? I mean by average, ordinary people.
If he knows everything and is all powerful, how come there are so many errors and contradictions in the bible? Is it possible that it is not a fax from heaven?

If you are willing to concede that it is possible, though not certain, that an all-knowing and all-powerful being or force exists, then we may discuss a more detailed definition of the nature of he, she or it.

What do you say, A?

I think that all-knowing and all-powerful is a potent combination. All you have to do is add omnibenevolent and you have a self-destructing description.
Your god either *likes *all the evil that exists and *planned *it that way, making him evil, or is not all-powerful or all-good.

Certainly not worthy of my worship. What has this being done to demonstrate that I should worship it? By the way, I don’t worship power.

 

[ontologysue]

I thought that the ‘irreducible complexity’ idea was old and forgotten. Why use it here? Is there something which you have found is irreducibly complex?

Actually, it’s not quite as old as the “materialist” idea!

 

[_A]

Actually, it’s not quite as old as the “materialist” idea!

So what is ‘irreducibly complex’, ontologysue? Also, if it can be reduced, does your opinion change? Or just your arguments?

 

[Armor_of_God]

I would have to guess that the evidence is still being collected and assembled. That there is not a clear answer yet doesn’t mean much to me.

Would it mean more to you if you had a heart condition, or were recovering from a heart attack?

 

[Armor_of_God]

With such rewards and penalties in place, it will be very difficult to show that they have not affected your choice.

Going by your perception of who the Christian God is, I understand how you might see it that way. Somewhere along the way in our lives, you and I have arrived at very different notions/experiences of Who God is.

The way I see it, the greatest joy of Heaven is not to be free of pain, suffering, sadness, longing. Rather, it is to spend eternity with this strange yet wonderful Being Who has loved me for all time. It is to finally meet face-to-face this Being Who knows me better than I do, Who created me for some purpose I cannot fully comprehend at present.

 

[_A]

Would it mean more to you if you had a heart condition, or were recovering from a heart attack?

The fact that there is some disagreement means just that - there is some disagreement. When a clear hypothesis is presented (such as “Eating wheat causes diabetes because it is too high in sugar”), then scientists can try to prove it wrong. If they fail for long enough, it becomes a theory - still subject to change with contrary evidence, but good enough to work with.
It isn’t easy to make clear hypothesis about so complex a subject as biology. That doesn’t mean that medical science is all wrong, it just means that it will take longer to get the answers…actually, it may take a while to get the questions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The way I see it, the greatest joy of Heaven is not to be free of pain, suffering, sadness, longing. Rather, it is to spend eternity with this strange yet wonderful Being Who has loved me for all time.

Speaking from experience, what you just said is what christians use to camouflage the fact that what made them religious is the fear of hellfire and the reward of afterlife. Be true to yourself: Deep inside, its all about self preservation.

 

[Armor_of_God]

The fact that there is some disagreement means just that - there is some disagreement. When a clear hypothesis is presented (such as “Eating wheat causes diabetes because it is too high in sugar”), then scientists can try to prove it wrong. If they fail for long enough, it becomes a theory - still subject to change with contrary evidence, but good enough to work with.
It isn’t easy to make clear hypothesis about so complex a subject as biology. That doesn’t mean that medical science is all wrong, it just means that it will take longer to get the answers…actually, it may take a while to get the questions.

I think you are onto something there, A. Your explanation parallels very well with humanity’s search for understanding of God and the teachings of His Church.

 

[_A]

I think you are onto something there, A. Your explanation parallels very well with humanity’s search for understanding of God and the teachings of His Church.

…and the more we learn, the fewer ‘gaps’ he has to hide in.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Speaking from experience, what you just said is what christians use to camouflage the fact that what made them religious is the fear of hellfire and the reward of afterlife. Be true to yourself: Deep inside, its all about self preservation.

Yes, of course! It absolutely is about self preservation.

But not for the reasons you claim.

I love life and I love God. To not want to preserve my life would go against my very being. To not want to spend eternity with the One Who gave me this life and Who loves me eternally would go against my heart and soul.

 

[Armor_of_God]

…and the more we learn, the fewer ‘gaps’ he has to hide in.

Actually, I was speaking to the way that the Church passes on Her teachings through the Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit. It is when there are disputes on certain teachings or practices that the Church speaks out and clarifies, through Councils and other vehicles of discussion and discernment. I think if you find a similar method acceptable in the world of science, you may be open to understanding how this works in the Church.

 

[_A]

Yes, of course! It absolutely is about self preservation.

But not for the reasons you claim.

I love life and I love God. To not want to preserve my life would go against my very being. To not want to spend eternity with the One Who gave me this life and Who loves me eternally would go against my heart and soul.

Just how do you know that you are praying to the right god? I have heard that if you pick the wrong one, or worship in the wrong way, that he gets all vengeful.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I love life and I love God. To not want to preserve my life would go against my very being. To not want to spend eternity with the One Who gave me this life and Who loves me eternally would go against my heart and soul.

thats reasonable.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Just how do you know that you are praying to the right god? I have heard that if you pick the wrong one, or worship in the wrong way, that he gets all vengeful.

Not if you choose a not-so-jealous God to worship!