In what do atheists have Hope?

[warpspeedpetey]

First you back up your first claim there

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism

philosophypages.com/hy/3n.htm

these to start, but you can google aquinas as well as i.

now, what parts of first cause do you find unsatisfactory?

 

[crowonsnow]

Spock:

I am 62 years “young.”

JDaniel:

I’m two years older than you …

I feel like such a child.

 

[JDaniel]

I feel like such a child.

If the shoe fits!

You’re quite lucky - at least at this point in time!

jd

 

[Wildkit]

In my Faith Formation Class this morning, I remarked about the untold instances I did not know about in my life, but through this tool called the Internet, it had opened up a new world for me to help answer questions. Specifically,….miracles,….signs from my God!

As I tried to explain the issue of Atheism, and the inability to answer certain questions regarding God, (cut the molecule of life in half, and 1,000,000 more,….where did it come from?) And I am not talking about quarks. Where did it come from?

Specifically, Lanciano, Italy and the first miracle of the Eucharist. I can hypothasize till the cows come home. Yet, as I mentioned to my class, the scapels they had to remove that heart muscle in the 7th century was truly incredible!! More importantly, why wasn’t or is that piece of flesh ashes today, like some, not all, but some of the remains of folks who seeming died then? Why?

Check out: therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

I have heard a number of un believer’s remarks. In my opinion, it is a self justification for their position, nevertheless, I can also bring forth other miracles of the same nature that put the doubter’s position to shame.

I don’t need to go into all the other miracles for you and me to see,…….but tell me,….how and why did these occur? Furthermore, why are they all with a non Catholic Church?

Of course, I am making this all up,….but enjoy your question and more importantly what you discover!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*Excellent. Now show me one example of a non-physical “object” and it affecting a physical one. Every scientist will be nominating you for the Nobel prize. *

Well, of course this precisely makes the point that many “scientific” minds cannot abide the idea of knowledge other than what is scientific. Since there are many scientists who believe in God and the soul, their recognition of dimensions of a metaphysical or supernatural reality does not require the myopic demand of so many atheists that if God exists He must be proven visible in a petri dish or at the end of a telescope.

So there will be no Nobel Prize for theology, thank God!

The hope in God has its own prize to reach for … far and away more delectable than any science could offer … or, failing to reach … more horrible than any science *has offered *… such as being blown to smithereens at the center of an atomic blast.

 

[Spock]

Well, of course this precisely makes the point that many “scientific” minds cannot abide the idea of knowledge other than what is scientific. Since there are many scientists who believe in God and the soul, their recognition of dimensions of a metaphysical or supernatural reality does not require the myopic demand of so many atheists that if God exists He must be proven visible in a petri dish or at the end of a telescope.

Huh? You misunderstand me. It is not I who demand such exhibition. I have no quarrel with those who declare: “This is what I believe. I need no proof. Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it.”. Those, who purport that they can demonstrate God’s existence through fully secular means (like the attempts of Aquinas) are the ones I am challenging. They are the ones who say that God can be demonstrated, and when called up to show the evidence, they are the ones, who cannot.

So there will be no Nobel Prize for theology, thank God!

Since the Nobel prize was given to Gore, for his pseudo-science I can imagine that there might be…

The hope in God has its own prize to reach for … far and away more delectable than any science could offer … or, failing to reach … more horrible than any science *has offered *… such as being blown to smithereens at the center of an atomic blast.

The same-o, same-o carrot and stick. Believe in God and you will be rewarded. Don’t believe, and you will be punished. What else is new?

 

[crowonsnow]

If the shoe fits!

You’re quite lucky - at least at this point in time!

jd

Hey, get past the death thing. Just decide to transcend it and it’s done. I see myself in so many people and so many things that death just isn’t important anymore. I don’t want to move into a grave too soon but I can’t help but feel that when I look into our past and into our future it’s still me. You just have to learn to accept and identify. That doesn’t mean you want to be all those things you see, rather that you’ve been around as long as there’s been a universe, and so you’re not going away anytime soon. So chill. Don’t cheat yourself over death.

I should add that I find arguments for souls and other spirits unconvincing. Knowing that there is no soul is for me the ultimate freedom from superstition. Believing you have a soul is cheating yourself out of your own life.

For sure many people will claim that if they knew they were free of an afterlife they would immediately take up rape, murder, robbery, etc., because they would be free from responsibility for their actions. Not particularly enlightened or aspiring in their expectations I would muse. For the present good of humanity generally, better, I suppose, they continue to cling to their superstitions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*The same-o, same-o carrot and stick. Believe in God and you will be rewarded. Don’t believe, and you will be punished. What else is new? *

Rather curious how you refuse to see that science also rewards and punishes … I guess you don’t want to talk about medicine and nuclear weapons as carrots and sticks?

 

[JDaniel]

Huh? You misunderstand me. It is not I who demand such exhibition. I have no quarrel with those who declare: “This is what I believe. I need no proof. Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it.”. Those, who purport that they can demonstrate God’s existence through fully secular means (like the attempts of Aquinas) are the ones I am challenging. They are the ones who say that God can be demonstrated, and when called up to show the evidence, they are the ones, who cannot.

Spock:

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but, you KNOW that the five ways of St. Thomas are all over the internet. Not only that but they have been posted within the various threads of CAF, on almost a daily basis, for who knows how long and who knows how many times. They speak for themselves.

You don’t like them? It is up to you to prove them wrong. It is not up to me to prove them right. They’re already right. I could not re-state them any better, or any more concisely than St. Thomas already has. Are you trying to get me to do make-work?

You people have made the same bold statement that you have just made and yet, almost as soon as you are asked to do what I am about to ask you to do, you run. You are like seminar-posters that come to CAF to try out your nifty one liners and blurred mis-definitions over and over again. Do you think you’re unique? Start five new threads and copy and paste each proof, one by one, and go for it. You’ll find plenty of huckleberries here.

I am somewhat angry with you. I want something substantial that will compel me to take a harder look at non-theism. So far, all I find is the same old “I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know” rhetoric. That’s useless to me. I really need you to dig down deep and give me a studied rationale that refutes Aquinas. Even just one of the five.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

An interview with Antony Flew, the atheist recently turned theist, may be found here.

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/…FlewTheist.htm

A book by Schroeder influenced his thinking on Intelligent Design and also the Cosmological argument.

During the interview he drops the bombshell I have been long suspecting is true of virtually every atheist, though you will hardly find any who admit it. Flew, though no longer an atheist, still does not believe in a personal God and hopes there is no afterlife. Now there’s a revelation that could be followed up in a hundred different directions.

 

[JDaniel]

An interview with Antony Flew, the atheist recently turned theist, may be found here.

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/…FlewTheist.htm

A book by Schroeder influenced his thinking on Intelligent Design and also the Cosmological argument.

During the interview he drops the bombshell I have been long suspecting is true of virtually every atheist, though you will hardly find any who admit it. Flew, though no longer an atheist, still does not believe in a personal God and hopes there is no afterlife. Now there’s a revelation that could be followed up in a hundred different directions.

Charlemagne:

That link doesn’t work. Would you mind fixing it?

Thanks ever so much.

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

Spock:

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but, you KNOW that the five ways of St. Thomas are all over the internet. Not only that but they have been posted within the various threads of CAF, on almost a daily basis, for who knows how long and who knows how many times. They speak for themselves.

You don’t like them? It is up to you to prove them wrong. It is not up to me to prove them right. They’re already right. I could not re-state them any better, or any more concisely than St. Thomas already has. Are you trying to get me to do make-work?

You people have made the same bold statement that you have just made and yet, almost as soon as you are asked to do what I am about to ask you to do, you run. You are like seminar-posters that come to CAF to try out your nifty one liners and blurred mis-definitions over and over again. Do you think you’re unique? Start five new threads and copy and paste each proof, one by one, and go for it. You’ll find plenty of huckleberries here.

I am somewhat angry with you. I want something substantial that will compel me to take a harder look at non-theism. So far, all I find is the same old “I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know” rhetoric. That’s useless to me. I really need you to dig down deep and give me a studied rationale that refutes Aquinas. Even just one of the five.

Are you equating popularity with credibility?

 

[JDaniel]

Are you equating popularity with credibility?

Not at all. It took a while but finally I was able to fully grasp the logic of Aquinas, in the five proofs. I do not doubt the logic. I am just not sure of who the first cause, or prime mover, or topmost being is.

I like Warpspeed’s description of who he is from the multiple prophecies covering such a huge time span that foretold Christ’s arrival and life and purpose. That description gives me more hope than anything I’ve read from the non-theists herein.

That being said, I still like you. But I need strong proof that Warpspeedpetey is dead wrong. If you have some ideas, I promise I will listen to them.

Thanks,

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

Not at all. It took a while but finally I was able to fully grasp the logic of Aquinas, in the five proofs. I do not doubt the logic. I am just not sure of who the first cause, or prime mover, or topmost being is.

I like Warpspeed’s description of who he is from the multiple prophecies covering such a huge time span that foretold Christ’s arrival and life and purpose. That description gives me more hope than anything I’ve read from the non-theists herein.

That being said, I still like you. But I need strong proof that Warpspeedpetey is dead wrong. If you have some ideas, I promise I will listen to them.

Thanks,

jd

My normal response to someone who claims gods or devils or souls or spirits are real is to ask them to, “show me your soul,” or “show me a devil” or “show me a god” or “show me a spirit.”

What would be wrong with my request?

 

[RobbyS]

Not much to add to what crowonsnow said. (Great name, BTW! Schwarzaufweiss )

Life is wonderful and complex. Great experiences and sometime bad things happen. Usually, for most people, the good is significantly more than the bad. Right now, I am looking forward to travel to Europe by a transatlantic cruise and will stay with my grandson (and the other members of my family) for many months. Isn’t that a great reason to be happy?

As for hoping to have some form of afterlife: it would be great not to be confined to a few decades of existence. I would prefer life here, but if there is a continuation, I would welcome that, too. I would be more than happy, if I could meet my parents, and tell them again, how much I love them. (Fortunately I did it when they were alive). I just cannot believe that there is.

Of course, there is no hate in me toward believers. They are free to conduct their life as they see it best. Moreover, I know that they have something I don’t have. They have the feeling of unity with their respective deity, and they may experience religious rapture, which - as I was told - is a wonderful thing to have. Of course something akin to that can be achieved by intense meditation, or taking some drugs, too.

None of the so-called philosophical “proofs” for God are even remotely convincing to me. (The 5 proof of Aquinas were adequately refuted by Kant.) They are all based upon invalid premises, undefined and undefinable basic assumptions. In other words, they are the equivalents of asking the question: “what resides to the north from the North Pole?”. Invalid questions, without a possibility of answers.

Let me ask you something. You believe that the natural universe needs some explanation for its existence, or the existence of some of its attributes. For you the answer: “it is just what it is, without need of explanation” is insufficient. Yet, if the same question would be directed toward God’s existence, you would easily accept that God needs no explanation for his existence, God just exists. So you entertain the same principle (as we do) that there is something final, without need for explanation, which just “is”. Why are you surprised that for us, atheists, the final existence is the natural universe? It needs no “external” cause, it needs no explanation, it just “is”.

I am not even invoking the principle of Occam’s razor, though it is tempting. The problem is that you substitute something which clearly exists (the natural universe) with something for what there is absolutely no proof. (You may say that there is “evidence”, but that evidence is clearly insufficient for the atheists.) And in this process you invoke “magic”. Just how did God create the universe? He “willed” it? How is that different from magic? How is that an explanation? How does that clarify the process?

Sorry, if I said stuff beyond the intent of this thread. Please disregard this post if Idid. Best wishes.

One has to accept Aquinas “proofs” on their own terms, one of which they they are not intended to be “proofs.” And as for Kant’s “refutations,” they really don’t because Aquinas and Kant did not share the same suppositions. As for the universe, one has to ask with Bill Clinton what the meaning of “is”, is. All of us start with our own view of things, but we all share the thought that solipsim doesn’t cut it. We all avoid stepping front of buses.

 

[Spock]

Rather curious how you refuse to see that science also rewards and punishes … I guess you don’t want to talk about medicine and nuclear weapons as carrots and sticks?

Not the same, by a long shot. Nature is neutral, what we do with its powers is not neutral. As the saying goes: “a hammer can be used to build a house, and it also can be used to bash a head”. It is not the fault of the hammer.

 

[Spock]

One has to accept Aquinas “proofs” on their own terms, one of which they they are not intended to be “proofs.” And as for Kant’s “refutations,” they really don’t because Aquinas and Kant did not share the same suppositions.

Well put. And that is not what JD said. Logic itself is just a tool. A logical argument can be correct and still unsound, based upon the premises.

Every elephant can sing.
Jumbo is an elephant.
Therefore Jumbo can sing.

That is a logically valid, yet unsound argument.

As for the universe, one has to ask with Bill Clinton what the meaning of “is”, is. All of us start with our own view of things, but we all share the thought that solipsim doesn’t cut it. We all avoid stepping front of buses.

Right on. The fundamental question is the nature of existence. STEM is what we know, since (as you said) solipsism does not lead anywhere. Likewise we know that non-physical entites exist. Concepts and ideas. These are the product of our minds, whch are the products of our brains. Non-physical entities are “inert”, physical existence is “active”.

So we know two types of existence. The queston is, if there is a third type of existence, which is non-physical, yet active, which can influence the physical reality, yet is immune to the active physical actions.

This third kind of existence is what posited by Aquinas.

 

[Spock]

You don’t like them? It is up to you to prove them wrong. It is not up to me to prove them right. They’re already right. I could not re-state them any better, or any more concisely than St. Thomas already has. Are you trying to get me to do make-work?

I already did with the first cause. The refutation of them is also all over the internet.

I am somewhat angry with you.

Sorry to hear that, but that is not my problem.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Huh? You misunderstand me. It is not I who demand such exhibition. I have no quarrel with those who declare: “This is what I believe. I need no proof. Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it.”. Those, who purport that they can demonstrate God’s existence through fully secular means

(like the attempts of Aquinas) are the ones I am challenging. They are the ones who say that God can be demonstrated, and when called up to show the evidence, they are the ones, who cannot.

i have shown you the logical necessity of a non-physical first cause, we know it the same way that we know about subatomic particles, we now it from their effect.

i assume that you believe in sub atomic particles, though you will never be able to see one, with your eyes.

why dont you respond to this? the evidence has been offered to you several times, the same evidence science uses to establish the existence of other, intrinsically unobservable phenomenon.

what about this, is not evidence to you?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My normal response to someone who claims gods or devils or souls or spirits are real is to ask them to, “show me your soul,” or “show me a devil” or “show me a god” or “show me a spirit.”

What would be wrong with my request?

your asking for something that is intrinsically unobservable.

what if i said, show me a subatomic particle or i wont believe

as you cant show me a subatomic particle there is no reason to believe they exist.

you would probably find that ridiculous, in the same way you are asking essentially the same thing

you would make no acknowledgement of our ability to demonstrate the logical necessity of G-d or subatomic particles.