Insights into Non-believers' strategy in debate

[ThinkingSapien]

As I think Dan already pointed out, what you describe here is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism, the sillier of the two, illogically claims that there *cannot *be a God, not “we don’t know.”

I see this all the time. This almost feels like a difference of dialect. There are dictionaries and other materials going back for over 100 years to support either usage of what I’m about to describe.

There’s two sets of semantics that I see some use.

From group A:

• Atheist - someone that makes the claim that there are no gods/God.
• Agnostic - someone that doesn’t know whether or not there are gods/God.

From Group B:

• Atheist - someone that doesn’t have the belief of a god/God
• Agnostic Atheist - someone that doesn’t know whether or not there are gods/God but lives as though there isn’t one until convinced otherwise
• Strong Atheist - someone that is confident that there are no gods/God
• Ignostic - someone that holds the question of whether or not there are gods/God uninteligible until the word “God”/“god” is well defined
• Agnostic Theism - one that doesn’t know a god/God exists but still believes that one does

You’ll find that many people that are non-religious use the definitions from group B, while many people that are religious use the definitions from group A. When a non-religious and religious person are exchanging thoughts sometimes translations of usage may be necessary.

I tried doing research to see which set of definitions was “right” or “wrong” but as said before there are materis going back more than 100 years that can be used to support either usage of “Atheist.” So I can only treat them as different dialects, not as “right usage” and “wrong usage.”

Why, then, do you believe that North Korea is real? You’ve probably never been there. But you still believe it exists* because you have good reason to*

I’d go far to say that (I myself) act with the model that other countries exists but they somehow become more real to me once I go there. I don’t know if English has the vocabulary for concisely labelling this or if I’ve only not encountered the terms, but it is as though there are propositions that are accepted as societal facts and propositions that have been made realized through experience.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

I see this all the time. This almost feels like a difference of dialect. There are dictionaries and other materials going back for over 100 years to support either usage of what I’m about to describe.

There’s two sets of semantics that I see some use.

From group A:

• Atheist - someone that makes the claim that there are no gods/God.
• Agnostic - someone that doesn’t know whether or not there are gods/God.

From Group B:

• Atheist - someone that doesn’t have the belief of a god/God
• Agnostic Atheist - someone that doesn’t know whether or not there are gods/God but lives as though there isn’t one until convinced otherwise
• Strong Atheist - someone that is confident that there are no gods/God
• Ignostic - someone that holds the question of whether or not there are gods/God uninteligible until the word “God”/“god” is well defined
• Agnostic Theism - one that doesn’t know a god/God exists but still believes that one does

You’ll find that many people that are non-religious use the definitions from group B, while many people that are religious use the definitions from group A. When a non-religious and religious person are exchanging thoughts sometimes translations of usage may be necessary.

I tried doing research to see which set of definitions was “right” or “wrong” but as said before there are materis going back more than 100 years that can be used to support either usage of “Atheist.” So I can only treat them as different dialects, not as “right usage” and “wrong usage.”

I was thinking similarly that it’s a matter of definition. Group A seems to be the one used more often, though. I agree when the term “atheist” must be clarified between those involved before going further. Looking at the Wikipedia definition, it would be the “complement” of belief; namely the last two cases I put. In that way of defining atheism, what many call agnosticism would indeed fall under atheism, as obscure as that seems to be in considering the common usage of the term “atheist”. Oh, definitions.

I’d go far to say that (I myself) act with the model that other countries exists but they somehow become more real to me once I go there. I don’t know if English has the vocabulary for concisely labelling this or if I’ve only not encountered the terms, but it is as though there are propositions that are accepted as societal facts and propositions that have been made realized through experience.

Kind of like how there’s the essential property and the accidental property?

 

[Gregory_Olson]

His post, while well formulated, is not anything new. He observes, correctly, that our current understanding cannot answer some fundamental questions (and perhaps the most fundamental question of all- where did it all come from?). But that’s all we know- there’s a gap in our understanding. He’s right that there must be something we don’t understand, but potential explanations still have be supported by evidence.

About those gaps in understanding… If you irrationally will only accept an explanation for nature that comes from nature, that gap will never be filled. This was even in Peter’s post:

I have no problem believing in a Santa Claus, if such a belief could explain otherwise baffling events. You must resist such a move since you have “faith” that a more pedestrian explanation will surface “someday” even though everything that could be possible explanations in your field of view are precisely those things which, themselves, are in need of explanation.

I’m assuming you haven’t hands-down rejected the possibility that there is something beyond nature, since it would be impossible to do so logically.
Nature is a predictable and unalterable chain of cause-and-effect (assuming no miracles ). Therefore, a part of nature could not have started nature, because that part itself would still be “in need of an explanation.” For example, if you assume God didn’t start it, there necessarily must still have been matter and energy to cause the Big Bang. The question would then be: ‘What caused that matter and energy?’ And so on. In short, nature must have been started by something beyond nature.

There is a gap in your understanding. Christianity can logically fill that gap: the universe was created. But you refuse to accept this as an explanation even though you have no other–on what grounds? There’s plenty of evidence…
God became man, worked miracles, gave us his Word, sacrificed himself for us, and then rose from the dead.
Taken out of 2000 years of context, even I’ll admit this sounds far-fetched. Really, why would anyone actually believe this? Unless large groups of eyewitness were willing to suffer agonizing deaths before denying that they really did see this…

Now that I have established that nature must have been “supernaturally” started: If the Creator of nature really did choose to interact with the human race, what would it look like? Doesn’t taking our form and speaking our language to communicate meaning seem a likely way? Or perhaps by inspiring our thoughts directly?
Well, if these actually were to happen at some point in human history, what would they look like?

You say you need evidence. What about the hundreds of eye-witnessed miracles recorded throughout all of human history? So when the most obvious and expectable kind of evidence for God presents itself, you refuse to accept that, too?
But even those are unnecessary… Is not the whole world just the most glaring hint towards intelligent design? You are a part of a living work of art–how can you say there is no Artist?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I was thinking similarly that it’s a matter of definition. Group A seems to be the one used more often, though. I agree when the term “atheist” must be clarified between those involved before going further.

Indeed. There have been many discussions in this forum in which someone believes that a person takes the stance “there is no God” and clarification is never saught or explanations on different usages are refused.

Someone else told me it’s similar to how those that eat red meat and poultry label those that don’t. Sometimes they are all lumped together as vegitarians. But such people might label themselves as vegitarians, vegans, pescotarians, so on. For a person that self identifies as one of these there is motivation to take a more nuanced approach. I’ve heard those that don’t practice such dietary restrictions simply say “All I know is that person doesn’t eat like me.” If the motivation is only to find a compatible lunch partner then the nuances might not be important to the person and “vegitarian” is used as a simple out-group label under which to put the others.

Kind of like how there’s the essential property and the accidental property?

That’s not a category system with which I am familiar. I can’t say.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

About those gaps in understanding… If you irrationally will only accept an explanation for nature that comes from nature, that gap will never be filled. This was even in Peter’s post:

I strongly suspect that, at some point in the distant past, the rules we have become used to did not apply as we currently understand them.

I’m assuming you haven’t hands-down rejected the possibility that there is something beyond nature, since it would be impossible to do so logically.
Nature is a predictable and unalterable chain of cause-and-effect (assuming no miracles ). Therefore, a part of nature could not have started nature, because that part itself would still be “in need of an explanation.” For example, if you assume God didn’t start it, there necessarily must still have been matter and energy to cause the Big Bang. The question would then be: ‘What caused that matter and energy?’ And so on. In short, nature must have been started by something beyond nature.

Or perhaps, although I’m not a big fan of this, the matter and energy has always existed. We’re caught in an endless cycle or big bang to big crunch. This is unsatisfying, but I’d argue that it’s inherently preferable to any and all religious explanations. If we cannot accept the notion that spacetime always existed, how on Earth are to accept that a sentient being has always existed?

There is a gap in your understanding. Christianity can logically fill that gap: the universe was created. But you refuse to accept this as an explanation even though you have no other–on what grounds? There’s plenty of evidence…

I strongly object to the claim that Christianity, or any religion, fills the gap logically.

God became man, worked miracles, gave us his Word, sacrificed himself for us, and then rose from the dead.
Taken out of 2000 years of context, even I’ll admit this sounds far-fetched. Really, why would anyone actually believe this? Unless large groups of eyewitness were willing to suffer agonizing deaths before denying that they really did see this…

Sincere belief does not equal true belief. I hope this is readily apparent from Waco and Jonestown. But moreover, people were willing to die for Islam right from the get go, in greater numbers (that is, while Mohammad was still alive). Heck, Romans suppressed some Pagan cults quite brutally as well.

You say you need evidence. What about the hundreds of eye-witnessed miracles recorded throughout all of human history? So when the most obvious and expectable kind of evidence for God presents itself, you refuse to accept that, too?
But even those are unnecessary…

There are reports of alien abductions, big foot sightings, and I’m sure someone out there has seen a mermaid. People make things up, misinterpret things, misreport things, or just get caught up in the moment. We know that human memory and perception are not quite so solid as we like to think- I recall a story where hundreds or thousands of Australian veterans would “insert” scenes from the film Gallipoli into their memories of the campaign.

Moreover, could you legitimately see yourself swapping faiths if it turned out that Islam or Zoroastrianism had some “good” miracles?

Is not the whole world just the most glaring hint towards intelligent design? You are a part of a living work of art–how can you say there is no Artist?

…no? Nothing in the universe screams “design” at me- heck, if the universe has existed forever as described above, then it’s a 100% guarantee that this particular universe, and this particular conversation between the two of us, has happened infinitely many times.

 

[Memaw]

Yes, you did.

I agree, we do have some burden of proof for the existence of God. But I would say the atheist has a greater, almost impossible, burden of proof, since he has to prove a negative.

If they won’t take God’s word for it, they do have a problem. I say all they have to do is look around. This didn’t all happen because of a freak accident. God Bless, Memaw

 

[edwest2]

About those gaps in understanding… If you irrationally will only accept an explanation for nature that comes from nature, that gap will never be filled. This was even in Peter’s post:

I’m assuming you haven’t hands-down rejected the possibility that there is something beyond nature, since it would be impossible to do so logically.
Nature is a predictable and unalterable chain of cause-and-effect (assuming no miracles ). Therefore, a part of nature could not have started nature, because that part itself would still be “in need of an explanation.” For example, if you assume God didn’t start it, there necessarily must still have been matter and energy to cause the Big Bang. The question would then be: ‘What caused that matter and energy?’ And so on. In short, nature must have been started by something beyond nature.

There is a gap in your understanding. Christianity can logically fill that gap: the universe was created. But you refuse to accept this as an explanation even though you have no other–on what grounds? There’s plenty of evidence…
God became man, worked miracles, gave us his Word, sacrificed himself for us, and then rose from the dead.
Taken out of 2000 years of context, even I’ll admit this sounds far-fetched. Really, why would anyone actually believe this? Unless large groups of eyewitness were willing to suffer agonizing deaths before denying that they really did see this…

Now that I have established that nature must have been “supernaturally” started: If the Creator of nature really did choose to interact with the human race, what would it look like? Doesn’t taking our form and speaking our language to communicate meaning seem a likely way? Or perhaps by inspiring our thoughts directly?
Well, if these actually were to happen at some point in human history, what would they look like?

You say you need evidence. What about the hundreds of eye-witnessed miracles recorded throughout all of human history? So when the most obvious and expectable kind of evidence for God presents itself, you refuse to accept that, too?
But even those are unnecessary… Is not the whole world just the most glaring hint towards intelligent design? You are a part of a living work of art–how can you say there is no Artist?

Well said.

Ed

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Some of the debates taking place on this forum right now illustrate what Peter Kreeft was saying. I guess everyone has forgotten what he said by this time.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.

Do you select all your beliefs in the manner? It’d be great if smoking didn’t cause cancer, fatty foods didn’t cause weight gain, and buying random stocks would triple my money in a matter of days. But the fact that something is nice to believe doesn’t make it true- I’d much prefer there be an eternal paradise awaiting after death.

Did you read the article by Dr. Kreeft?
He is the author of Twenty Proofs for the Existence of God which can be accessed at the same site. strangenotions.com/god-exists/

We are glad you are here and hope you will find something fruitful.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.

Do you select all your beliefs in the manner? It’d be great if smoking didn’t cause cancer, fatty foods didn’t cause weight gain, and buying random stocks would triple my money in a matter of days. But the fact that something is nice to believe doesn’t make it true- I’d much prefer there be an eternal paradise awaiting after death.

Amendment to my previous post. I got timed out.

Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.

Do you select all your beliefs in the manner? It’d be great if smoking didn’t cause cancer, fatty foods didn’t cause weight gain, and buying random stocks would triple my money in a matter of days. But the fact that something is nice to believe doesn’t make it true- I’d much prefer there be an eternal paradise awaiting after death.

Did you read the article by Dr. Kreeft?
He is the author of Twenty Proofs for the Existence of God which can be accessed at the same site. strangenotions.com/god-exists/ Strange Notions has loads of interesting articles. I think you will find much useful information there.
How about Thomas Aquinas? Have you read anything by him? dhspriory.org/thomas/
How about the Fathers of the Church? Have you read any of them?
Have you read any lives of the Saints?
Have you read the Catechism? Linked below.

I think most people reject the Chruch, Faith, God for largely emotional reasons, though it takes some time and trust to crack that nut. The problem isn’t religion ( though some are problematic ) or with God, it with us, or someone who has mistreated us, or with the fact that we never really had a true idea of what religion or God is really all about. .

We are glad you are here and hope you will find something fruitful.

Linus2nd

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Amendment to my previous post. I got timed out.

Did you read the article by Dr. Kreeft?
He is the author of Twenty Proofs for the Existence of God which can be accessed at the same site. strangenotions.com/god-exists/ Strange Notions has loads of interesting articles. I think you will find much useful information there.
How about Thomas Aquinas? Have you read anything by him? dhspriory.org/thomas/
How about the Fathers of the Church? Have you read any of them?
Have you read any lives of the Saints?
Have you read the Catechism? Linked below.

I think most people reject the Chruch, Faith, God for largely emotional reasons, though it takes some time and trust to crack that nut. The problem isn’t religion ( though some are problematic ) or with God, it with us, or someone who has mistreated us, or with the fact that we never really had a true idea of what religion or God is really all about. .

We are glad you are here and hope you will find something fruitful.

Linus2nd

12 years of Catholic school- I got all that jazz. I did read most of the article, although it’s been a few days- it was primarily interested in ontological dis-proofs, yes? I generally stay out of that arena. Seems kinda hard.

On public transit, but I did look at the first argument. Right off the bat a there’s a fundamental error. Animals are moved by a desire to move that is separate from themselves? That’s an extremely bold statement, even from a Christian perspective.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

12 years of Catholic school- I got all that jazz. I did read most of the article, although it’s been a few days- it was primarily interested in ontological dis-proofs, yes? I generally stay out of that arena. Seems kinda hard.

On public transit, but I did look at the first argument. Right off the bat a there’s a fundamental error. Animals are moved by a desire to move that is separate from themselves? That’s an extremely bold statement, even from a Christian perspective.

Good, feel free to P.M. me.

Not sure about the animals reference, I didn’t see reference to animals in the Kreeft article. Sounds like something Aristote or Thomas may have said. I think the point is that animals generally are moved to seek what is outside themselves. They have an instinctual ( as opposed to intellectual ) desire to seek nurishment, comfort, a mate, etc. But the instinctual desire comes from within themselves. It is what is outside themselves which stimulates the inner desire. The same with us. There is more to it but that’s enough for here, since it is off topic.

Off to bed now.

Linus2nd

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Good, feel free to P.M. me.

Not sure about the animals reference, I didn’t see reference to animals in the Kreeft article. Sounds like something Aristote or Thomas may have said. I think the point is that animals generally are moved to seek what is outside themselves. They have an instinctual ( as opposed to intellectual ) desire to seek nurishment, comfort, a mate, etc. But the instinctual desire comes from within themselves. It is what is outside themselves which stimulates the inner desire. The same with us. There is more to it but that’s enough for here, since it is off topic.

Off to bed now.

Linus2nd

“Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.”

Arg 1. Seems to be an argument for animals having some sort of soul, which is decidedly non-Catholic as far as I recall.

Sleep is most definitely a good idea.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m getting the impression that some Catholics feel that if only one read Kreeft, or (insert the name of a Catholic apologist here) they would be well on the way to an understanding they did not have before.
There are numerous rebuttals to his work, and many of the heavy hitter apologists works out there.
To assume that one is unfamiliar with the best apologists out there and their positions is an assumption sprouted from arrogance.

 

[Bahman]

Did you read the article by Dr. Kreeft?
He is the author of Twenty Proofs for the Existence of God which can be accessed at the same site. strangenotions.com/god-exists/

We are glad you are here and hope you will find something fruitful.

Linus2nd

Huh? Twenty proofs! I think one proof is enough. Many proofs in fact show the absence clear knowledge on our side. For sake of simplicity, can you offer just one proof that I am a conscious being rather than a philosophical zombie? In simple word, existence of God even as a objective thing cannot prove anything.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.”

Arg 1. Seems to be an argument for animals having some sort of soul, which is decidedly non-Catholic as far as I recall.

Sleep is most definitely a good idea.

Up again, seven hours straight ( only had to get up once, :extrahappy:. Yes, Kreeft takes that from St. Thomas’ " First Way " to prove the existence of God. It is not concerned with whether or not animals have a soul, that is a side issue Thomas discusses in his Commentary of De Animalia of Aristotle. But yes, it is one of the things that demonstrate that animals have a soul. He would say that it is a material soul in the sense that the soul non-rational animals are moved only by the desire for what is material, since they have no reasoning intellect. It is a philosophical argument, the Church has no definite opinion on the topic, nor does Revelation give us any information.

Going back to Argument 1, Thomas’ " First Way, " Thomas’ argument, which Kreeft is paraphrasing, says that " Whatever is moved is moved by something else. And it is impossible to go on infinitely in things which are moved by something else, which are in turn moved by something else. For if that were the case nothing would be moving now ( which is clearly false ) because there would be no first mover which was not moved by something else. Therefore, there must be a first cause not moved by something else and this all call God. This is taken from the Summa Theologiae, part 1, ques 2, article 3, newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2 .

And the motion of animals illustrate the argument. First of all they are moved by their desire for something outside themselves, thus they are " moved by something else " and all these innumerable things are in turn moved ( here changed is the main idea ) by something else, and so on. But one must eventually arrive at the first cause, God, who moves all things through the proper natures he has given each and by giving them existence. The animal is also moved by its desire, but that desire is a faculty of the animal " soul, " which is ultimately attributable to God. Therefore God is the ultimate First Cause of the movement all things which are moved, for nothing moves itself.

Linus2nd
.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m getting the impression that some Catholics feel that if only one read Kreeft, or (insert the name of a Catholic apologist here) they would be well on the way to an understanding they did not have before.
There are numerous rebuttals to his work, and many of the heavy hitter apologists works out there.
To assume that one is unfamiliar with the best apologists out there and their positions is an assumption sprouted from arrogance.

I don’t think anyone is making that assumption. Dr. Kreeft is certainly well versed in the project of apologetics since he is a philosopher who has been at it all his life. But that is beside the point. Certainly apologetics has a proper place in the history of Christianity for St. Paul used it himself, as described in Acts;

" Acts 17:22-31 (NIV):

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”Because the Jewish God could not be named, it is possible that Paul’s Athenian listeners would have considered his god to be “the unknown god par excellence”.[6] His listeners may also have understood the introduction of a new god by allusions to Aeschylus’ The Eumenides; the irony would have been that just as the Eumenides were not new gods at all but the Furies in a new form, so was the Christian God not a new god but rather the god the Greeks already worshipped as the Unknown God "

The effectiveness of apologetics is another question. If it does no more than give people an occasion to think, that alone is a positive. Beyond that it reinforces believers in faith, showing them that even nature and the reason God gave them does indeed serve as a preamble to the Faith, a proto-revelation which God has placed in nature itself.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Huh? Twenty proofs! I think one proof is enough. Many proofs in fact show the absence clear knowledge on our side. For sake of simplicity, can you offer just one proof that I am a conscious being rather than a philosophical zombie? In simple word, existence of God even as a objective thing cannot prove anything.

When you reflect on your own self awareness you are already engaged in philosophical thinking. Men are by nature philosophical, we just can’t help it. Knowing that God exists leads to the question of what that means for us and the world. I don’t think that kind of reflection is pointless and I don’t think that makes us a " philosophical zombie. " It just makes us human .

Linus2nd

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Up again, seven hours straight ( only had to get up once, :extrahappy:. Yes, Kreeft takes that from St. Thomas’ " First Way " to prove the existence of God. It is not concerned with whether or not animals have a soul, that is a side issue Thomas discusses in his Commentary of De Animalia of Aristotle. But yes, it is one of the things that demonstrate that animals have a soul. He would say that it is a material soul in the sense that the soul non-rational animals are moved only by the desire for what is material, since they have no reasoning intellect. It is a philosophical argument, the Church has no definite opinion on the topic, nor does Revelation give us any information.

Going back to Argument 1, Thomas’ " First Way, " Thomas’ argument, which Kreeft is paraphrasing, says that " Whatever is moved is moved by something else. And it is impossible to go on infinitely in things which are moved by something else, which are in turn moved by something else. For if that were the case nothing would be moving now ( which is clearly false ) because there would be no first mover which was not moved by something else. Therefore, there must be a first cause not moved by something else and this all call God. This is taken from the Summa Theologiae, part 1, ques 2, article 3, newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2 .

And the motion of animals illustrate the argument. First of all they are moved by their desire for something outside themselves, thus they are " moved by something else " and all these innumerable things are in turn moved ( here changed is the main idea ) by something else, and so on. But one must eventually arrive at the first cause, God, who moves all things through the proper natures he has given each and by giving them existence. The animal is also moved by its desire, but that desire is a faculty of the animal " soul, " which is ultimately attributable to God. Therefore God is the ultimate First Cause of the movement all things which are moved, for nothing moves itself.

Linus2nd
.

I see no reason to believe that “nothing moves itself” (and no, Newton does not contradict this). Even if we are to accept that, say, a dog has an external soul that “makes them move”, are we to suppose the same of bacteria? Moreover, the wants and desires of an animal (and to a lesser extent, humans too) appear to be influenced by physical factors. For example, an ant which can be “taken over” by a fungus and will move to seek an area suitable for the fungus to reproduce en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis

The argument seems quite silly- assume that nothing moves autonomously, then impose a solution for the problem that was just invented.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see no reason to believe that “nothing moves itself” (and no, Newton does not contradict this). Even if we are to accept that, say, a dog has an external soul that “makes them move”, are we to suppose the same of bacteria? Moreover, the wants and desires of an animal (and to a lesser extent, humans too) appear to be influenced by physical factors. For example, an ant which can be “taken over” by a fungus and will move to seek an area suitable for the fungus to reproduce en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis

The argument seems quite silly- assume that nothing moves autonomously, then impose a solution for the problem that was just invented.

I don’t think anything has been " assumed, " nothing moves without having an end in view, without purpose. For if there is no purpose there is no reason to act. Animals clearly demonstrate this. Even inanimate things, when moved, seem to move for a purpose because they, for the most part, move as though they had an end in view. I am not implying that all things ( a fungus for example ) have intelligence, I am saying that they act as though they did. So what gives them a nature such that they act this way? Ultimately, it has to be some First Cause which is not moved itself, and which therefore has no potential to be moved, and this we call God.

The is to say the world either explains itself, that it is just a " bald fact, " and that certainly seems unacceptable. How can that which lacks mind, account for itself and all the purpose driven activities within it, since purpose indicates intelligence?

Something to think about. whispersintheloggia.blogspot…storm-and.html

Linus2nd