Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[jmcrae]

I am glad that you put “time” into quotation marks. There is no “time” outside the universe. The naïve concept of the Newtonian absolute space and absolute time have been superseded by Einstein’s relativity. To talk about time before the universe or space outside the universe are exactly as nonsensical as talking about something that resides to the north from the North Pole, or on the other side of the Mobius strip, or inside a Klein bottle.

Metaphysics must be discarded if it is contradicted by actual physics. If it is compatible with physics, it is useless. Metaphysics grew out of those times, when all people had was speculation. If the speculation turned out to be accurate, it became science, otherwise it stayed superstition.

Actually, I have no problem with “non-physical” existence. Concepts are not physical, yet they exist. Attributes, like “red”, “loud”, “easy”, “far”, “between”, etc. are not physical entities. “Hamlet” is a non-physical entity along with the “Leningrad symphony”. But all of these require a physical underpinning.

What I have never seen is an example of non-physical, yet physically active existence. Catholics believe in demons, non-physical beings that can be detected, and can be acted upon (exorcism). So don’t think that the physically active non-physical entities are immune to discovery. The only trouble is that no one is able to provide a method to discover demons and offer a method of how to exorcise them.

I wonder, how are prospective exorcists trained for their “job”? Are there some summoning spells that can force easy-to-conquer mini-demons for the first graders to exorcise? And then as their powers grow is it possible to evoke some really powerful demons as “final exam” in the exorcist schools?

There is not such a thing as “exorcist school.” People who are training to become exorcists go with an experienced exorcist and help out in different ways with real exorcisms.

If this is an actual interest of yours and not just something you’re saying to make people say something stupid so that you can laugh at them, you should read the works of Gabriel Amorth, who was the Chief Exorcist in Rome until his death, recently.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There is not such a thing as “exorcist school.” People who are training to become exorcists go with an experienced exorcist and help out in different ways with real exorcisms.

Well, considering that one needs a license to cut hair or perform a manicure, it seems reasonable that there is at least some formal training if one wishes to become an exorcist. Any kind of training should be comprised of at least three phases, discovery of a demonic possession, exorcism of a demon, and verifying that the procedure was successful.

The point is this: when skeptics ask for verification of some supernatural phenomenon, the usual answer is: “but we deal here with the supernatural, how can you expect to detect it with natural means”? These people simply “forget” that demons are supposed to be supernatural, the exorcists are (allegedly) able to discover them employing some natural means, then they are able to “cast out” those demons using also natural means, and then are able to ascertain that the exorcism was successful, the demon is “gone”.

In other words, there is a two-way process between the natural and the supernatural “worlds”, discovery and then affecting the supernatural. We are not talking about a supplicative prayer here (which may or may not be “heard”)… rather a forceful way to get rid of a demon - which is supposed to be verified. And that is how the scientific method works.

Of course - being a skeptic - I don’t believe that there are demons. But according to the believers I am wrong, and moreover the trained exorcists are able to detect and cast out those demons. The question is: “HOW”???

 

[jmcrae]

Well, considering that one needs a license to cut hair or perform a manicure, it seems reasonable that there is at least some formal training if one wishes to become an exorcist. Any kind of training should be comprised of at least three phases, discovery of a demonic possession, exorcism of a demon, and verifying that the procedure was successful.

The point is this: when skeptics ask for verification of some supernatural phenomenon, the usual answer is: “but we deal here with the supernatural, how can you expect to detect it with natural means”? These people simply “forget” that demons are supposed to be supernatural, the exorcists are (allegedly) able to discover them employing some natural means, then they are able to “cast out” those demons using also natural means, and then are able to ascertain that the exorcism was successful, the demon is “gone”.

In other words, there is a two-way process between the natural and the supernatural “worlds”, discovery and then affecting the supernatural. We are not talking about a supplicative prayer here (which may or may not be “heard”)… rather a forceful way to get rid of a demon - which is supposed to be verified. And that is how the scientific method works.

Of course - being a skeptic - I don’t believe that there are demons. But according to the believers I am wrong, and moreover the trained exorcists are able to detect and cast out those demons. The question is: “HOW”???

And again, if this is a serious question, avail yourself of the writings of Gabriel Amorth. All of your questions are dealt with in his books. They’re available in any public library, or can easily be brought in, since they were best sellers.

 

[e_c]

No, it is not. At the very least, events which are outside the “light cone” are forever inaccessible to us. Negative statements are impossible to substantiate in an inductive system. Period.

This issue, and ones like it, are dealt with at great length in the Posterior Analytics. You are so focused on denying your respondent that you do not even try to understand what is being said. I am actually quite confident that we do not actually disagree about this point, and that if cooler heads prevailed that would be clear.

Not another one who can read my mind! Where do you guys (and gals) learn mind-reading?

We read your posts, which indicate what is in your mind. Your posts are full of misconceptions and straw men and easily answered objections which you seem to think are quite watertight. Shall we?

The words “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are just word salad, meaningless concoctions. Let’s play with them.

Literally “omnipotence” means to be able to bring forth any state of affairs. … [etc.]

The “logically contradictory” one. That’s basically right… That which is logically contradictory is self evidently not able to exist. What would it mean for a contradiction to exist? One term invalidates another. It would destroy the entire basis of knowledge, the PNC.

Physically impossible? Only if that impossibility does not imply a logical contradiction. It is easy to see that your temperature example fails this test, as does the speed of light example, as does the modification of the past example (which Thomas actually dedicates an entire Article to), and finally the Escher example also fails the test. The acorn one almost fails, but not quite, unless by “acorn” you mean “that which grows into an oak tree.” It does not at all seem logically contradictory in itself that such a thing could be done… Significant changes happen in growth of human beings, and even in plants. Who would predict a tree would come out of an acorn without seeing it happen?

Let’s consider “omniscience” next. The similarly naïve approximation is “to know everything”. Sometimes adding “past, present and future”. But that is also nonsense. How can something be “known”, if it did not exist, does not exist and will never exist? Example: what is the title of the third book of someone, who was never born, because his parents never met? Can anyone “know” nonexistence? So just what is “omniscience”?

Yes, let’s consider, and let’s do so respectfully, lest you run afoul of your own signature by continuing to call believers “naive.” What is naive is to think that these are slam dunk objections, as if they had not received the most careful answers throughout 20 centuries and more. Your objections are actually quite easy ones - and yes, there are difficult objections among the several dozen that Thomas answers quite convincingly…

To take your two examples:

1. Inasmuch as the cause is known, the effect is known. If there is no actual cause, there will be no actual effect. That which does not come to pass did not have a cause, but that which could have come to pass and did not could be known in particular insofar as one knows what cause would have brought it about. And all that which does, did, and will exist is known at once to God, both in cause and in presence, as he is both omniscient and omnipresent, with the former being partially dependent on the latter. SO… If there is no third book, because there is no author, because, because, etc., then inasmuch as through certainty about that which would have produced this or that title for the book, one can know what it would have been.

And in fact, Jesus claims this kind of knowledge for Himself. “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin.” John 15:22 He knows the principles… and He knows it is worth occasioning the sin of these certain people for the sake of occasioning and directly effecting salvation in those who will follow Him because of those same words.

1. Non-existence? What does that even mean? Non-existence “in itself”? There is no such thing, because non-existence is not a thing. It is non-existence. So there is a logical contradiction, unless you are talking about non-existence in some thing, as a deprivation. We can all know these.

If you really want to talk about omniscience, read the following carefully and ask particular questions about Thomas’ arguments and definitions. I am happy to answer them.

newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm

These concepts grew out of a human value systems: we all consider power and knowledge to be valuable. So some naïve apologists tried to exaggerate them into “infinite attributes”.

Word salad, nothing more - unless you can offer an actual meaning to these phrases.

And I did not even mention some other contradictions, like “perfectly just” and “infinitely merciful”. Just as contradictory as any “married bachelor” would be.

Again, who exactly are these “apologists”? Where are the texts in which they explain these things? You hide behind shadows and your fiat proclamations and your insults. Come into the light and let’s have some real dialectic.

 

[goout]

I think the biggest contributor to atheism is the poor lived experience of Christians. It doesn’t directly follow that sin’s of Christians negate the existence of God, but it definitely scandalizes.

 

[michaelArc]

I’m not sure if lack of questioning leads to atheism. Rather I think it’s the manner of questioning that can lead to atheism.

I was agnostic since my early teens and there was a period of time as an adult where I would identify as an atheist.

In my initial quest to search for answers, I began with asking questions with the subtle, if not subconscious intent of looking for answers to support my opinions about the non-existence of God. To be frank, I didn’t want God to exist. I didn’t want there to be justice nor did I want to be held accountable for my actions and have to suffer the consequences. I felt liberated with the life I intended to live and that suited me just fine.

While I argued for science and reason, I began to notice a pattern. In almost every discussion or debate, the argument coming from an atheist came with preconditions. For instance, how often do we hear the atheist say that God is an imaginary friend and those who believe him are delusional and follow archaic superstitions? This just seemed peculiar to me, perhaps even unfair. While the argument from an atheistic point of view seemed like it had little to do with reason and more so do with psychological conditioning and emotion. Please do understand, I am not suggesting this is the case with everyone that is an atheist but when you dig a little deeper into personal questions, things begin to surface.

But I also noticed among atheists that their line of questioning often lacked context and was at times just intellectually sloppy. This didn’t seem like an open-minded way of reasoning and leads to what I think is a skewed view. It left me unsatisfied, I wanted more meat in my answers.

Oddly enough, I didn’t have a religious experience that changed my inquisitiveness and the search for the truth. Rather it was more so do with what atheism didn’t answer that made me question things in a different manner.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And again, if this is a serious question, avail yourself of the writings of Gabriel Amorth. All of your questions are dealt with in his books. They’re available in any public library, or can easily be brought in, since they were best sellers.

Please, don’t try to send me on a wild goose chase. What are the exact rituals which will “summon” up a demon, and make it manifest itself in a physically detectable manner, and then forcefully get rid of it?

You see, the assertion of demons negates the usual teaching that the so called “spiritual” realm (whatever that is) is inaccessible from the temporal realm. When one asks such questions, there is another usual answer: “the spiritual beings are have personalities, they cannot be forced to participate in our experiments, so we cannot expect our experiments to work”. Of course that is contradicted by the assertion that the exorcist can forcefully remove the demon - obviously against its wishes.

The credibility of Amorh is seriously undercut by his warning against yoga and Harry Potter. He asserts that there is only “black magic”. But I don’t see any practical instructions for summoning up a demon and the getting rid of it. Without such repeatable instructions it is rational to relegate the whole issue to the realm of fantasy. As always, I am ready to be convinced by actual evidence. But words alone are not evidence. On the other hand, instructions, which one can follow and recreate the claims would be evidence.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This issue, and ones like it, are dealt with at great length in the Posterior Analytics.

Where? If you have something to say, go ahead. But be specific.

The “logically contradictory” one. That’s basically right… That which is logically contradictory is self evidently not able to exist. What would it mean for a contradiction to exist? One term invalidates another. It would destroy the entire basis of knowledge, the PNC.

Funny stuff that other people see no problem with logical contradictions. They say that omnipotence means to bring forth ANY state of affairs, and what we, humans, see as a logical problem is only the result of our “fallen sense of logic”. They like to say that “human” logic is not the same as “divine” logic - whatever that means.

Physically impossible? Only if that impossibility does not imply a logical contradiction.

Every logical contradiction comes from a physical one. The “married bachelor” would have two incompatible physical attributes, being single and married. Logical contradictions are just a different name for physical contradictions.

The acorn one almost fails, but not quite, unless by “acorn” you mean “that which grows into an oak tree.”

But I don’t “define” the acorn. It is a specific physical structure, which will grow into a physical tree - if the circumstances allow it. It cannot grow into a theologian, or killer whale.

It does not at all seem logically contradictory in itself that such a thing could be done… Significant changes happen in growth of human beings, and even in plants. Who would predict a tree would come out of an acorn without seeing it happen?

Aha! The law of contradiction is not a standalone question. It looks like that you forget the “law of identity”. Can the alleged omnipotence create an atom, where the innermost electron shell accommodates THREE electrons? There is no logical problem there, only a physical one.

1. Inasmuch as the cause is known, the effect is known.

This is only true in deterministic systems.

If there is no actual cause, there will be no actual effect. That which does not come to pass did not have a cause, but that which could have come to pass and did not could be known in particular insofar as one knows what cause would have brought it about. And all that which does, did, and will exist is known at once to God, both in cause and in presence, as he is both omniscient and omnipresent, with the former being partially dependent on the latter.

Hold it, please. We are not talking about God. We are talking about the fully secular concept of “omnipotence” and “omniscience”. If, after a proper definition you wish to argue that these properties can only apply to God, that is fine. But a proper definition MUST come first.

SO… If there is no third book, because there is no author, because, because, etc., then inasmuch as through certainty about that which would have produced this or that title for the book, one can know what it would have been.

Again, not in a stochastic system.

1. Non-existence? What does that even mean?

A state of affairs that is not actual. Whether it could become actual is contingent upon the physical properties of the components. On my desk there are about a dozen items residing. The desk still has empty spots, so it could accommodate more items. Can one “know” what are the non-existent items which do not reside on me desk?

If you really want to talk about omniscience, read the following carefully and ask particular questions about Thomas’ arguments and definitions. I am happy to answer them.

I am interested in your definition of omnipotence and omniscience. Let’s start there. A small help: “knowledge is a correct information about a state of affairs”. NOT information about what COULD be.

Out of topic: Thanks for using the {quote} feature. Much easier to follow.

 

[jmcrae]

Please, don’t try to send me on a wild goose chase. What are the exact rituals which will “summon” up a demon, and make it manifest itself in a physically detectable manner, and then forcefully get rid of it?

That’s not my expertise. Ask an actual exorcist, or read the books.

You see, the assertion of demons negates the usual teaching that the so called “spiritual” realm (whatever that is) is inaccessible from the temporal realm.

The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t teach that. We access it all the time, by means of the Sacraments and through prayer.

When one asks such questions, there is another usual answer: “the spiritual beings are have personalities, they cannot be forced to participate in our experiments, so we cannot expect our experiments to work”. Of course that is contradicted by the assertion that the exorcist can forcefully remove the demon - obviously against its wishes.

Only an idiot would summon up a demon for the purposes of an experiment, for much the same reason that they don’t implant dinosaur DNA in eggs to see whether science is real.

The credibility of Amorh is seriously undercut by his warning against yoga and Harry Potter.

And here we see the danger of commenting on things outside of our area of expertise. He wasn’t English, and had no concept of the English sense of humour. I happen to think Harry Potter is hilarious. I don’t know much about Yoga so I can’t comment on that one.

He asserts that there is only “black magic”. But I don’t see any practical instructions for summoning up a demon and the getting rid of it. Without such repeatable instructions it is rational to relegate the whole issue to the realm of fantasy. As always, I am ready to be convinced by actual evidence. But words alone are not evidence. On the other hand, instructions, which one can follow and recreate the claims would be evidence.

And perhaps we could prove that medical science exists by unleashing the Bubonic Plague at your child’s school. No? I didn’t think so.

 

[inocente]

Only an idiot would summon up a demon for the purposes of an experiment, for much the same reason that they don’t implant dinosaur DNA in eggs to see whether science is real.

They would if there was viable DNA. It would be fascinating, but there are many problems to solve first. - livescience.com/54574-can-we-clone-dinosaurs.html

I’ve summoned up a demon. With a ouija board. Takes a bit of practice but it’s quite easy to fool the others into thinking there’s a spirit present.

And here we see the danger of commenting on things outside of our area of expertise. He wasn’t English, and had no concept of the English sense of humour. I happen to think Harry Potter is hilarious. I don’t know much about Yoga so I can’t comment on that one.

*"Italian yoga schools said Father Amorth’s criticism was absurd.

“It’s an accusation that has nothing to do with reality,” Vanda Vanni, the founder of the Mediterranean Yoga Association, told Adnkronos, an Italian news agency.

“It’s a theory — if one can call it a theory — that is totally without foundation. Yoga is not a religion or a spiritual practise. It doesn’t have even the slightest connection with Satanism or Satanic sects.” Giorgio Furlan, the founder of the Yoga Academy of Rome, said yoga had nothing to do with religion, “least of all Satanism.” “Whoever says that shows that they know absolutely nothing about yoga,” he said.

Father Amorth has previously said that people who are possessed by Satan vomit shards of glass and pieces of iron :ehh:] and have such superhuman strength that even children have to be held down by up to four people.

He has also claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Catholic Church in the US, Ireland, Germany and other countries was proof that the Anti-Christ is waging a war against the Holy See. :ehh:]" - telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/8915691/Harry-Potter-and-yoga-are-evil-says-Catholic-Church-exorcist.html*

 

[jmcrae]

They would if there was viable DNA. It would be fascinating, but there are many problems to solve first. - livescience.com/54574-can-we-clone-dinosaurs.html

I’ve summoned up a demon. With a ouija board. Takes a bit of practice but it’s quite easy to fool the others into thinking there’s a spirit present.

Your profile says you’re Baptist. Have the Baptists also stopped believing n the Devil, together with the liberal Protestants?

"Italian yoga schools said Father Amorth’s criticism was absurd.

“It’s an accusation that has nothing to do with reality,” Vanda Vanni, the founder of the Mediterranean Yoga Association, told Adnkronos, an Italian news agency.

“It’s a theory — if one can call it a theory — that is totally without foundation. Yoga is not a religion or a spiritual practise. It doesn’t have even the slightest connection with Satanism or Satanic sects.” Giorgio Furlan, the founder of the Yoga Academy of Rome, said yoga had nothing to do with religion, “least of all Satanism.” “Whoever says that shows that they know absolutely nothing about yoga,” he said.

I had always been under the impression that Yoga is a Hindu spiritual exercise -a form of prayer to certain of their gods. But like I said before, it’s not my area of expertise.

Father Amorth has previously said that people who are possessed by Satan vomit shards of glass and pieces of iron :ehh:] and have such superhuman strength that even children have to be held down by up to four people.

I once had to ask for help restraining a very angry four year old boy - strong emotion gives people strength beyond their ordinary abilities, so it makes sense that being possessed by a demon could have the same effect on a larger scale. I have no idea about the vomiting; I’ll take his word on that one, since he was there and I wasn’t.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That’s not my expertise. Ask an actual exorcist, or read the books.

If you have a handbook, which describes how to summon up a demon, I will be glad to hear it.

The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t teach that. We access it all the time, by means of the Sacraments and through prayer.

The church also teaches that God is not a “vending machine”. To teach both “A” and “not-A” is pretty useful, if you don’t want to be caught.

Only an idiot would summon up a demon for the purposes of an experiment, for much the same reason that they don’t implant dinosaur DNA in eggs to see whether science is real.

Not particularly cherry-table to call others idiots for having intellectual curiosity.

And perhaps we could prove that medical science exists by unleashing the Bubonic Plague at your child’s school. No? I didn’t think so.

We already know that medical science works.

 

[inocente]

Your profile says you’re Baptist. Have the Baptists also stopped believing n the Devil, together with the liberal Protestants?

The quote concerned demons, a.k.a. mental disorders.

Aside from which, does any law court in the world agree that moral culpability can be set aside due to demon possession?

Perp: I didn’t mean to drive drunk, rape three women and murder that priest, your honor, a demon made me do it.
Judge: Fair enough, case dismissed.

*I had always been under the impression that Yoga is a Hindu spiritual exercise -a form of prayer to certain of their gods. But like I said before, it’s not my area of expertise. *

Apparently not. But your profile says you’re Catholic. Have Catholics stopped listening to the Vatican, which calls those gods the Transcendent Light? - vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20141020_deepavali-2014_en.html

I once had to ask for help restraining a very angry four year old boy - strong emotion gives people strength beyond their ordinary abilities, so it makes sense that being possessed by a demon could have the same effect on a larger scale. I have no idea about the vomiting; I’ll take his word on that one, since he was there and I wasn’t.

Obviously shards of glass and pieces of iron could only be in vomit if first eaten.

But I’m surprised folk in Calgary still believe in demons, it was how people once explained mental disorders. No Christian could possibly be possessed anyway, For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8

 

[goout]

Apparently not. But your profile says you’re Catholic. Have Catholics stopped listening to the Vatican, which calls those gods the Transcendent Light? - vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20141020_deepavali-2014_en.html

Holy mother of all misrepresentations!

Here is the quote from the document you reference.

Dear Hindu Friends,

1. The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue joyfully greets all of you on the festive occasion of Deepavali, celebrated on 23 October this year. May the Transcendent Light illumine your hearts, homes and communities, and may all your celebrations deepen the sense of belonging to one another in your families and neighbourhoods, and so further harmony and happiness, peace and prosperity.

 

[PRmerger]

Holy mother of all misrepresentations!

That is, indeed, a rather shocking misrepresentation of Catholicism, to be sure.

 

[inocente]

Holy mother of all misrepresentations!

Here is the quote from the document you reference.

Nostra Aetate:

“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.”

Or here:

“in the richness of the myths of Hinduism, in its ascetical practices and deep meditations is expressed the trusting search of a refuge in God”

So do you disagree that “the Transcendent Light” refers to the shared acceptance by both faiths of the divine? It’s headed “Christians and Hindus: Together to foster a culture of inclusion”. Seems to be about finding what people have in common rather than building walls that separate. A shocking idea indeed.

 

[goout]

ONE HUGE SNIP

So do you disagree…

Here’s what I disagree with specifically:
Your misrepresentation of a document from the Vatican. That’s it.
If you want to change the subject, continue.

 

[inocente]

Here’s what I disagree with specifically:
Your misrepresentation of a document from the Vatican. That’s it.
If you want to change the subject, continue.

My understanding is that in Hinduism, gods are co-substantial. Not exactly as the Trinity, there’s more persons, but similar. Am I wrong? The Vatican documents also refer to one God in Hinduism so I think I’m right. I still don’t see how I misrepresented the document which I cited.

 

[goout]

My understanding is that in Hinduism, gods are co-substantial. Not exactly as the Trinity, there’s more persons, but similar. Am I wrong? The Vatican documents also refer to one God in Hinduism so I think I’m right. I still don’t see how I misrepresented the document which I cited.

Yea I think you do.

But for the audience:
you misrepresented the document as Catholicism condoning Hindu spiritual practices and having some concordance with it’s theology.

Catholicism does recognize the elements of truth in other religions as they lead to the fullness of it.
We do not “call those gods the Transcendent Light” as you said.
Here is the paragraph again:

Dear Hindu Friends,

1. The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue joyfully greets all of you on the festive occasion of Deepavali, celebrated on 23 October this year. May the Transcendent Light illumine your hearts, homes and communities, and may all your celebrations deepen the sense of belonging to one another in your families and neighbourhoods, and so further harmony and happiness, peace and prosperity.

That’s misrepresentation I am referring to.

 

[inocente]

Yea I think you do.

But for the audience:
you misrepresented the document as Catholicism condoning Hindu spiritual practices and having some concordance with it’s theology.

Catholicism does recognize the elements of truth in other religions as they lead to the fullness of it.
We do not “call those gods the Transcendent Light” as you said.
Here is the paragraph again:

That’s misrepresentation I am referring to.

You seem to keep missing that only the poster says gods while the documents refer to one God in Hinduism. And neither share Amorth’s view that it is satanism, which was my point. As for concordance, the document ends with:

“As people grounded in our own respective religious traditions and with shared convictions, may we, Hindus and Christians, join together with followers of other religions and with people of good will to foster a culture of inclusion for a just and peaceful society.”

Indeed. But this is off-topic so by all means have the last harrumph .