Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[e_c]

First, obviously it’s absurd to think that we “God believers” don’t question God’s existence every now and then to different extremes (examples can be as simple as “Does God really exist”? or as complex as a Dark Knight like John of the Cross).

I thought the Dark Knight was Bruce Wayne!

Anyway, if the atheists can be sassy, so can I. Watch.

Well intercessory prayer doesn’t work the way I think it should, so that means nobody’s there to grant all my wishes.

They say there’s nothing new under the sun, but sometimes the sun does something new, like when 70,000 people see it spin around and change colors and dry a soaked field in a few seconds. But I don’t experience miracles on my way to work every day, and bad things happen to good people, so obviously everything that otherwise honest and intelligent people with much to lose who claim they encountered something miraculous are stupid and I just know better. The Bible is just a big Hallmark card, and someone should have told the apostles while they were being skinned and crucified and beheaded that there is nothing supernatural about what they saw and heard. But hey, there probably weren’t apostles anyway, right? I mean, it’s not like we have their bodies…?

Plus, some religious people are mean, so there. That means what they believe is bad.

And science. Or something. Because it helps me empathize the way I like and do secular morality because that’s what I feel like doing, and if everyone else did exactly what I want then it would be a better world, at least according to my personal wishes and arbitrary desires which change throughout my life, a life which, by the way, I didn’t ask for but which just happened. Like it came from nothing.

Nah, chromosomes, bro, that’s what does it. Add a bunch of molecules together, that’s life. Why is this particular clump of molecules “me” with my particular consciousness and self? Well because it’s my body, duhhhhhhhhhhh… It’s okay that it’s a circular argument, some things in the universe just don’t have an explanation. Like the universe itself. Even though it’s made of parts, it just happens to be there.

Oh, also, some religious people don’t know what they’re talking about, even about their religion. So that’s another mark against the very idea of religion! Ha! No sciency person would ever be in such a raucously shameful scenario!

Anything else? What did I miss? Sass is fun.

A lack of questioning is like a lack of force… An object in motion tends to stay in motion… with the same velocity… unless it is acted on by a net force.

In other words, wherever you’re heading, you’ll end up if you don’t think about it. We SHOULD make informed decisions about the most basic principles which drive our life.

My first problem is that the word “god” is usually undefined or underdefined. What does the word “god” refer to; what is its referent? It is my understanding that “god” is a “being”, or an “entity” which is metaphysically “supernatural”, and epistemologically “transcendent”. Supernatural is something that is beyond the physical reality; while transcendent is something that is beyond comprehension, which is “unknowable”. Since the word “universe” describes “everything that exists”, the existence beyond the universe is a logically nonsensical proposition. Existence, causation are only defined within the universe - so any of the so-called “proofs” of God (Aquinas et al.) are nonsensical.

Now I can lend you a hand, if you so desire. You are most welcome to say that the universe consists of “two” parts: the physical universe and the “non-physical” one. You are welcome to argue that the “non-physical” is primary, and it created the secondary… the physical part. Go ahead. Give us some evidence that there is an active (physically active!) but otherwise non-physical realm of existence - and we can go on from that.

Epistemological “transcendence” is simply an admission that we cannot say anything about “god”, not even that it exists. So, to wrap it up, the whole “god”-thingy is incoherent, there is nothing to discuss. Now, this all refers to the “God of the philosophers”, which is a totally different concept from the “God of the Bible”. As for the “God of the Bible”, there is absolutely no proof, not even evidence that it exists. As such I cannot entertain the idea that there is a “god” or “gods” or “God”.

Nope. God is not “a being.” The only substance which can’t be called a being, properly speaking.

Sure, if “the universe” means “everything,” then God is part of the universe. Now what?

Physically active non-physical entity. What would that be like I wonder?

Actually, despite the contradictory description, it can work. First we ought to be clear on what the material world is, though, which is actually far less intelligible than the spiritual.

If there’s nothing to discuss, why do you discuss it?

Right, no evidence, except… the Bible… and the entire cultures it immediately produced and was produced in.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If there’s nothing to discuss, why do you discuss it?

Right, no evidence, except… the Bible… and the entire cultures it immediately produced and was produced in.

In a way this relates to something I’ve noticed when it comes to the topic of non-believers questioning Christianity. Usually they are judged as not having studied the matter enough. “Did you read this?” “Did you try that?” It’s when the non-believer shows that he or she is familiar with the subject matter that the narrative flips on it’s head. “Why do you care what others believe?” “Why do you focus so much on this when you think it’s not true?” Occasionally it can be, “You must in your heart know it to be true with all the time you spend on it.”

In short, there is no sweet spot for a questioning non-believer (atheist or otherwise) where he or she questions the faith enough but not too much.

Now I don’t want to speak for ThinkingSapien, but in my personal view when he says, “So, to wrap it up, the whole “god”-thingy is incoherent, there is nothing to discuss,” he doesn’t mean that the question of whether there is or isn’t a god isn’t worthy of discussion but that there is no meat to it – nothing to grab onto and investigate. It’s as substantive a debate as, “Is blue the best color?” or “Do aliens in the Andromeda galaxy wear hats to bed?”

 

[Gorgias]

My first problem is that the word “god” is usually undefined or underdefined. What does the word “god” refer to; what is its referent? It is my understanding that “god” is a “being”, or an “entity” which is metaphysically “supernatural”, and epistemologically “transcendent”. Supernatural is something that is beyond the physical reality; while transcendent is something that is beyond comprehension, which is “unknowable”.

I would nuance that definition as something that’s beyond complete understanding. It’s not that it’s absolutely ‘unknowable’.

Since the word “universe” describes “everything that exists”,

Again, we’re disagreeing on definition. The universe is “everything that exists physically.” But… you get to this point eventually (almost)…

the existence beyond the universe is a logically nonsensical proposition.

No it isn’t… unless you posit that the physically created is the extent of what exists. Buddhists are ‘atheists’, properly speaking – they don’t believe in a ‘god’; but they believe that there’s more to existence than what exists physically. So, we’re already in a subset of atheism: that subset populated by empiricists, who suggest that only the physical – that is, what can be demonstrated empirically – may be asserted to exist.

Now I can lend you a hand, if you so desire. You are most welcome to say that the universe consists of “two” parts: the physical universe and the “non-physical” one.

Nope. Close, but no cigar. The universe is the physical creation. Theists would assert that God exists, but not within the universe. He’s not “the non-physical part of the universe”; He’s outside of it.

You are welcome to argue that the “non-physical” is primary, and it created the secondary… the physical part. Go ahead. Give us some evidence that there is an active (physically active!) but otherwise non-physical realm of existence - and we can go on from that.

Cute attempt. “I’ll let you assert that there’s non-physical stuff… if you can prove it physically.”

On the other hand, if you’ll admit of a different sort of ‘evidence’ than ‘empirical evidence’ (i.e., ‘physical evidence’), then we can proceed. Are you game?

Epistemological “transcendence” is simply an admission that we cannot say anything about “god”, not even that it exists.

Not at all. It’s not that we can’t say anything – it’s that we can’t say everything. Big difference, there.

As for the “God of the Bible”, there is absolutely no proof, not even evidence that it exists.

So, let me ask you… what would count for you as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ for the ‘God of the Bible’?

 

[Gorgias]

The increasing lack of a belief in the Christian God (for any number of reasons) generally leads to further questions about the existence of the supernatural in general. And then a realisation that one needs to include a whole pantheon of gods in the box marked ‘I don’t believe’. Including the ones that cure distemper and find computer discs.

Agreed. Yet, that’s a horribly unscientific worldview. It’s like saying “since alchemy was bunk, and medieval medicine was bunk, and this and that and the next thing is bunk… therefore, I’m an ascientist: science itself clearly doesn’t exist.”

 

[PRmerger]

My first problem is that the word “god” is usually undefined or underdefined.

The God of the Philosophers is typically what we mean when we discuss God, esp. here on the Philosophy forum.

That is: God is defined as the necessary, eternal, infinite, transcendent, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Does lack of Questioning lead to Atheism?

Perhaps instead of “do you believe in the God of Abraham and in Jesus Christ our Saviour?” , the question should be " have you met God yet?"

I am reminded of 2 situations. My rural / regional town, as with many here, is experiencing a battle with ice addiction and its associated issues - theft, etc. A young ice addict may not be a gifted reader so won’t be reading classical literature with a dictionary to understand Catholic terminology and knowledge. But he or she will be on facebook and the internet for ’ how to steal a car , use it for crime, then burn it’ in a good time frame. Pope Francis says ’ look for God in everyday things, in little things’. This questioning might more readily identify for a conflicted youth.

Everything around us on earth is matter. We cant see the atmosphere we sit in, or walk through with our eyes. But it consists of tiny atoms. The bench I sit on is made of tiny atoms bonded so strongly, they hold my weight. i need some expensive equipment to see them, or smash them into each other. I can put a peitri dish in a hallway for half an hour. Then incubate it. And visibly see the colonies of bacteria that were present in the atmosphere in the hallway. What is the peitri dish for the presence of God? Does a civilian in Aleppo ask this question today, the author and audience of the book The Life of Pi, the person on a bus to work.
Are the right questions not being asked. Has the questioning discourse been hijacked to a monolog?

I cant cut and paste yet but want to address three replies.

I am Vegetarian. I dont eat animal flesh. But not for ethical reasons. I simply dont enjoy it. Many ask if I eat chicken and fish when I say I am a vegetarian .

Rwanda. Read about Our Lady of Kibeho. The place, and some of those people were later lost in the massacres.

Magic / magicians never reveal their methods. But we all know that card flourished as the result of the trick, is a human construct. A different idea altogether then praying to our fav saint for God’s intercession for a cancer cure, if it be His will.

Have you met the God of Abraham and met Jesus Christ, today ?

 

[Bradski]

Agreed. Yet, that’s a horribly unscientific worldview. It’s like saying “since alchemy was bunk, and medieval medicine was bunk, and this and that and the next thing is bunk… therefore, I’m an ascientist: science itself clearly doesn’t exist.”

One hardly rejects science simply because some people are confused as to what it constitutes. And we know that science works so what we do is reject things that people claim are scientific but which are not. Homeopathy for example. We can look at the evidence and show that the claims it makes are bogus.

The supernatural is different. There are no rules to follow. There are no guidlines. There is no definition - other than describing it as ‘something that does not follow naturall laws’. So it’s quite a crowded field. And the thing is, if just a single claim is shown to be valid, then all claims must be considered as having some validity.

But what I have discovered is that no claim referencing the supernatural has at any time, by anybody come anywhere close to being shown to be anywhere near an approximation of being true. So I have reached the following conclusion: The supernatural does not exist.

Now you might claim that I either haven’t looked hard enough or long enough or maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places. And you might, just might, be right. But over the years I have developed a default position. And it will remain my default position until you or anyone else can show me evidence for something that I haven’t already rejected which would change my mind.

 

[PRmerger]

One hardly rejects science simply because some people are confused as to what it constitutes.

This is exceedingly amusing to read, Brad.

Isn’t that one of your fall back objections to Christianity? People are confused as to what it means? “Some Christians believe A, but other Christians believe non-A”.

I will remember your quote above next time you try to offer that objection.

Homeopathy for example. We can look at the evidence and show that the claims it makes are bogus.

I, too, am skeptical about homeopathy.

Except what’s the explanation for the reports: my grandma told me that this would cure my leg cramps…I did what she said, and my leg cramps are gone!

Now you might claim that I either haven’t looked hard enough or long enough or maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places. And you might, just might, be right. But over the years I have developed a default position. And it will remain my default position until you or anyone else can show me evidence for something that I haven’t already rejected which would change my mind.

This is so interesting to me…the inconsistency.

You have embraced the possibility of a multiverse…that seems to be your “default position”…despite no compelling evidence for its existence.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again, we’re disagreeing on definition. The universe is “everything that exists physically.”

If you choose a special definition, then there is no way to get a conversation.

So, we’re already in a subset of atheism: that subset populated by empiricists, who suggest that only the physical – that is, what can be demonstrated empirically – may be asserted to exist.

The word “exists” has several meanings. Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same. But you (in general) wish to introduce a third type of existence, one which is not physical but still physically active. Something like “magic”, or “paranormal”. And I see no evidence for any of them.

So, let me ask you… what would count for you as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ for the ‘God of the Bible’?

Irrelevant. God would know what that evidence would be, even if you don’t know.

 

[PRmerger]

Irrelevant. God would know what that evidence would be, even if you don’t know.

Yeah, but we’d like to know.

Why, oh, why, is this such a difficult question for folks to answer?

It’s such a peculiar response to a very reasonable question.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Agreed. Yet, that’s a horribly unscientific worldview. It’s like saying “since alchemy was bunk, and medieval medicine was bunk, and this and that and the next thing is bunk… therefore, I’m an ascientist: science itself clearly doesn’t exist.”

Science is an objective epistemic method; it is a means to separate true claims from false ones.

I agree that lumping all religions together isn’t entirely fair, but I think they all have a feature which allows us to reason about them collectively. That feature is: lack of a well defined epistemic method for testing their claims.

So someone might say: “That’s not true! Christianity has such a method! It’s philosophy + knowledge from our holy books/people!”

The simple response to that is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
If there really was a well defined, objective method for separating true christian claims from false ones, there would be only one christian denomination because any splinter group would quickly be shown to fail the epistemic method.

So someone else might say “Well Catholicism has an objective method; all the other denominations fail to meet our criteria.”

It may be true that there is a way to test whether claims are Catholic or not, but we only care about whether claims are true or not. Specifically, the methods underlying Catholic belief are not actually objective; they rely on the same kind of subjective philosophy + knowledge from books/people that every other denomination does. So it may be the case that you can objectively know whether certain claims conform to the Catholic’s subjective philosophy + knowledge from books/people, but that’s not what we’re looking for.

So I think that the lesson to learn from the failure of so many religions is that “philosophy + knowledge from our holy books/people!” doesn’t get you any reliable information; that in the absence of an objective epistemic method, any truth you may happen to find is accidental.

So when you lump science in with things like alchemy and medieval medicine, I think you’re not refuting Bradski. What were those except religious contact with objectivity? Sure, the beliefs which motivated them were bunk, but the knowledge they generated was real: specifically the knowledge that trying to use religious and mystical beliefs to manipulate the world will quickly reveal the beliefs to be bunk.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Right, no evidence, except… the Bible… and the entire cultures it immediately produced and was produced in.

The Bible is a collection of writs: 1) created by unknown people
2) selected by the early members of the church
3) where the selection was based on “voting”
4) filled with historical,
5) mathematical and
6) scientific errors,
7) none of the pertinent events described has been authenticated by other contemporary authors,
8) and also contains many contradictions
Is that the evidence you refer to?

 

[Gorgias]

If you choose a special definition, then there is no way to get a conversation.

Funny, that. I would call yours the ‘special definition’.

After all, when we talk about the universe, we’re talking about what began with the Big Bang, aren’t we? Then we’re talking about physical creation, which is what my definition encompasses. If you’re expanding that definition to include that which transcends creation, then it’s your use of the term that’s a “special definition.”

The word “exists” has several meanings. Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same. But you (in general) wish to introduce a third type of existence, one which is not physical but still physically active. Something like “magic”, or “paranormal”. And I see no evidence for any of them.

You mean that you see no physical evidence for them, don’t you? And, of course, that’s an unreasonable standard: after all, you’re asking for physical evidence of something claimed to be not physical.

Irrelevant. God would know what that evidence would be, even if you don’t know.

Oh… so, it’s not about what evidence you might consider reasonable – it’s all about the fact that God hasn’t tapped you on the shoulder and said, “I know what you want to see… and here it is”…? Yeah… that’s a reasonable approach.

 

[Wesrock]

Well, the contingency of everything known (that it could “not have been”), the universal application of “from nothing, nothing comes” (without which science becomes irrelevant), and our understanding that nothing in our experience is moved from potential to actual without being actualized by something external (and the potency/actuality distinction still being one of the most coherent explanations for change), provides a lot of physical, real evidence for God. It’s not something you can run an experimental test on, but it is based on real experience and observations of evidence.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

After all, when we talk about the universe, we’re talking about what began with the Big Bang, aren’t we?

Nope. Our current physics is only able to “penetrate” the singularity to a certain extent. The concepts of “before” or “outside” the universe are undefined and undefinable - therefore - nonsensical. The phrase “universe” simply means “everything that exists”. Even the laws of nature, or the concepts describing them. Or “Jack and Jill” or the Ninth Symphony. There are already two kinds of existence: the “physical” and the “conceptual”. You are the ones, who argue for a “non-physical”, but active existence, which is able to interact with the physical part of reality. So, go ahead, bring up evidence for it.

A nice evocation might be an interesting first step, which would summon up a “demon”. I wonder, if exorcists have one? After all they need to “practice” the ritual somehow. And they need some procedure to ascertain that THERE IS a demon to be exorcised, and then another one to show that the exorcism was successful…

You mean that you see no physical evidence for them, don’t you? And, of course, that’s an unreasonable standard: after all, you’re asking for physical evidence of something claimed to be not physical.

According to the Catholic teaching God constantly interacts with the reality. God is not a “deistic god”, he needs to sustain the reality every picosecond, because otherwise the world would simply flicker out of existence. Not to mention that God - allegedly - did assume physical existence, and not just once, but many times.

And the believers in the paranormal argue that there is a way to move the physical reality by mental means. Unfortunately they all turn out to be charlatans, when they try to prove their ideas.

Oh… so, it’s not about what evidence you might consider reasonable – it’s all about the fact that God hasn’t tapped you on the shoulder and said, “I know what you want to see… and here it is”…? Yeah… that’s a reasonable approach.

I did not say anything about necessary evidence, because I know that none of you can supply it; notwithstanding your condescending “rolling eyes”. But even if I did, it would not be unprecedented - see the story of Doubting Thomas. Of course if God is too busy, I will settle for a few angels or demons. Especially to see them fighting. What a wonderful sight it would be! We could even make some bets on the outcome.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible is a collection of writs: 1) created by unknown people
2) selected by the early members of the church
3) where the selection was based on “voting”
4) filled with historical,
5) mathematical and
6) scientific errors,
7) none of the pertinent events described has been authenticated by other contemporary authors,
8) and also contains many contradictions
Is that the evidence you refer to?

When you talk about any event in ancient history, do you have the same degree of cynicism?

I would venture that the standard is quite low for your demand for evidence in all other events of antiquity.

One has to wonder why this is so…

 

[Gorgias]

Nope. Our current physics is only able to “penetrate” the singularity to a certain extent.

And yet, if your definition of the universe hinges on the singularity, you’re still only talking about the physical.

The concepts of “before” or “outside” the universe are undefined and undefinable - therefore - nonsensical.

Undefined today, maybe. Unknowable today, perhaps. By your standard, we should’ve stopped attempting scientific discovery ages ago since, after all, we had already reached the limit of what was definable and knowable. Thank goodness there were scientists who were willing to press beyond the boundaries you’ve set up for them!

And thus, since the ‘undefinable’ and ‘unknowable’ aren’t static – but rather, are simply expressions of what science is currently capable of – we must conclude that the ‘boundaries’ are unknown, but that this doesn’t imply anything about the knowledge that our current limitations cannot approach. Therefore, that means that what you’re really doing is pointing to our current limitations and saying, “there, but no further.” So, you really are pointing to the physical and defining it as ‘universe.’ Thanks for helping prove my point.

The phrase “universe” simply means “everything that exists”. Even the laws of nature, or the concepts describing them. Or “Jack and Jill” or the Ninth Symphony. There are already two kinds of existence: the “physical” and the “conceptual”.

If I understand the distinction you’re attempting to posit, the ‘conceptual’ proceeds from the ‘physical’. The Ninth Symphony proceeds from a physical human; the nursery rhyme about Jack and Jill was created by a physical human. You still haven’t escaped the bounds of the physical universe.

You are the ones, who argue for a “non-physical”, but active existence, which is able to interact with the physical part of reality. So, go ahead, bring up evidence for it.

Again, we’re back to the question you’ve avoided answering to this point. What would you consider to be ‘evidence’ of this ‘non-physical but active existence’?

According to the Catholic teaching God constantly interacts with the reality. God is not a “deistic god”, he needs to sustain the reality every picosecond, because otherwise the world would simply flicker out of existence. Not to mention that God - allegedly - did assume physical existence, and not just once, but many times.

Good point. Not original, but good. What would you assert is possible, in terms of measurement, of God’s interaction in the universe? After all, if we’re asserting that this is a constant and pervasive feature of the universe – that is, that God sustains it in every picosecond – then there’s no variation or background noise that would allow you to measure it! Sooo… what exactly are you proposing is possible to measure?

And the believers in the paranormal argue that there is a way to move the physical reality by mental means. Unfortunately they all turn out to be charlatans, when they try to prove their ideas.

You’re not asking me to concede that if God is real, so are the claims of believers in the paranormal, are you? That just doesn’t hold up to reason…

I did not say anything about necessary evidence, because I know that none of you can supply it; notwithstanding your condescending “rolling eyes”.

I like my rolling eyes. They express emotion.

However, you avoided the question; and now, you continue to avoid it. I’ll keep emoting, thank you.

But even if I did, it would not be unprecedented - see the story of Doubting Thomas.

Funny thing is… he asked for something in particular – and was satisfied. You’re asking for no particular thing, and then claiming victory when you get exactly what you asked for – no particular thing.

 

[PRmerger]

When I first started asking questions, I left. But later, when I started asking questions on other, non-religious things I’d been taking for granted, I came back.

An atheist could have had the opposite experience, of course.

Reminds me of a quote from physicist Werner Heisenberg “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

This Heisenberg:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Not this one:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net...est/scale-to-width-down/270?cb=20130928055404

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And yet, if your definition of the universe hinges on the singularity, you’re still only talking about the physical.

The universe does not hinge of the singularity. It is a philosophical concept. The universe is not an object, it is a collection of different objects. Some of which are physical, others are conceptual, and some are allegedly supernatural / transcendent. We are all familiar with the physical, most of us can expand to the conceptual, and some people assert the “existence” of supernatural.

The universe contains physical objects, their attributes, relationships and motions. Attributes, like “distance” exist in an objective way, while “near” and “far” are subjective. Relationships, like “before” and “after”, or “next to” exist, and none of them are physical objects. The universe is much more than a collection of physical objects.

Undefined today, maybe. Unknowable today, perhaps.

I said nothing about “unknowable”. A logically incoherent state of affairs is forever “undefinable”. The “other” side of the Mobius strip cannot be defined. The “inside” of the Klein bottle cannot be defined. The direction of “north” cannot be defined at the North Pole.

If I understand the distinction you’re attempting to posit, the ‘conceptual’ proceeds from the ‘physical’. The Ninth Symphony proceeds from a physical human; the nursery rhyme about Jack and Jill was created by a physical human. You still haven’t escaped the bounds of the physical universe.

Numbers are conceptual, they do not reside “anywhere”. Besides, I am quite comfortable to be within the physical universe, it is you who wishes to expand it. Good luck.

Again, we’re back to the question you’ve avoided answering to this point. What would you consider to be ‘evidence’ of this ‘non-physical but active existence’?

No, I did not avoid, I declined. If I would give you some pointers, you would complain that I wish to limit your answer. I don’t wish to “limit” you. You have total freedom to use any tool you wish. The ball is in your court, and you will not get any help from me. You assert that there is some non-physical, yet physically active existence. Give some definition for it, and present an epistemological method to verify it. Use your imagination. Why should I help you to solve your problem? You are invited to use any epistemological method to present evidence for the supernatural. Whether any of these methods is convincing - remains to be seen. But I can promise you, that if you present a convincing argument, I will accept it.

Good point. Not original, but good. What would you assert is possible, in terms of measurement, of God’s interaction in the universe? After all, if we’re asserting that this is a constant and pervasive feature of the universe – that is, that God sustains it in every picosecond – then there’s no variation or background noise that would allow you to measure it! Sooo… what exactly are you proposing is possible to measure?

I have no idea. But I can tell you that the alleged constant interaction by God makes the whole science irrelevant. Why look for the laws of nature? There is no “gravity”, it is God who keeps the planets on their orbits. There is no need to look for a “critical mass”. The pile of atoms will explode when God decides that it should explode.

You’re not asking me to concede that if God is real, so are the claims of believers in the paranormal, are you? That just doesn’t hold up to reason…

Nope, I only point out that neither the proponents of the paranormal, nor the believers of the supernatural could substantiate their claims.

Funny thing is… he asked for something in particular – and was satisfied. You’re asking for no particular thing, and then claiming victory when you get exactly what you asked for – no particular thing.

Not true. I ask for something, anything, and all I get is nothing. But, what the heck… can you present an evocation to summon up some angels and demons? That would be an interesting (though insufficient) first step toward proving God’s existence.

 

[Wesrock]

I have no idea. But I can tell you that the alleged constant interaction by God makes the whole science irrelevant. Why look for the laws of nature? There is no “gravity”, it is God who keeps the planets on their orbits. There is no need to look for a “critical mass”. The pile of atoms will explode when God decides that it should explode.

That is not at all what classical theism proposes, and it is the philosophical foundation they laid about an intelligible, rational universe operating on natural laws that laid the groundwork for the scientific method. This caricature of what the theist means in regards to God’s continual sustaining of the universe is just so off the mark as to be insulting.

The God of classical theism is not some arbitrary planet mover. He is an ontologically necessary fixture of an intelligible reality in which the sciences and reason can be applied, a necessary conclusion of taking the world as intelligible and rational. You might not agree with the philosophical demonstrations, but you’re mocking a strawman. You want to look for world views that make science meaningless, please chase after those who deny 'from nothing, nothing comes".