On agnosticism (Calling Atheists and Agnostics)

[Matthias123]

Dear lord… please heal all the amputees in the world.
Amen.

That is synonymous to saying “If you say you are the Son of God, turn these stones into bread.”

Christ is not the “New David” as people wanted Him to be. He did not come to solve world hunger, He did not come to destroy suffering, and He did not come to be King of the World. On the contrary he said “I have not come to bring peace, but the sword.” That is why the Jews rejected him. Christ is the “New Moses”, the greater prophet that was promised, not a “New David”.

So you must ask, what did the Messiah do if he did not solve world hunger, and usher in an era of world peace?

He brought God to man – that is what he did.

So the way you are praying is not compatible with the understanding of the Christian God.

 

[Matthias123]

Ah, so philosophically, it’s okay to assume there is a Giant cupcake in the center of the universe. Got it.

No it isn’t. You are not understood what I am saying. I am arguing for the Aristotelian God. Did you even read my argument?

 

[redhen]

Without the intent of derailing the thread it is child’s play to prove that 1 = 0. Here it comes:

Step 1: Let a = b.
Step 2: Mulitply both sides with “a” and get: a^2 = ab,
Step 3: Let’s add a^2 to bothe sides: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 4: Which can be written as: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 5: Subtract 2ab from bothe sides: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab,
Step 6: Which is: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab.
Step 7: This can be written as 2 * (a^2 - ab) = 1 * (a^2 - ab),
Step 8: and cancelling the common factor of (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 2 = 1
Step 9: which equals 1 = 0.

Where is the error?

Failure at Step 8. What’s a^2-ab ? Well, since a=b, the answer is 0, and as everyone knows, you can’t divide by 0. Nice try though.

 

[liquidpele]

No it isn’t. You are not understood what I am saying. I am arguing for the Aristotelian God. Did you even read my argument?

I suppose I’ll leave this alone then, as I don’t see the relevance of such an argument. Good day!

 

[Spock]

Failure at Step 8. What’s a^2-ab ? Well, since a=b, the answer is 0, and as everyone knows, you can’t divide by 0. Nice try though.

Well done.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Failure at Step 8. What’s a^2-ab ? Well, since a=b, the answer is 0, and as everyone knows, you can’t divide by 0. Nice try though.

Haha that was bugging me, cheers. :doh2:

 

[DavidHume]

That is synonymous to saying “If you say you are the Son of God, turn these stones into bread.”
…
So the way you are praying is not compatible with the understanding of the Christian God.

How convenient for Christians that they permit their God to seem utterly impotent to outside observers.

 

[SimonArizona]

How convenient for Christians that they permit their God to seem utterly impotent to outside observers.

We are sincere. We don’t pretend to believe in God for advantage. We actually believe in the great God of the universe who we all cannot see with eyes. We do not permit God anything.

 

[Matthias123]

How convenient for Christians that they permit their God to seem utterly impotent to outside observers.

What are you talking about? We just had what appears to be a first class miracle, just about 15 min away from where I live, in Surrey BC. A man was hours away from death with the flesh eating disease, and after placing the Relic of Blessed Marmion over him, and having the priests whole parish pray for him the flesh eating bacteria disappeared. He was also told he would be brain damaged and never walk again. He is completely fine save for a cane. It was on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.

The Vatican is sending an investigator, and God willing we will be saying Saint Marmion very soon.

I am sure you are going to say that there must be a natural explanation, because you’re a materialist. In all honesty if God really did speak to you from on high I am betting you would say your insane before believing that it is really God speaking.

I mean, what kind of proof are you Atheists looking for?

How about if he comes down to earth and says he is exists, and that he is God? Wait…he already did that didn’t he? How about he does it every generation?

Then again nobody believed Him, and I doubt you would believe Him.

In conclusion, there is no proof that will every convince an atheist that there is a God. Why? because it will come into conflict with their world view, and force them out of a position of moral subjectivity/moral nilism.

The fact is, Atheists love being atheists, and they don’t want to give up what they have going for them – there is too many ways to rationalise their atheism.

 

[redhen]

How about if he comes down to earth and says he is exists, and that he is God? Wait…he already did that didn’t he? How about he does it every generation?

" a “god of all humankind” could have carved “Jesus Lives” on the face of the moon, where all humankind could witness the miracle, and observe it for all time without relying on hearsay"

Problem solved.

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/1.html

 

[hatsoff]

Someone successfully caught the logical error in the 1=0 proof. Now allow me to do the same for the God proof…

[James Kidd wrote:]

I first start with Cogito ergo sum – “I think therefore I am”. It is impossible to deny one’s existence logically. I understand there are those who choose to believe they in fact don’t exist but I assert that this notion is absurd. As even the doubting of ones existence is an act of one that exists is, thus proving existence. It is possible to be deceived by perception but no matter what this deception is the fact remains that you exists. Now there must be an “act of being” that all beings participate. Without the act of existence nothing would exist and it as been already demonstrated that at least one entity exists (Yourself). Therefore the act of existence exists and must be an entity, this entity is called Esse.

And there you are. The “act” of existence is just a property of extant things. That property does not itself “exist” except insofar as it is a concept which we extant beings think about.

[James Kidd continues:]

Now potentially is a deficiency of a pure actually.

This is just nonsense. What in the world is “pure actuality” supposed to mean?

[James Kidd continues:]

The act of existence must be a pure actually otherwise the act of existence would be a deficiency of a pure actually thus still resulting in the existence of a outside greater pure actually.

This is just more jabberwocky. Assuming we define “pure actuality” such as to have coherent meaning, then why would the “act of existence” not being a pure actuality imply the existence of pure actuality?

But of course none of these terms are defined, so it’s bizarre nonsense either way.

The rest of the argument raises the bar for wackiness. At least the 1=0 proof tries to hide its invalidity by confining it to a single step.

 

[tonyrey]

" a “god of all humankind” could have carved “Jesus Lives” on the face of the moon, where all humankind could witness the miracle, and observe it for all time without relying on hearsay".
Problem solved.

Then atheists would argue that some extraterrestrial being did it as a joke!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Then atheists would argue that some extraterrestrial being did it as a joke!

I would actually consider that more likely.

 

[tonyrey]

I would actually consider that more likely.

Problem unsolved!

 

[Matthias123]

Someone successfully caught the logical error in the 1=0 proof. Now allow me to do the same for the God proof…

And there you are. The “act” of existence is just a property of extant things. That property does not itself “exist” except insofar as it is a concept which we extant beings think about.

This is just nonsense. What in the world is “pure actuality” supposed to mean?

This is just more jabberwocky. Assuming we define “pure actuality” such as to have coherent meaning, then why would the “act of existence” not being a pure actuality imply the existence of pure actuality?

But of course none of these terms are defined, so it’s bizarre nonsense either way.

The rest of the argument raises the bar for wackiness. At least the 1=0 proof tries to hide its invalidity by confining it to a single step.

This is just nonsense. What in the world is “pure actuality” supposed to mean?

But of course none of these terms are defined, so it’s bizarre nonsense either way.

This is just more jabberwocky. Assuming we define “pure actuality” such as to have coherent meaning, then why would the “act of existence” not being a pure actuality imply the existence of pure actuality?

You have some reading to do my friend. You are not understanding because your understanding of philosophy is weak. Please read Metaphysics by Aristotle.

. That property does not itself “exist” except insofar as it is a concept which we extant beings think about.

No sorry that is erroneous. If it didn’t actually exist, you would not exist. It is true that it also actually exists as a mental concept. The mental concept, which is the substantial form that exists in our intellect, is different from the existence of the “act” of existing.

 

[Matthias123]

I would actually consider that more likely.

Exactly

There is nothing that will convince you that God exists.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Problem unsolved!

Yes that would be my answer.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Exactly

There is nothing that will convince you that God exists.

Well god could actually come to earth and show me???

 

[hatsoff]

You have some reading to do my friend. You are not understanding because your understanding of philosophy is weak. Please read Metaphysics by Aristotle.

Your evaluation of my “understanding of philosophy” notwithstanding, I am not going to read Aristotle because you think it vindicates your argument. If you think you can define the terms meaningfully, and such that the argument is logically valid, then you are welcome to do so in your own words.

No sorry that is erroneous. If it didn’t actually exist, you would not exist. It is true that it also actually exists as a mental concept. The mental concept, which is the substantial form that exists in our intellect, is different from the existence of the “act” of existing.

That is a claim which requires justification. In what other sense does this so-called “act of existence” exist, such that if it did not, we would not exist?

 

[Matthias123]

Your evaluation of my “understanding of philosophy” notwithstanding, I am not going to read Aristotle because you think it vindicates your argument. If you think you can define the terms meaningfully, and such that the argument is logically valid, then you are welcome to do so in your own words.

If your not going to bother to learn the proper philosophical terms and concepts, then I am not going to bother arguing with you. There is no reason why I should create new words to explain these concepts when you can just go and read Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas.

That is a claim which requires justification. In what other sense does this so-called “act of existence” exist, such that if it did not, we would not exist?

The neo-platonic view of existence was that all beings participated in existence. Then after the sack of Constantinople by the Venetians, the European philosophers were able to translate Aristotle’s work into Latin. Only Logic was translated into Latin at that time, therefore the influx of Aristotelian thought was decisive. Thomas Aquinas argued that beings do not exist because they participate in existence. They exist separately from the substance of existence, and that since existence is not in the nature of beings, they must be metaphysically caused by a being that exists by its very nature. They exist from an act of existence that has a metaphysical cause that not only causes their existence but sustains their existence.

Therefore the metaphysical cause (God) is the creator and the sustainer of all things. Welcome to Thomistic Metaphysics!