Our Response to Anti-Theism

[IWantGod]

You are now simply repeating what you think people believe when they have specifically told you something completely different.

No, i know exactly what he is thinking. He thinks and assumes that the scientific principle of emergent properties justifies the conclusion that metaphysical naturalism is consistent with goal direction. He wants to state that assumption without given a rational justification for it. He assumes that metaphysical naturalism is a rationally consistent idea to begin with. But it is not, for the reasons i just stated.

Emergent physical properties is one thing, emergent goal direction is something else entirely and to simply state that science has shown us that a new nature or quality has emerged out of physical processes tells us nothing about whether or not metaphysical naturalism is logically consistent with our personal experiences…

I keep telling you, stop conflating science with your philosophical beliefs so as to give legitimacy to an idea that has none. If you have a philosophical argument make one.

 

[MarysLurker]

The ratio of circumference to diameter is metaphysical? You’re off to a bad start.

So you’re saying you’ve ACTUALLY MEASURED π?! You’ve actually OBSERVED it?

Last time I checked we had who knows how many supercomputers trying to figure that one out!

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The ratio of circumference to diameter is metaphysical? You’re off to a bad start.

So you’re saying you’ve ACTUALLY MEASURED π?! You’ve actually OBSERVED it?

Last time I checked we had who knows how many supercomputers trying to figure that one out!

I wasn’t aware that computers were being used to deterct metaphysical entities.

 

[IWantGod]

But purpose emerges at higher levels.

That may happen in the real world, but it cannot happen if metaphysical naturalism is true. To simply state that a purpose can emerge is not an argument.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But purpose emerges at higher levels.

That may happen in the real world, but it cannot happen if metaphysical naturalism. To simply state that a purpose can emerge is not an argument.

It’s not an argument. It’s an observation.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s not an argument. It’s an observation.

If you observe purpose in nature, then you have to make rational sense of it’s existence. You cannot just assert that physics alone justifies it’s existence. An observation is not a metaphysical argument for materialism.

I have already stated what the problem is, and you keep failing to give a sufficient rebuttal beyond assertions and the conflation of two disciplines.

 

[MarysLurker]

I wasn’t aware that computers were being used to deterct metaphysical entities

Well, what do you think? Does π have a metaphysical existence?

 

[Vico]

I have and will maintain that love is the best response to anti-theism.

But how can we get through to people who are set in believing that religion is evil or God cannot exist?
Should we even bother talking to the people who have these views?
What are your thoughts?

(I’m more interested in different peoples takes on this. The only opinion I put forth is Love)

God renders a person capable of supernatural acts of the soul through actual grace, and has already instilled moral verity in our consciences. Our part as the faithful is to pray for them and to help awaken them to their own conscience, and to not give them scandal, but rather be our likeness of God. Grace brings faith, hope, and charity.

 

[Economist]

In the real world this is true.

There is only one world, the real world. The point was that complex systems cannot be reduced directly to to the underlying simpler systems. But that does not mean some magical, non-physical layer.

The laws of classical physics (mechanics) are insufficient to explain the laws of chemistry. But there is no need to imagine some “spiritual” stuff to explain the laws of chemistry. Biology cannot be reduced to chemistry. Sociology cannot be reduced to biology. Economics cannot be reduced to the laws of quantum mechanics.

That may happen in the real world, but it cannot happen if metaphysical naturalism is true.

This is called the argument of incredulity. And there is no evidence to support it.

Well, what do you think? Does π have a metaphysical existence?

You seem to have a problem with abstractions. An abstract value of “1” or “π” or “e” are not physical entities, they only exist as abstractions. Just like there is no physical entity (composed of elementary particles / forces) of “Hamlet”, or the “Ninth Symphony”. Also there are no unicorns, dragons and other imaginary beings.

Everything we know comes either from direct observation of the physical world (either by the unaided senses, or their extensions) or our ability to extrapolate from the direct observations, or from sheer imagination.

Your error comes from the assumption that there are non-physical and yet physically active entities, which are able to interact with the physical reality. These could be gods, demons, angels, paranormal forces (telekinesis, etc). Your problem is that you assume physically active existence, and don’t realize that physically active entities are subject to physical laws and they could be detected if they existed.

The attempt to evade it is reference to some kind of “magic”.

Let me repeat: “non-physical, yet physically active existence” comes from sheer imagination.

 

[IWantGod]

But that does not mean some magical, non-physical layer.

And it doesn’t mean goal direction either.

 

[MarysLurker]

You seem to have a problem with abstractions . An abstract value of “1” or “π” or “e” are not physical entities, they only exist as abstractions

Counting numbers like “1” and the base-10 number system in general are abstractions that people came up with to help them understand math. But π is not. Nobody came up with it. If π was an abstraction, some human would have been its origin. But it was discovered, not invented, again unlike counting numbers. In fact, we haven’t finished discovering it and never will.

abstract​

adjective

ab·stract | \ ab-ˈstrakt , ˈab-ˌ \

Definition of abstract​

(Entry 1 of 3)

1a : disassociated from any specific instance an abstract entity

b : difficult to understand : ABSTRUSEabstract problems

c : insufficiently factual : FORMALpossessed only an abstract right

2 : expressing a quality apart from an object the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract

3a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : THEORETICALabstract science

b : IMPERSONAL, DETACHEDthe abstract compassion of a surgeon— Time

4 : having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content abstract painting

 

[IWantGod]

You seem to have a problem with abstractions

Well if my mind is only comprised of atoms, what is there that does the abstracting? The atoms?

I think the opposite is true.

 

[IWantGod]

You seem to have a problem with abstractions . An abstract value of “1” or “π” or “e” are not physical entities, they only exist as abstractions

Then metaphysical naturalism is wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

This is called the argument of incredulity .

Assertion

And there is no evidence to support it.

Another assertion.

If there is fundamentally no goal direction in physical processes, and physical reality is all there is, then logically i do not expect goal direction to emerge since it would contradict the fundamental constituents of which such an activity is comprised. And to use the principle of emergent properties as an explanation doesn’t help your case because while it is reasonable that a nature can be greater than what it is comprised of, it cannot at the same time contradict the nature of what it is comprised of, which is exactly what is happening when you try to get goal direction from something that is fundamentally not acting for a goal.

In other-words, you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time.

We are talking about an activity here, and if all activities are comprised of blind impersonal directionless activity that are not acting for any purpose or goal, then you have fundamental problem with justifying a materialist worldview since you cannot simply make a leap to goal direction from that point of view. And to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist is simply dishonest.

 

[IWantGod]

Your error comes from the assumption that there are non-physical and yet physically active entities, which are able to interact with the physical reality. These could be gods, demons, angels, paranormal forces (telekinesis, etc). Your problem is that you assume physically active existence, and don’t realize that physically active entities are subject to physical laws and they could be detected if they existed.

I didn’t assume anything. I pointed out the contradiction, and you failed to refute it.

 

[MarysLurker]

monkeys

I’m not talking about monkeys, I’m talking about transcendental numbers as metaphysical realities. Nobody can give an argument as to why π (or e, etc.) doesn’t exist. And nobody will.

π has quite a few things in common with God:

• It is immaterial, yet it exists
• It is extratemporal
• It is transcendent/infinite (number of digits has no end)
• It is beyond complete human comprehension yet has disclosed itself to some degree in creation itself.

Once you’ve proven that something immaterial exists and has these properties, you’ve destroyed materialism and with it, the main argument of atheism that tries to reduce all existence to materialism.

 

[Economist]

Counting numbers like “1” and the base-10 number system in general are abstractions that people came up with to help them understand math. But π is not. Nobody came up with it. If π was an abstraction, some human would have been its origin.

Indeed. Just like sqrt(2), the diagonal of a square. I suggest you read a book about the history of “pi”.

Well if my mind is only comprised of atoms, what is there that does the abstracting? The atoms?

The activity of the atoms.

Then metaphysical naturalism is wrong.

You just proved that your have no idea what metaphysical naturalism IS.

I didn’t assume anything.

Sure you did. Just present a “non-physical” entity, which can interact with the physical reality. As soon as it exerts some force on the physical reality, it can be measured, and you will prove your point. Try some paranormal activity, like telekinesis, or do some magical incantations to evoke a demon (under properly devised and controlled circumstances), or maybe some prayers the results of which could be measured if the prayer would be answered in a positive fashion.

Your could prove your assertion, if you were able to do it. There is a million dollar prize for anyone who can present an experiment proving anything about the paranormal, or anything supernatural. Very few takers, and no success - so far. You talk the talk, but you are unable to walk the walk!

 

[MarysLurker]

Just present a “non-physical” entity, which can interact with the physical reality

I just did and you haven’t answered (an ad hominem attack like “you are a monkey” or “go read a book” is not a valid argument)

 

[Economist]

I just did and you haven’t answered (an ad hominem attack like go read a book is not a valid argument)

I wish you the best, but I am not interested in wasting more time. The suggestion to read a book is NOT an ad-hominem attack, just a friendly suggestion to help you.

 

[IWantGod]

The activity of the atoms.

Assertion, and one that makes no sense.

You just proved that your have no idea what metaphysical naturalism IS .

Assertion. Metaphysical naturalism (wikipedia) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

Science is the study of physical nature and it’s activity.

Let me ask you, can you put an abstraction in a flask? No you can’t, because like you said it’s not physical.