Please Help-I might become an atheist

[Waiting]

I really need some help in dealing with these articles. They claims to refute many arguments for the existance of God and since I’m just a novice (not even) in my philosophical thinking, these articles really runs circles around my head.

religionislies.com/godnoevidence.html

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/pudding.htm

They’re rather long, but if anyone can answer only one or more of these arguments I’ll be very grateful. I feel at the moment a disgusting fear of possibly becoming an atheist as a result of these and other like arguments, and I can’t fathom the thought of life as meaningless and existance worthless…‘we’re all going to die anyway so why bother with love, life, compassion, truth, morality, equlity, happiness, education, freedom, power, finding a cure for such disease, contributing to society etc… it all ceases to exist at death so why care’ kind of feeling .

Not to mention the horrific prospect of losing Jesus, whom I’ve recently began to fall so much in love with…that’s a fate infinitely worse than any unspeakable atrocity I can think of.

This was also posted as an answer to the question “Where can I find a formal refutation of Aquinas’ ‘Five proofs of God’, the ‘Quinquae viae’?”

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071126085634AAmdTKO

Any help *at all *would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and God bless

You’re not really doubting the existence of God. You’ve felt his presence many times, and never doubted it was God working in your life. You need to do what Jesus said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Completely ignore things atheistic.

In my own long life I have so many times encountered God working for me. Like the time I felt hands on my shoulders leading me to to a product that cured the stomach problems I’d lived with for so many years. Or, when after a visit to a doctor who admitted he couldn’t help me with the pain I was experiencing, I returned home to find an article in a current health magazine that explained my problem and provided a solution. Within a few days I was painfree.

There is no way I would give a minute to anyone trying to convince me there is no God. It would be more realistic to say there is no sun. How can anyone deny what is so clearly there? Who would be so foolish as to turn his back on his most beloved comrade, leave the light and enter into darkness?

 

[mchale]

Sorry for the late submission, but I will do my part to refute the refutations of Aquinas’s arguments:

For what they’re worth, my own inexpert attempts yielded the following in ten minutes’ work:

1. The ‘Unmoved Mover’ fails at “everything that is moved is moved by a mover”. This is untrue in the quantum world at least, and even without this hole, there is no necessity for the Prime Mover to be supernatural.

I would point out that the argument is only apparently true in quantum mechanics (I dislike the term quantum world, because we live in the same world). To begin with, by definition of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, our knowledge of what happens at the Quantum level is severely limited. In addition, we also know (and have known for some time) that the model for both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are flawed (since neither can be used to model things in the scale that the other is used). It takes a lot of guts to be certain about a conclusion that is based off of a flawed theory.

The other concept, that the Prime Mover need not be supernatural is interesting, but ultimately specious. If the prime mover is not supernatural, then by definition it is natural and falls into the realm of science. Since science has not proposed such a natural Prime Mover, nor provided evidence, it is reasonable to assume that such a natural Prime Mover does not exist. The conclusion therefore is that if it must exist, and we can’t find a natural P.M., it must be supernatural.

1. Ditto the ‘First Cause’ argument fails at “everything that is caused is caused by something else”, which is untrue in the quantum world, where uncaused events are commonplace. Again there is no requirement for a First Cause to be supernatural.

See my argument above. Our knowledge of the Quantum realm is nowhere near extensive enough to rule out causation. Indeed, physicists who deal with time travel (which involves Quantum mechanics) are awfully reluctant to toss out causality. If causality really does not exist at the Quantum level, then it doesn’t exist at the macroscopic level since the macroscopic level is simply the aggregate of millions upon billions of quantum interactions.

1. Contingency fails at “something can’t come of nothing”, which applies only in the world of Classical Matter. Virtual particles don’t obey this, and the Big Bang may be a similar event. Both the ‘parallel universe’ and current M-Theory models don’t obey this.

M-Theory is not a theory at all, but rather a hypothesis that works well mathematically, but has yet to have made a single, unique falsifiable prediction. Therefore, it is irrelevant to this discussion since it requires as much or more faith than a belief in God .

Virtual particles do not come from nothing. Rather they are the result of the quantum foam and the basic vacuum energy that permeates space.

Ultimately, science does not understand (and may never be able to understand) the conditions external to the Universe that explain the why of the Big Bang. It would certainly be incorrect to state that the Big Bang is non-contingent, and without being able to make to show that something absolutely is non-contingent, the counter argument can’t stand.

1. The ‘Degree Argument’ is particularly absurd: first, the notion of ‘perfection’ is anthropocentric; and even allowing this notion, ‘ultimate perfection’ is neither implied, nor assumed, nor required at all.

Now of course the argument rests on the notion that our view of the universe is necessarily self-centered. That being said, there is no reason to believe that just because an observer exists in a priviledged position, that his observation is incorrect.

5 The ‘Argument from Design’ has been comprehensively demolished elsewhere. It assumes that the appearance of design must imply design, which is both anthropocentric and wrong

An appeal to authority here! Not very scientific. Ultimately, the argument against design tends to be an argument against evolution. The argument against design at the Universal level is far harder to demolish. The Anthropic Principle is one of the great quandries of Cosmology (i.e. why is the Universe so well suited to life in general, and to intelligent life in particular). The only reasonable counter argument really depends on the concept of an essentially endless number of Universes existing.

–
Bill

 

[Righteousone]

Paarssay, you didn’t answer my question.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The conclusion therefore is that if it must exist, and we can’t find a natural P.M., it must be supernatural.

Must be ‘supernatural’? Thats one heck of a baseless superstitious assumption. Pure assumptions & superstitions dont refute anything.

 

[1234]

(excerpt)

I feel at the moment a disgusting fear of possibly becoming an atheist as a result of these and other like arguments, and I can’t fathom the thought of life as meaningless and existence worthless…‘we’re all going to die anyway so why bother with love, life, compassion, truth, morality, equality, happiness, education, freedom, power, finding a cure for such disease, contributing to society etc… it all ceases to exist at death so why care’ kind of feeling .
…

Any help *at all *would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and God bless

SV, I am concerned that you feel that atheists, agnostics and people with no organized religion, view life as "* meaningless and existence worthless...'we're all going to die anyway so why bother with love, life, compassion, truth, morality, equality, happiness, education, freedom, power, finding a cure for such disease, contributing to society etc... it all ceases to exist at death so why care' kind of feeling*--quoted from your first post.

People who have come to accept non-organized religious views often live very meaningful lives, full of love, charity, good works, generosity. It doesn’t matter if “we’re all going to die anyway.” We all have only one life, so it makes sense to live it with “love, life, compassion, truth, morality, equality, happiness, education, freedom”, to quote you. There is no reason why not to, as I’ve written before. Evil gets found out in many ways, by the law, by ones friends, supervisors, family. Evil is stupid. Goodness, honesty and generosity are smart virtues and reward those who practice them.
You, being of a philosophical turn of mind, might find Victor Frankl's landmark book, "Man's Search for Meaning" very useful. Frankl was a non-practicing Jewish doctor and psychiatrist in Vienna who was sent to Theresienstadt concentration camp; his wife and parents died in Auchwitz. He wrote in his camp and actively counseled his fellow inmates to survive and avoid suicide. After he returned at the end of the war, he wrote about his experiences and created an entire new school of psychotherapy, logotherapy, on finding meaning and value in everything life can throw at you. If you pursue psychology and philosophy in college, you'll undoubtedly be assigned his book to read. I recommend it now. I am sure that cheap copies are available at [www.bookfinder.com](www.bookfinder.com) or through amazon.

 

[mchale]

Must be ‘supernatural’? Thats one heck of a baseless superstitious assumption. Pure assumptions & superstitions dont refute anything.

On the contrary, it is, rather, a rigorous application of logic. Supernatural does not necessarily imply the divine, it simply means something above or outside the natural. If we conclude a Prime Mover must exist, and that P.M. cannot be found in nature, then we must look outside of nature; this meets the definition of supernatural.

In other words, if you logically want to attack my conclusion, you must attack one of my premises; you can either attempt to show that we really can dismiss the concept of a prime mover, or you can show that such a prime mover is natural and not supernatural.

–
Bill

 

[AgnosTheist]

In other words, if you logically want to attack my conclusion, you must attack one of my premises; you can either attempt to show that we really can dismiss the concept of a prime mover, or you can show that such a prime mover is natural and not supernatural.

Nobody really knows what “supernatural” is, nor does anyone really know what “outside nature” really means. But then may I ask you, can not the very fabrics of existence be the prime mover itself?

 

[S_V7]

Because unlike your average animal, we humans have the ability to reason. combine that with the fact that we are social animals, whose survival is based on our ability to cooperate, then you get the idea that murder is wrong.

There are many social animals but humans are the only ones that have such a strong reaction to murder. Many animals kill and go on, humans are devastated, sue, seek justice, revenge, forgiveness…etc I don’t think any other animal does that, and if it’s because of evolution, why are we the only ones? Shouldn’t at least another species have gotten this far, I mean weren’t there other microbs and what not before humans? (I don’t know if this is true, I’m no scientist) so wouldn’t they logically have developed these characteristics by now? What makes us so different so as to develop such complex structures?

Some of my thoguhts, please correct me if I’m wrong cause I often am. Animals kill out of necessity (I think) as in for food and all right? If a cat is hungry, not even starving just wants a snack, it goes and kills a mouse. So if were just as animals, is there any reason as to why I couldn’t do the same? If I was hungry and someone had a cheesburger, could I take it so simply? If they refused, what could stop me from hurting or perhaps even killing to get what I wanted? (and yes there’s the law and all, but isn’t it based on Christian principles? so in this situation, the law is null.)
Compassion? Moral decency? Why would this or anything stop me if it got in the way of what I wanted?

Because unlike your average animal, we humans have the ability to reason.

Well we seem to be the only ones with such a reason, why is that?

we are social animals, whose survival is based on our ability to cooperate

Not sure if this is true, there are many hermits who live alone just fine, no?

Besides, why should you be complaining about murder when the every religion, the catholic church, and even the bible itself is guilty of much murder. In the bible itself the supposed “God of love” demanded that infants be slaughtered. Genocide. Could it be that it goes to show that the biblical god is nothing than a reflection of the human animal?

You have murder and kill mixed up.

---

murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

kill: 1 a: to deprive of life : cause the death of
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill

---

with murder, there must be a standard to render it unlawful. If there is no God and this moral standard is relative, what value does it have?

There are plenty of threads and articles discussing this ( the Crusades and Bible events etc), but I don’t have enough time to go find them just now (6th period is almost over) Please look.

 

[mchale]

Nobody really knows what “supernatural” is, nor does anyone really know what “outside nature” really means. But then may I ask you, can not the very fabrics of existence be the prime mover itself?

I am not sure I would agree that we don’t know what supernatural means; not unless we are willing to say we don’t know what natural means.

That being said, if the “very fabric of existence” was the P.M., I think that would go to one of the possible “natural” P.M. that I mentioned earlier.

–
Bill

 

[Exalt]

Please Help-I might become an atheist

Is that really such a bad thing?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Many animals kill and go on, humans are devastated, sue, seek justice, revenge, forgiveness…etc I don’t think any other animal does that, and if it’s because of evolution, why are we the only ones?

Wolves are social animals. Do you see them killing each other?

If a cat is hungry, not even starving just wants a snack, it goes and kills a mouse. So if were just as animals, is there any reason as to why I couldn’t do the same?

When was the last time you ate a Big Mac, just to have a snack. Thats not much different from killing a cow. You are no different from your cat example.

If I was hungry and someone had a cheesburger, could I take it so simply? If they refused, what could stop me from hurting or perhaps even killing to get what I wanted? (and yes there’s the law and all, but isn’t it based on Christian principles? so in this situation, the law is null.)
Compassion? Moral decency? Why would this or anything stop me if it got in the way of what I wanted?

Laws have been invented long before the invention of Christianity & Judaism.

Well we seem to be the only ones with such a reason, why is that?

Because we were the first animals to have evolved the ability for reason?

Not sure if this is true, there are many hermits who live alone just fine, no?

no. no man is an island. everyone craves for company.

You have murder and kill mixed up.

Your bible god serves as a good example for genocide. Slaughtered babies.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I am not sure I would agree that we don’t know what supernatural means; not unless we are willing to say we don’t know what natural means.

we all know and agree on what natural means. the reason nobody knows what ‘supernatural’ means is because there is no way to objectively observe or theorize it. however in practice, supernatural is anything that is beyond the current levels of human understanding. as such, 2000 years ago a holographic image (or visual illusions of nature) is already seen as supernatural. because it doesnt seem natural for them. when actually its just ignorance.

That being said, if the “very fabric of existence” was the P.M., I think that would go to one of the possible “natural” P.M. that I mentioned earlier.

So we can also say that the very fabric of the prime mover’s existence is natural. Perhaps the only thing that changes is the STATE of existence. Or the laws that governs an existence.

 

[mchale]

we all know and agree on what natural means. the reason nobody knows what ‘supernatural’ means is because there is no way to objectively observe or theorize it. however in practice, supernatural is anything that is beyond the current levels of human understanding. as such, 2000 years ago a holographic image (or visual illusions of nature) is already seen as supernatural. because it doesnt seem natural for them. when actually its just ignorance.

With respect, you are using a common definition of supernatural used by skeptics but not one precise enough for this argument. There is the apparent supernatural, i.e. things that cannot be explained by our knowledge of nature as it actually stands. That however is not truly supernatural. Something that is truly supernatural not only cannot be described by our current understanding of nature, but could not be explained even if we have a perfect understanding of nature. Now certainly one could argue that nothing like that exists, but the possibility of the truly supernatural cannot be ruled out either.

So we can also say that the very fabric of the prime mover’s existence is natural. Perhaps the only thing that changes is the STATE of existence. Or the laws that governs an existence.

We can say the P.M.'s existence is natural if it is contained within our Universe (i.e. the fabric of existence). However if the P.M.'s existence transcends the bounds of the current Universe, or indeed all universes or potential universes, I think one would have a decent case for the P.M. being ultimately supernatural.

–
Bill

 

[Hastrman]

The arguments listed in the OP are all bunk philosophically (no decent Cosmological argument needs a first mover), and fairly unscientific to boot.

I recommend you read quantum physicist Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. He discusses facets of quantum theory that are much closer to disproving materialism, than they are to debunking God.

In his immortal words, “An empty quantum state isn’t nothing. It’s an empty quantum state.”

Another good one is Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to think about God.”

 

[AgnosTheist]

Something that is truly supernatural not only cannot be described by our current understanding of nature, but could not be explained even if we have a perfect understanding of nature. Now certainly one could argue that nothing like that exists, but the possibility of the truly supernatural cannot be ruled out either.

Well anything is possible. But then that would be another heck of an assumption. How many assumptions you have now? 3?

Assumably there is the supernatural.
Assumably there is the supernatural unmoved prime mover.
Assumably there is only one prime mover.

When you rely on heaps upon heaps of baseless assumptions, what you offer is faith, not reason. You cannot refute the athiest arguments using faith.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Also, is it possible that though we perfectly understand everything about the universe, there is no way to know what happened before the Big Bang. And assumably, before the Big B, the energies that later gave rise to the universe was in a supernatural state.

This way your definition of ‘supernatural’ would still retain its meaning.

 

[mchale]

Well anything is possible. But then that would be another heck of an assumption. How many assumptions you have now? 3?

Assumably there is the supernatural.
Assumably there is the supernatural unmoved prime mover.
Assumably there is only one prime mover.

When you rely on heaps upon heaps of baseless assumptions, what you offer is faith, not reason. You cannot refute the athiest arguments using faith.

With respect, by definition, there can be only one prime mover. The question is whether one exists or not. That is not an assumption in the argument, but what the argument is about.

Further, I am at least freely admitting my assumptions. Atheists make at least as big an assumption that everything can be explained by natural means (which, when you consider that philosophically you cannot even verify the accuracy of your own perception is a pretty big leap).

My assumptions are as follows:

1. Everything in the Universe is in motion.
2. Everything in motion was caused to be in motion by something else (yes I know, the quantum counter argument… except as I pointed out, quantum mechanics really doesn’t understand what is going on at the quantum scale yet… and most physicists are not willing to throw out causality yet).
3. The Universe is not infinitely old.

Assumptions 1 and 3 are strongly supported by current evidence, 2 I will grant is a larger leap, but hardly undefendable.

Now if everything in motion has to have been placed in motion by something else, then we either have to accept the notion of an infinite regression of cause and effect. However that is not possible from 3. If there is no infinite regression then there has to be a first movement or first set of movements. At that point we need to show how that set of movements got started on its own without cause or accept that there might be a cause. Obviously the Big Bang can become a proximate Prime Mover (i.e. everything in the Universe can be traced back to it). The only question is, is it the ultimate Prime Mover, and if so how. If not then we have to answer what caused the Big Bang. So far science has not come up with a very good answer to how the Big Bang happened ex nihilo. Ultimately, science needs to really be developed strongly enough to show that causation really is an illusion and not a reality in our Universe if the Prime Mover/First Cause argument is to be ultimately undermined.

–
Bill

 

[Hastrman]

Also, is it possible that though we perfectly understand everything about the universe, there is no way to know what happened before the Big Bang. And assumably, before the Big B, the energies that later gave rise to the universe was in a supernatural state.

This way your definition of ‘supernatural’ would still retain its meaning.

That’s not assumable; energy is energy is energy, and it’s never supernatural because it’s governed by natural laws. Aside from the fact there is no before the Big Bang, because there was no time dimension. There is no more “before” when there’s no time than it is possible for something to be just to the left of the concept of purpleness.

 

[AgnosTheist]

That’s not assumable; energy is energy is energy, and it’s never supernatural because it’s governed by natural laws.

The laws of nature only came into existence a few seconds after the big bang.

Aside from the fact there is no before the Big Bang, because there was no time dimension. There is no more “before” when there’s no time than it is possible for something to be just to the left of the concept of purpleness.

Now thats what I call “supernatural”. Its very likely that the universe itself is the prime mover. it constantly moves itself into being, and into various states.

 

[AgnosTheist]

With respect, by definition, there can be only one prime mover.

why should that be?

Assumptions 1 and 3 are strongly supported by current evidence, 2 I will grant is a larger leap, but hardly undefendable.

I think all 3 are facts (or at least popular theories) though the last one refers to the universe’ current state, after the big bang.

However that is not possible from 3.

unless there is truth in the hypothesis of an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches.

if the Prime Mover/First Cause argument is to be ultimately undermined.

your case would have been made much simpler if there had been just one recorded sample of an actual miracle. its difficult to imagine why demons & angels both just shied away from modernization.