Proof Against Atheism

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

These events come from nothing? Got a source?

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

It is not arrogance because we are not stating as truth our own self-made discovery of truth, but rather the truth revealed to us by God. We have no choice but to agree with God that His truth is the only Truth. Anything less than that is truly arrogant.

I still detect signs of arrogance. Like “we and only we are the ones, who are blessed with divine revelation, and everybody else is not”.

 

[David_Brown]

AnAtheist:

I deny that a hypothetical cause of the universe was an event taking place before the beginning of the universe. The cause and the beginning must have taken place simultanously, which raises the question if the cause and the beginning might be the same thing.

EDIT: Btw, I do deny that everything that has a beginning MUST have a cause. Quantum physics (in the Kopenhagen interpretation, for the nerds) knows uncaused events, which (naturally) have a beginning, ie when they occur.

Äh, yes.

Thank you for some clarification.

David

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

The point is, that this proof is no proof against atheism at all. The only thing it shows is, that there must be a cause for the universe to exist, and even that is debateable. To simply call this cause “God” may satisfy any religious people, but it may as well satisfy non-religious theists like Deists or Pantheists, so it hardly answers the question “is there a God” and it by no means answers the question “is there a specific god”.

Actually it does. The fact that even deists acknowledge a Creator, as well as Pantheists. They just don’t have the rest correct.

From the Catholic Catechism -

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’) The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

I still detect signs of arrogance. Like “we and only we are the ones, who are blessed with divine revelation, and everybody else is not”.

The following hardly sounds like arrogance - more like humility. We depend on Divine Revelation.
II. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

[36](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/36.htm’) "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

[37](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/37.htm’) In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
[38](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/38.htm’) This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

 

[AnAtheist]

buffalo:

These events come from nothing? Got a source?

These events occur without a cause.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

If they come from nothing is another question.
Would you consider virtual particle, which permanently come into existence, to be coming from “nothing”? They of course occur within the space-time, that’s hardly “nothing”.

 

[Maranatha]

AnAtheist:

While it is most likely true, that most Atheists see science as the only justifiable access to the truth, I count myself among them, but that is not necessarily the case. Still, one could be a atheist AND a nihilist or a follower of solipsism, both have nothing to do with scientific thinking.

Your problem then is that Science can not prove Scientism. You have to take Scientism on faith.

 

[David_Brown]

AnAtheist:

The problem is, that the very term “God” implies a lot of things. A Christian will automatically associate his god with it, while the Muslim will identify it with Allah, and the average Chinese with the Tao.

True. But in the Kalam Argument above, the conclusion is not to any specific “God” but only to a cause. I have often wondered if even Hume would accept it as basically harmless. He did indicate he might accept some very, very vague deism in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I think a lot of people (not you) take the argument to prove more than it does. Craig does give additional arguments that he thinks add specificity but that is another story.

Thanks again,

David

 

[Maranatha]

AnAtheist

Pardon me, but stating “We and only we hold the one and only absolute truth, and everybody else is totally or partially wrong.” looks a bit arrogant too, and that could be seen throughout human history.

It is not arrogance because we are not stating as truth our own self-made discovery of truth, but rather the truth revealed to us by God. We have no choice but to agree with God that His truth is the only Truth. Anything less than that is truly arrogant.

While I agree with your comments, they are off topic. This thread is a discussion of Atheism and Theism only. We will leave revelation to ther threads.

All - Please stay on topic. Thanks.

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

These events occur without a cause.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

If they come from nothing is another question.
Would you consider virtual particle, which permanently come into existence, to be coming from “nothing”? They of course occur within the space-time, that’s hardly “nothing”.

Only God can create ExNihilo - if these are uncaused particles then they are created by God. How certain that these particles are indeed uncaused. Particle physics is a very new science.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

The point is, that this proof is no proof against atheism at all. The only thing it shows is, that there must be a cause for the universe to exist, and even that is debateable. To simply call this cause “God” may satisfy any religious people, but it may as well satisfy non-religious theists like Deists or Pantheists, so it hardly answers the question “is there a God” and it by no means answers the question “is there a specific god”.

We are pretty much in agreement here. That is consistent with the view that reason by itself cannot reveal much about God and relies for assistance on revelation.

For reason to assert that it and it alone can approach God would be the height of intellectual arrogance. Yet reason can point us to God as it seems to do with the Big Bang theory.

But you have not proven that the Catholic point of view is arrogant because it claims to be the true point of view.

Take several scientists who have several different theories about the origin of the universe. Suppose one of those theories is true. Would you call that scientist behind the true theory arrogant because he excluded all the other theories as false?

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

But you have not proven that the Catholic point of view is arrogant because it claims to be the true point of view.

Well, arrogance as beauty or good music depends on the beholder, at least partially. So there isn’t really anything to prove. Where you see the arrogance of intellect I see the clear light of reason. Where I see the arrogance of faith you see the Truth. No point in argueing there.

Take several scientists who have several different theories about the origin of the universe. Suppose one of those theories is true. Would you call that scientist behind the true theory arrogant because he excluded all the other theories as false?

The other theories would be considered false, because they were falsified by evidence.

 

[buffalo]

One observes that the atheist is indeed arrogant, for he depends totally on his own intellect as being the sole funnel of determining truth.

He will not humble himself to believe that there is a supernatural for that would negate his arrogance. This is basically the same idea as Adam and Eve in the garden. They believed that they could be like God and would no longer have to submit to his omniscience. Atheists suffer from this malady.

Since the athiest proposes that there is no God, (and this is a positive assertion) then he must prove it, not taking it as the default position.

So anatheist - do you believe you are the highest authority?

 

[Maranatha]

Gilbert Keith:

For reason to assert that it and it alone can approach God would be the height of intellectual arrogance.

I disagree. From a Theist’s point of view, reason and logic were created by God and not by man. It is then not arrogant to assume that reason can approach God and reveal some of his properties.

 

[Maranatha]

AnAtheist:

While it is most likely true, that most Atheists see science as the only justifiable access to the truth, I count myself among them, but that is not necessarily the case. Still, one could be a atheist AND a nihilist or a follower of solipsism, both have nothing to do with scientific thinking.

If there are any who would like to argue the sophist position, I’ll have to pull out my notes on Socrates. He debunked their philosophy and was executed in 399 B.C. for standing up for the Truth.

If there are any nihilist’s out there that don’t abuse marijuana I’d be surprised but would look forward to an interesting discussion.

Followers of Scientism follow a self-contradictory philosophy. At this point logic and reason are on the side of Theists.

 

[David_Brown]

Maranatha:

I disagree. From a Theist’s point of view, reason and logic were created by God and not by man. It is then not arrogant to assume that reason can approach God and reveal some of his properties.

Do theists believe that reason and logic were created ? I thought of reason and logic as referring primarily to God and secondarily as being manifest in creation so that (third) by reason and logic we can discern the order of the world and know something of God’s mind.

Just a bit confused. Can you explain further?

David

 

[David_Brown]

buffalo:

One observes that the atheist is indeed arrogant, for he depends totally on his own intellect as being the sole funnel of determining truth.

He will not humble himself to believe that there is a supernatural for that would negate his arrogance. This is basically the same idea as Adam and Eve in the garden. They believed that they could be like God and would no longer have to submit to his omniscience. Atheists suffer from this malady.

Since the athiest proposes that there is no God, (and this is a positive assertion) then he must prove it, not taking it as the default position.

So anatheist - do you believe you are the highest authority?

Isn’t that a bit unfair? I have seen lots of arrogance on this site from Christians and from fellow Christians I have met over the years (Campus Crusaders have a big place there in my experience). One of my best professors in graduate school is an atheist and he is the most humble, sincere, honest person you can imagine (he often quoted Scripture in class, and in a respectful way, and he loved to recite Chesterton’s Lepanto).

Why can’t an atheist just be a person who doesn’t believe in a God/god because they don’t have the gift of faith (or see no reason to believe, etc.)? Why can’t they say that reason (or science) is the best that they have and try to live in that light? Not all atheists are a___ h___'s like Dawkins.

David

 

[st.jerome]

This argument is clever but I think it has one problem. It implies that something came from nothing. It would be more reasonable to posit that something came from Everything rather than nothing. How could the potential exist if all there was was nothing?

 

[buffalo]

David Brown:

Isn’t that a bit unfair? I have seen lots of arrogance on this site from Christians and from fellow Christians I have met over the years (Campus Crusaders have a big place there in my experience). One of my best professors in graduate school is an atheist and he is the most humble, sincere, honest person you can imagine (he often quoted Scripture in class, and in a respectful way, and he loved to recite Chesterton’s Lepanto).

Why can’t an atheist just be a person who doesn’t believe in a God/god because they don’t have the gift of faith (or see no reason to believe, etc.)? Why can’t they say that reason (or science) is the best that they have and try to live in that light? Not all atheists are a___ h___'s like Dawkins.

David

Some fall into that category. But those that advance arguments here don’t. IMHO there are only two possibilities for an atheist to be debating on this board.

1. To turn Catholics away from their faith using their perceived superior intellect
2. They are trying to find the truth.

Which of these seem to fit the posters in this thread.

 

[Maranatha]

David Brown:

Do theists believe that reason and logic were created ? I thought of reason and logic as referring primarily to God and secondarily as being manifest in creation so that (third) by reason and logic we can discern the order of the world and know something of God’s mind.

Just a bit confused. Can you explain further?

David

The way I understand it there are four options:

Reason and Logic:

1. existed before the first cause
2. have always existed alongside the first cause
3. are intrinsically part of the first cause
4. were created and made manifest in realist by the first cause

Option 1 is nonsensical. Option two is self contradictory. I’m not sure we can, using philosophy dicer if 3 or 4 is correct but I’m not sure how it matters.