Question from an athiest

[freesoulhope]

I’ll say this once, if you can’t see the glaring contradiction in that statement, I doubt very much that you would understand the explanation…

Intresting response; please explain what that glaring contradiction is.

If you perceived a sense of triumph from me, that is something for you to deal with. I didn’t imply or state triumph.

It very easy to pretend that one is logical and at the same time avoid proving that logic.

You claimed that your position was correct and that the other was false; but you did so with out explaining why your position was correct. Instead you pretended that you had truimphed in logic by giving the usual text book anwser “your wrong, im right”. Simply saying to somebody, “you are not rational”, does nothing in its self to prove that such a thing is true; its just sensless name calling wrapped up in a shiny wrapper with the words " im intelligent" scribbled on the side. How does somebody know that your positon is right unless you explain to them the logic (or maybe false logic ) that had lead you to believe that you’re the one with the right answer?.

I had the same problem with another poster; i wasted many pages of writing trying to explain my self to somebody who loved nothing more then to beat round the bush and pretend that he was the rational one. He kept on saying that he is logical and that he is rational, hopeing that i would believe him; but i am no fool and i dont like being taken for one. Everybody else has explained their logic and there positions; maybe its about time you do the same, or risk being thought of as a troll rather then an intelectual.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

Wow - you’ll only say it once? I know I’m scared now!
Im sure a lot of 5th graders might succomb to this weak attempt at discourse, but no one reading on this forum will.
After all, if it is “glaring” as you claim - why don’t you simply state your case? I took the time to articulate my postition for you - why should it be any more difficult for you? Is it really so hard or are you bluffing to save face? :ehh:
It looks to me as if you are afraid that your argument won’t hold water and you don’t want to look bad. :yup:

I think your on to something

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Hmmm…

What examples of reasoning, specifically, did you find “bad”?

I’m curious because I have an odd feeling that you had some preconceptions that colored what you were reading.*

I’ve read most of C.S. Lewis’ books, Mere Christianity is filled with non sequiturs. He tries to argue for an objective morality (which is impossible to prove). He argues that the “natural law” of the ancients is a moral law imprinted in all humans, and thus must be divine.

I’m not going to argue that, to a person like you, without a clue as to what God is about, especially an understanding of an all-powerful monotheistic God, that “Mere Christianity” is indeed full of non-sequiturs, as you see it.

The reason you can’t “fill in the gaps” and draw any meaning out of the work is that you’re trying to seeing the mountaintops from the bottom of the ocean.

In other words, you’re not in a very good position to see what is very plainly there, which is not very plain at all to you, because you’re in an environment that’s very “hostile” to seeing “mountaintops”.

Such as: the light from the mountain can’t physically get to you due to absorption/refraction, It’s too far away, it’s over the curve of the horizon, it’s too far inland, etc…

Does that mean the mountaintop isn’t there?

Uh,… no.

He doesn’t seriously consider any alternatives. He was brought up in the Victorian era and therefore has a stong sense of “decent behaviour” epitomized by Lord Baden Powell and the Boy Scout movement. He sees this as natural and wholly correct.

His biased upbringing clouds his thinking.

…and your biased upbringing clouds your thinking.

So both of you, Chesterton and yourself, are on equal ground.

Why should I believe you as opposed to him?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I find it contradictory because of the many times that I’ve read on this forum, that mankind had to have been created because he exists, yet that same logic is conveniently forgotten when it comes to the existence of God. I find the idea of an uncaused cause hard to swallow and see it as an easy cop-out.

I never claimed that any position was right or wrong, what I have said is that nobody actually knows the answer to our existence. There are plenty of opinions and theories out there, this is because nobody has the definitive answer.

I get the feeling that I’m the only one here that doesn’t have a problem with not knowing how we all came about.

 

[jmcrae]

I find it contradictory because of the many times that I’ve read on this forum, that mankind had to have been created because he exists, yet that same logic is conveniently forgotten when it comes to the existence of God. I find the idea of an uncaused cause hard to swallow and see it as an easy cop-out.

If human beings were uncreated, then we would be unchanging. We would simply remain at the same age, without ever getting sick, without ever becoming more healthy, and without being born and without dying.

Created things undergo change. Uncreated things do not. God doesn’t change; therefore it’s possible for God to be uncreated. (Which He is.) But the universe and everything in it is undergoing change, which means that at some point it was created, and at some point, it will cease to exist.

 

[CTMom]

At some point we need to calculate the probability of something and make a decision from there. So, beliefs ARE about “the greater evidence”

I base my beliefs upon this by holding queries against this observed reality. I trust someone or believe something baced upon past precedents, not faith.

So, believing that god does not exist isn’t faith. It is a belief baced upon greater evidence.

I’m curious…would you care to share your greater “evidence” with us? I’m always fascinated by that type of statement simply because defenders of both sides of the argument generally come to the same wall…lack of evidence either way…which then leads to faith in what you believe to be true. But actual “evidence” - I’ve yet to see that.

 

[whatever]

which then leads to faith in what you believe to be true

Faith in which sense?

faith n.

1. 
   *] Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
   *] Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
   *] Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
   *] often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
   *] The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
   *] A set of principles or beliefs.

 

[MerryAtheist]

BTW, did you know that non-believers commit suicide at four times the rate of believers? If it is non-believers who are more in tune with reality than believers, why is that? Does reality without God really lead one to the despair which can end in suicide? I think it does, actually. If everything human is about chemical reactions, then nothing human has any worth, any value. We’re all just clever apes destined (very soon) for oblivion.

I thought I might join the party a bit late to offer my thoughts on this point…

The presented fact that non-believers commit suicide at a higher rate than believers, if correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), has more to do, I think, with organized religion’s strong prohibitions against suicide, than with any higher levels of despair in non-believers.

A non-believer who faces a lengthy, agonizing and ultimately unwinnable fight against a terminal illness will likely consider suicide as a legitimate option. This may have less to do with despair and more to do with pain avoidance, discomfort, and possibly even financial considerations.

Certainly despair may play a role, but sick people (both believers and nonbelievers) often fall into despair not as a result of their beliefs or lack of beliefs, but because they are sick.

Conversely, a believer facing the same illness will have a reluctance to consider suicide due to her religious convictions. Because her illness is terminal, she will likely die as well, but only after enduring the depression, pain, anger, fear of a slowly approaching death (to say nothing of financial considerations).

This is not to say that healthy people don’t commit suicide, but I think it’s a false dichotomy (perhaps “strawman” is a better term) to suggest that atheists commit suicide solely out of despair, while believers don’t because they have hope.

 

[R_McGeddon]

If human beings were uncreated, then we would be unchanging. We would simply remain at the same age, without ever getting sick, without ever becoming more healthy, and without being born and without dying.

Created things undergo change. Uncreated things do not. God doesn’t change; therefore it’s possible for God to be uncreated. (Which He is.) But the universe and everything in it is undergoing change, which means that at some point it was created, and at some point, it will cease to exist.

All this is pure speculation based on faith. It can’t possibly be known for a certainty that this is how things are.

 

[Valke2]

How does logic fit into the concept of endlessness? Logically, trying to conceputalize an infinite being cannot be logically shown.

 

[freesoulhope]

How does logic fit into the concept of endlessness? Logically, trying to conceputalize an infinite being cannot be logically shown.

You say this, but i would appreaciate what your saying more if you give an example to why this is the case

 

[freesoulhope]

All this is pure speculation based on faith. It can’t possibly be known for a certainty that this is how things are.

Explain why.

Can Science give us certainty? Logic shows us that something is the most likliest truth as oppose to other ideas that claim to be the truth. Logic cannot give us certainty since we do not know if the foundation of are reality shares the same order and logic as the reality see around us; but we can certainly know if something is logical, and somebody cannot be called irational for putting ones faith in that logic.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

I find it contradictory because of the many times that I’ve read on this forum, that mankind had to have been created because he exists, yet that same logic is conveniently forgotten when it comes to the existence of God. I find the idea of an uncaused cause hard to swallow

Why is that? If you saw a chain suspended in the air; your curiosity automatically leads you to look for an “end” or a foundational reason for that chains suspension, because that is the nature of things and that is the assumption and motivation of science (the idea that there is in actuality a logical reason for something). However, this is to do with material objects that are confined to time and space. God by definition would have to be above the, space, time, and matter, of our universe since he would not be God if he was confined to any of these. The only thing we know that is beyond a finite universe is eternity. The universe has to have come from an eternal foundation for its existent to make logical sense; since nobody believes that a pink elephant can materialize out of absolutely nothing (non- existents) and neither can the universe. Reason tells us that it is a product of something else.

It seems strange to me, that some one can swallow the concept of an eternity or an infinite series of finite causes that have no ultimate cause, but cannot swallow an eternal timeless God. It seems to me a matter of prejudice rather then reason.

And another thing: see how I have taken the time to explain my position rather then make a blank assertion? It would be nice of you if you could at least try to show us the reasoning behind your objection, otherwise I must assume that your a troll and a hater that is not intrested in a reasonable discussion.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Explain why.

Can Science give us certainty? Logic shows us that something is the most likliest truth as oppose to other ideas that claim to be the truth. Logic cannot give us certainty since we do not know if the foundation of are reality shares the same order and logic as the reality see around us; but we can certainly know if something is logical, and somebody cannot be called irational for putting ones faith in that logic.

Peace.

It’s speculation because religion is all about faith not fact. For example, the story of Adam and Eve isn’t fact based, it’s a speculative story of how mankind came into existence. There is no solid, factual evidence to back any of it up. There is, however, plenty of tangible evidence, in museums, that supports the theory of how we evolved from primitive apes into what we are today.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Why is that? If you saw a chain suspended in the air; your curiosity automatically leads you to look for an “end” or a foundational reason for that chains suspension,

But if I could not find the end, I wouldn’t try to come up with an explanation based on what I thought might be behind it.

because that is the nature of things and that is the assumption and motivation of science (the idea that there is in actuality a logical reason for something).

Science puts forward theories which are subject experimentation. These theories are backed up or falsified. So far evolution hasn’t been falsified.

However, this is to do with material objects that are confined to time and space. God by definition would have to be above the, space, time, and matter, of our universe since he would not be God if he was confined to any of these.

Do you not think that God would also be beyond definition?

The only thing we know that is beyond a finite universe is eternity. The universe has to have come from an eternal foundation for its existent to make logical sense; since nobody believes that a pink elephant can materialize out of absolutely nothing (non- existents) and neither can the universe. Reason tells us that it is a product of something else.

Different religions have different explanations for questions that are asked, they can’t all be right.

It seems strange to me, that some one can swallow the concept of an eternity or an infinite series of finite causes that have no ultimate cause, but cannot swallow an eternal timeless God. It seems to me a matter of prejudice rather then reason.

This opinion could easily apply in reverse, it wouldn’t be more or less valid either way.

And another thing: see how I have taken the time to explain my position rather then make a blank assertion? It would be nice of you if you could at least try to show us the reasoning behind your objection, otherwise I must assume that your a troll and a hater that is not intrested in a reasonable discussion.

The reason behind my position is because I was brought up without religion. I expect that people brought up with religion will find my reasoning equally hard to swallow.

 

[freesoulhope]

It’s speculation because religion is all about faith not fact. For example, the story of Adam and Eve isn’t fact based, it’s a speculative story of how mankind came into existence. There is no solid, factual evidence to back any of it up. There is, however, plenty of tangible evidence, in museums, that supports the theory of how we evolved from primitive apes into what we are today.

I agree; there is no scientific evidence that Adam and Eve were created ten thousand years ago. I for one, dont believe in the literal account, even if some christians do. In fact, i could not stomach christainity if i was forced to believe in a literal account, since i to believe in science and reason.

But this has nothing to say about God. It only has something to say about “scripture” and what men has written about God; what can be believed to be true and what can be known to be a story is a different matter to the qeustion of Gods existents.
Maybe you should open a thread about the bible and see what people have got to say about it. I would be intrested in what people have to say also.

If there is a true religion,(which i believe there is) there is so much false prophesy out there, I do not blame anyone for being speculative and i doubt that God is angry at you for being cuatious and not wanting to be a victim of a fallacy. Just make sure that your heart is true.

But to even begin to consider that any religion is true or at least has some truth; 1. you have to want God; otherwise, knowlegde of Gods existents will be in vein. 2. You also have to admit that there are only two possiblities. Reality has an infinite regression of blind material causes; which is something that i cannot reasonable accept, since a “finite material object” should logically have an ultimate reason for being in affect and actualisation.

Or… there is an ultimate eternal cause.

Putting the atheist approuch aside for the moment…
…Would you like to have a discussion on why that ultimate cause, if there is one, has to be an untangible being that is superior to the nature of the universe?

 

[a_priori]

“It’s not just that we don’t know how it was created (the universe), but that its existence logically implies the existence of a creator.”

-Contarini (fellow member of site)

I got this response in another thread, and within the response
(as a whole) he appeared to be hostile toward me. Coming from a religious person, this is usually typical for me as an athiest.

I try to be logical and realistic with how I view the world and fairly existential. From the knowledge we’ve aquired to this day and time, I am curious to see how you defend a creator as being logical.

I’ve discussed god with religious people many times, and usually they’re reduced to the cop-out of: it’s simply about faith.

So, I was somewhat shocked to see someone claim that the existence of the universe “logically implies a creator.”

How is god not just the result of religious peoples’ lack of direction and fear of death?

I am being blunt with this thread, but I know most of you are great people, and most of my friends are some amount of religious, so I truely don’t mean to offend. That may be hard to believe, but I really just want to get some good responses and discussion.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, thanks!

I think your questions are honest and I hope you are treated with respect as you ask them.

The atheist must begin with the concept of a pre-existing particle as the beginning of all things. But that’s not the “beginning”. It takes an extreme amount of faith to believe that Genesis 1:1 should read “In the beginning, the particle…”.

I do believe in the Big Bang and a very old universe. But God did it.

 

[freesoulhope]

But if I could not find the end, I wouldn’t try to come up with an explanation based on what I thought might be behind it.
Science puts forward theories which are subject experimentation. These theories are backed up or falsified. So far evolution hasn’t been falsified.

Evolution was first believed as a matter of logic based on what Darwin observed; otherwise he would not have pursued it to what we call a theory to day. It was logical for Darwin to think and believe that there was a logical reason for what he saw in biological organisms that was not accounted for by the Christian account of creation. Why does it not satisfy him? Because it does not fit logic, it is not logical that a universe that appears old can fit in the time frame of the traditional creationist account of Christians.

It is the same for a suspended chain, it is not logical that there is no ultimate reason for that chain to be suspended in the air; and the only reason you would analyze the chain, is because you would wonder by your human nature of reasoning, were it was coming from and why it was suspended in mid air. You would never assume out right that the chain is coming from no where; reason and rationality will always demand that there is an ultimate reason for something even if you cannot find it.

Therefore, even if the universe has a irrational foundation; I believe that logic reveals true reality like science (science is based upon logic) therefore I can not accept By “Logic” that the world has no ultimate cause; and if the world is irrational then how can one call somebody else irrational for having faith?

 

[freesoulhope]

This opinion could easily apply in reverse, it wouldn’t be more or less valid either way.
.

Thats just a statement pretending to be a product of logic. Please explain the reasoning behind your statement.

 

[freesoulhope]

The reason behind my position is because I was brought up without religion. I expect that people brought up with religion will find my reasoning equally hard to swallow.

So… the reason that you dont believe that God exists, is because of the way you was brought up? How is that any different to somebody who believes in God on the basis of his up bringing?

Your right…I do find that reasoning…eh…hem, hard to swallow!