Question from an athiest

[tdgesq]

I think now I realize that I made his “hostility” out to be worse than it really was, so I apologize for that.

No apology necessary. I was just letting you know that it’s okay to argue about these things on this forum.

I do believe one thing is true, we cannot be completely certain about anything we see.

Well, what is your justification that we can be even partially certain about what we see? Maybe it’s all an illusion and nothing we believe we see reflects reality at all.

When it comes down to it, we make basic assumptions about the world based on what we observe to be known reality. Most would call these beliefs about the world “faith.” I do not.

But you’ve just hit on the exact problem. We all do make basic assumptions. You say that these assumptions are based on what we observe to be known reality. First, they aren’t assumptions if they are known. Second, you have to establish that observation can let us know anything about reality. Otherwise, reality is not known. Most would call those beliefs faith because that is exactly what those beliefs are based upon.

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

Probabilities are all based upon what we actually observe in the world. If these observations are faulty, then so are the probabilities that they are based upon. Furthermore, even if we assume that our perception reflects reality, you still have to deal with the problem of induction. Past observations may not hold in the future. Just because they have in the past is not evidence that nature will remain uniform in the future. Yet probabilities rely upon this to have any explanatory power. It looks like probabilities must then be held on faith as well.

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.

But relying on past precedents assumes both that our senses are reliable when we observed these past precedents and that the future will continue to resemble these past precedents. If you cannot establish the reliability of the senses and the uniformity of nature, then you are accepting them on faith.

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

This has yet to be seen. My only point is that you are basing your evidence upon presuppositions that cannot by their very nature be epistemically justified.

I will also say this, though, because it is very important in a debate of this type - we must define our terms. It is very possible that we actually agree on most, if not all, of this faith and evidence business, but we are simply arguing over semantics. I am almost certain that we denote “faith” in different ways. Obviously this would make it difficult to sort things out. My definition of faith is (a belief in spite of a complete lack of evidence or emperical support). Under this definition, I have faith in absolutely nothing.

We can define terms however you like, so long as it isn’t being done to confuse the issues. But I don’t think it is here. If faith means a complete lack of evidence or empirical support, then you have just taken on the atheist’s burden. You are now required to show that there is absolutely no evidence or empirical support available for the existence of God. If you don’t, then you can’t accuse those who believe in God of doing so based solely upon faith. On the other hand, unless you can demonstrate that you have some justification, however slight, for believing in the reliability of the senses and the uniformity of nature, then you are the one operating on faith. Have at it!

 

[R_McGeddon]

But the universe at one point did not exist

Nobody knows this for sure.

Now if anything created exists, then at least one uncreated creator must exist

Based on what? This seems more along the lines of assumption not knowledge.

because anything which is created requires a creator. Thus, there must be at least one uncreated creator.

This statement totally contradicts itself.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

Nobody knows this for sure.

Then you would be admitting that something with infinite properties can exist in reality. Would it be such a leap to say that God exists if you believe that?

This statement totally contradicts itself.

No, it doesn’t contradict itself at all. If everything in the universe is created, and a created thing requires a creator to create it, then going all the way back to the beginning of creation, there must have been a creator that had never been created in the first place.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[jmcrae]

I believe in one God the creator of all, because when I look at the trees, the rocks, the animals, the land, the water, and the people, I see that there is one design, and the whole thing is fitted together in exactly the way that works, and no other. If even one element falls out of balance, all of life would cease to exist, and yet, it is also very robust - no matter how well you pave the road, the flowers will still break through it next spring, and you have to patch it over again.

Only the greatest engineer/artist of all could have put this all together; it could not have simply happened by accident.
They say that an infinite number of monkeys typing an infinite number of pages of text will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare - but even if they did, they would never notice that they had done so, and they would go back to typing gibberish - but this world, having been created, isn’t moving beyond or back into chaos - it’s being maintained and preserved - immutable rules exist that keep it from flying apart - scientists don’t make these rules; they discover them, so who made them, then?

Can blind forces make and follow rules?

 

[R_McGeddon]

Then you would be admitting that something with infinite properties can exist in reality. Would it be such a leap to say that God exists if you believe that?

Stating that nobody knows for sure that the universe did not exist at some point, is not admitting anything other than that very fact.

No, it doesn’t contradict itself at all. If everything in the universe is created, and a created thing requires a creator to create it, then going all the way back to the beginning of creation, there must have been a creator that had never been created in the first place.

Saying that everything created must have a creator, except for the creator itself, is the very epitome of a contradiction.

 

[ricmat]

Saying that everything created must have a creator, except for the creator itself, is the very epitome of a contradiction.

That’s what is seems like at first glance. But think of it this way. Everything we know of has a cause. And that previous cause also has a cause. If you work backwards, there’s only 2 possible outcomes for how the universe came to be.

1. An infinite series of previous causes. This would imply that the universe never had a beginning since each cause-effect takes some amount of time, and with infinite cause-effects you’d need infinite time for it to work.
2. A limited series of previous causes - but ending with “an uncaused cause”. This could be accomplished in some amount of time, and this also would imply that the universe did have a beginning.

Number 2 is consistent with what science tells us about the big bang.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Saying that everything created must have a creator, except for the creator itself, is the very epitome of a contradiction.

This is not a contradiction. If everything created requires a creator, and God is not created, then saying God does not require a creator is no contradiction at all. I didn’t say everything that exists requires a creator, I said everything that is created does.

What this does is hint at one of the greatest contradictions in atheism. Atheism denies the existence of a creator, and so it attests that the universe is uncreated. Then, when theists say that God is uncreated, the atheists say that its illogical to say God is created. They will accept, and insist, on the uncreated nature of the universe, but when someone claims that God is uncreated, atheists say that that makes no sense.

 

[cor]

That’s what is seems like at first glance. But think of it this way. Everything we know of has a cause. And that previous cause also has a cause. If you work backwards, there’s only 2 possible outcomes for how the universe came to be.

1. An infinite series of previous causes. This would imply that the universe never had a beginning since each cause-effect takes some amount of time, and with infinite cause-effects you’d need infinite time for it to work.
2. A limited series of previous causes - but ending with “an uncaused cause”. This could be accomplished in some amount of time, and this also would imply that the universe did have a beginning.

Number 2 is consistent with what science tells us about the big bang.

There’s another possibility. A circle of causes. A causing B causing C causing A.

 

[ricmat]

There’s another possibility. A circle of causes. A causing B causing C causing A.

So where did A+B+C come from? Who created ALL of them?

And the laws that govern exactly HOW A causes B which causes C which causes A - where did they come from?

 

[Lazerlike42]

There’s another possibility. A circle of causes. A causing B causing C causing A.

Now that’s something that doesn’t make sense logically. If A causes B, and B causes C, but C causes A, then how could any of them have been caused in the first place? Which was first - A? If A is first, then C didn’t exist yet, but C is the cause of A, so A couldn’t have existed. This holds true regardless of which a person picks as coming first. The only way around this is to say that the cycle is uncaused - and then we’re back at the uncaused cause.

 

[cor]

Now that’s something that doesn’t make sense logically. If A causes B, and B causes C, but C causes A, then how could any of them have been caused in the first place? Which was first - A? If A is first, then C didn’t exist yet, but C is the cause of A, so A couldn’t have existed. This holds true regardless of which a person picks as coming first. The only way around this is to say that the cycle is uncaused - and then we’re back at the uncaused cause.

Let’s define a present event D. And let’s say D was caused by E and that E was caused by F and that F was caused by G and that G was caused by E.

Let’s suppose further that E, F, G came before D.

Let’s suppose further that E, F, and G all existed at the same moment in time prior to the moment in time D existed.

Then you’ve explained how D causally came to be by E, F, and G and you don’t run into the problem of backwards causation. You do have simulataneous causation (E, F, and G in a circle of causes at the same moment in time), however.

 

[predator_CA]

I wanted to point out that atheism is every bit as much about faith as religion is. That is to say, at the bottom of the atheist denial of God lies no proof, but only an assertion as to the way the world must be. Perhaps you’d like to comment on that.

The burdon of proof lies with your side. Atheism is the opposite of faith. I have faith in nothing, which makes it impossible for me to believe in god. I discuss this in an earlier post.

I don’t have to prove that god doesn’t exist in order to realize that it doesn’t. Religious people are making the assertion. Atheists simply believe this assertion is false because it is based on no empirical data or existential observations.

Also, if you know about Occam’s Razor, applying it to the question of God vs. no God, it favors God. More to think about.

I could not disagree with you more. I find the concept of the universe coming into being from natural processes far more logical than the concept that some omnipotent creatore that some guy made up in a book over 2 thousand years ago made it.

How is disbelief in God not just the result of peoples’ unwillingness to give up their illicit pleasures?

Disbelief in god is not a choice. You make it sound like we are denying the truth. We are simply accepting reality.

I know when I went from disbelief to belief, I was not in the least seeking direction and having fear of death. Those simply were not on my radar screen. I thought my life was going quite well, actually.

I’m sure that’s true. I really meant more like religion as a whole, social meme.

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.

It’s obvious to me that the suicide rate would be like that. I think that helps explain why so many people are unwilling to accept the truth that god does not exist - they can’t handle it.

And just because there is no god doesn’t make humans worthless. I believe religious people are delusional. Their suicide rate may be lower, but they’re delusional. You’re simply wrong. Faith is not rational. “More to think about.”

 

[predator_CA]

Do you believe that your going to wake up tommoro?

I am disinterested in whether I’m going to wake up tomorrow or not. Based upon such factors such as my age, health, environment, and the fact that I’ve woken up every other day, it seems probable that I will. It is yet to be seen whether I actually will - I very well may not.

I suppose you could call this a belief that I am going to wake up. It is not faith though, because there are past precedents which show it to be probable.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I think that helps explain why so many people are unwilling to accept the truth that god does not exist -

Oh…I see, - you think we’d all commit suicide because we’re afraid of death …

 

[Philthy]

"…
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?

Hi! I am also prone to logic and analytical reasoning, but I am also a person of faith. I find the concept of a creator inherently logical. Im sure you are familiar with Aristotle and Aquinas who both arrived, logically, at a being who’s essence is existence - the uncaused cause whom we will heretofore call God.
What appears somewhat illogical to me is the preface that “lack of direction” produces a belief in God - especially when that belief would repeatedly be given negative reinforcement through experience. Would you care to defend how you believe a “lack of direction” logically yields an enduring concept of God?
Similarly, fear of death, when you come right down to it, is illogical. Do we not all know that we will die? What purpose, logically, is served in believing in God to alleviate the fear of death when experience repeatedly confirms the reality of death?

 

[predator_CA]

What this does is hint at one of the greatest contradictions in atheism. Atheism denies the existence of a creator, and so it attests that the universe is uncreated. Then, when theists say that God is uncreated, the atheists say that its illogical to say God is created. They will accept, and insist, on the uncreated nature of the universe, but when someone claims that God is uncreated, atheists say that that makes no sense.

We know that the universe exists, though. The reason god being uncreated makes no sense is that the concept of god is unjustified and absurd.

 

[predator_CA]

Oh…I see, - you think we’d all commit suicide because we’re afraid of death …

What? I’m saying religious people may tend to have a lower suicide rate because masking their fears with religion makes them “warm and fuzzy inside.”

 

[VociMike]

The burdon of proof lies with your side. Atheism is the opposite of faith. I have faith in nothing, which makes it impossible for me to believe in god. I discuss this in an earlier post.

I don’t have to prove that god doesn’t exist in order to realize that it doesn’t. Religious people are making the assertion. Atheists simply believe this assertion is false because it is based on no empirical data or existential observations.

You too are making an assertion regarding the existence of yourself, myself and the entire universe. You cannot avoid making such an assertion, because the entire universe is a given, a known fact. The existence of the universe cannot be skirted or ignored. So when you deny God you are asserting that the universe exists for another reason - then give the reason! You must give the reason. Otherwise your assertion is simply “I don’t know why or how the universe exists - I only know it’s not God”, and I think you can see how foolish such an assertion is. So give your counter-reasoning.

I could not disagree with you more. I find the concept of the universe coming into being from natural processes far more logical than the concept that some omnipotent creatore that some guy made up in a book over 2 thousand years ago made it.

But before the universe exists there are no “natural processes”! Yours is a circular argument: the universe exists due to the universe existing!

Disbelief in god is not a choice. You make it sound like we are denying the truth. We are simply accepting reality.

No, you are positing a different faith. Reality has not told you that the existence of the universe has nothing to do with God, because reality cannot tell you this. If I’m wrong, if reality can prove that the universe exists outside of God, then simply show me that proof.

It’s obvious to me that the suicide rate would be like that. I think that helps explain why so many people are unwilling to accept the truth that god does not exist - they can’t handle it.

But isn’t evolution supposed to fine-tune organisms for their environment? No other animals commit suicide because there is no God! Why does reality (no God) cause humans to kill themselves, if evolution has fine-tuned us to that very same reality? It makes no sense. Are you denying evolution perhaps?

And just because there is no god doesn’t make humans worthless.

Yes it does, actually. The entire concept of “worth” is not even valid to apply to humans if we are nothing more than fine-tuned bags of chemical reactions.

 

[predator_CA]

What appears somewhat illogical to me is the preface that “lack of direction” produces a belief in God - especially when that belief would repeatedly be given negative reinforcement through experience. Would you care to defend how you believe a “lack of direction” logically yields an enduring concept of God

People want purpose in their life, so they seek it out.

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by Lazerlike42 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
because anything which is created requires a creator. Thus, there must be at least one uncreated creator.

This statement totally contradicts itself.

No it doesnt - you have simply made the logical error of assuming that the creator is created when, in fact, the creator is not created. Here is the syllogism…

All things created require a creator
God is not created
Therefore God does not require a creator

Does that help?

Philthy