Responding to my friend

  • Thread starter Thread starter kevlarkyogre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CommonWeal, I suggest you investigate any number of atheist resources. There you will find why atheists believe that the burden of proof has not been met by theists and the many logical fallacies and errors that atheists have found in the proposed proofs for the existence of God.
 
Nixbits said:
CommonWeal, I suggest you investigate any number of atheist resources. There you will find why atheists believe that the burden of proof has not been met by theists and the many logical fallacies and errors that atheists have found in the proposed proofs for the existence of God.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to prove to anyone. Believe or not. If you are interested in what is good, what is real, what is the purpose of existence, formulate your answer. To misunderstand what people are saying when they give you their answer and proceed to disprove it, seems a useless exercise. Whatever turns your crank, I suppose. It is your relationship with reality that would seem to be the most important issue. How can it possibly be satisfying to leave it at not believing what someone else believes?
 
Very good . 2 plus 2 add up to four based on the natural number system . but you can rig up all sort of different number systems and adjust the imported idealized concepts of the particulars and change the formulations and you can come up with the same outcomes .

I try not to let atheist drag me into parings . they like to pair things . for example the pairing of laws and reality . Christians with Trinitarian mind set should do better than that . but when ii do it I’m aware of it .

Let me just say a couple of things that might just push along this discussion and I’m out of here .hope however the opposite doesn’t happen. Laughing here . and lets do it in a fun way .

The first propositional statement ascribed to atheist in OP is :” Yes, science assumes that universe follows a set of laws”

Ten words . ten propositions … the two verbs , assume and follow, are straight forward . they can take one of three distinct aspects , existential , conceptual, normative . this by itself yields 15 combinations . 15 pairs of possible meanings … however the three aspects often times overlap and to varying degrees . the statement can yield many pairings in that respect as a result .that’s language for you it’s a headache . and regardless the pairing is there .

The verb assume in relation to the noun science ; . Is the quality in the thing and of itself or was endowed to it or subtracted or all or in degrees .etc it doesn’t matter really . if science can operate as such then we can substitute to test truth value of the statement with just about anything . usually if you want to substitute to test for truth value then it will be something congruent , lifeless for dead, .single for unmarried . the only issue is of course the number of letters in the two words differ and the letters themselves . but since science is said to assume we can substitute freely .so here goes

Yes, potato assumes that universe follows a set of laws
Yes, bar of soap assumes that universe follows a set of laws
Yes, tooth pick assumes that universe follows a set of laws

These are of course miracles and the supernatural . what exactly went down with the atheist mind to affirm such propositions and assuming it was not just an unintentional mishap can help us understand each other better . wtach otu though athiests as far as I’m concerned are mirale super natural folks .

Lets try something not miracle and not super natural. We help one another . okay?

How about …".Yes, Christians assume that universe follows a set of laws."
"
How about like that ? does that seem more acceptable to everyone ?
the world is the work of the creator. you know god by knowing his work .check bible for biblical support .for example our lord one time chided the people saying ….you can tell the weather and you can’t tell who I’m?

on a historical basis this is exactly what happened. Christians set out to know god through knowing his work , the universe But before I get to that there is a subtle point here . the key word here is acceptance . falsifiable is irrelevant . We accept Newton universe of absolutes not because they match up with our experience even though that is nice . Because. we accept quantum mechanics even though they contradict our experience. We do not even accept either because they work because they can get us to the moon and back and what have you . Truth be told we accept them because they end our disputes . they settle our disputes . see its importn point .

to really go above and beyond the pairings requires a minimum of a Christian mind set . the pairing is tied up with a universe that is structurally two dimensional expanding towards a three dimensional spatial universe – ice our universe. The Christian mind set can break through that threshold. We can . we call it spiritual. This is because imho in Christianity the deal is not super natural but anatural. The logos is identified as the holy of holiest . holy actually means “other” . I suspect it might just have to do with the unifying theory and the logos is the unifying theory of the unifying theories. The lord is one sort of deal.

History the obvious place to look is of course education , colleges , universities .obvious ones are oxford and Cambridge universities . for me they’re because it was the British colonials who where here . sure there are other universities in other European countries .also monasteries . there is where the you will find Christian efforts to know the world as far back as early 13th century if I remember right. Forgot a lot but can go research the names . there was bishop in the 13th century but I can’t recall his name . it was not uniform there were a lot of diputes and arguments . fear was overcome gradually .

A wise man once said that fear is terrible enemy . once man surrenders himself to fear he can not regain it back . I don’t know . but some atheist do overcome it . what follows however is even a greater challenge .

Another thing . it wasn’t really the person formulations or his application of scientific method that brought us to know the world as much as we do today. . it was those leaps of faith by Christians predecessors and their passions that discovered the laws. Just imagine chilly cold weather Europe, malnutrition, people living on just bacon and wheat for month in some dark room with paper they can hardly afford penning with the quilt .

the creator not the creation. like that

ok, i’m done. please don’t beat me up. I’m old man

in christ
 
Nixbits said:
CommonWeal, I suggest you investigate any number of atheist resources. There you will find why atheists believe that the burden of proof has not been met by theists and the many logical fallacies and errors that atheists have found in the proposed proofs for the existence of God.
Click to expand...
At least theists argue their case. Atheists do not, happy to assume that which they cannot prove. 🤷
 
Charlemagne III, atheists do argue their case. There are blogs, radio & TV shows, lectures and books all arguing the atheist case. I don’t understand why you believe that they do not.
 
Nixbits said:
Charlemagne III, atheists do argue their case. There are blogs, radio & TV shows, lectures and books all arguing the atheist case. I don’t understand why you believe that they do not.
Click to expand...
They argue against theism rather than provide a credible alternative. In other words they are negative rather than positive because it always far easier to attack rather than defend…
 
tonyrey said:
They argue against theism rather than provide a credible alternative. In other words they are negative rather than positive because it always far easier to attack rather than defend…
Click to expand...
Exactly! 👍

Look for an argument to prove there is no God. You can’t find one, so atheists go on the attack, rather than develop their own arguments why there can be no God.

Nixbits, present in two or three sentences just one argument that proves God does not exist.
 
:twocents:

Religion is a social and individual response to our need for relation with what is fundamental to our being.
Within that relationship we connect with what is good, what has meaning and purpose, what is truth and beauty.
It is an attempt to understand life, ourselves and the world.

The answer that someone like Dawkins provides in our quest would be that everything boils down to biology and science.
Morality would have to do with genetically imprinted feelings and behaviours that “evolution” sculpted as our forebears managed to survive and procreate.
What has meaning would be survival because without a desire to survive, one perishes and one’s offspring will never be.
Philosophically, this leads to the conclusion that life has no basic meaning. The question itself would be meaningless in a purely material world.
Now, my buddy Freddy N. was a bit more astute, seeing that the will to power was basic to humanity We are gods, free to decide our own morality and meaning.
At the other extreme of power is suicide. It is not clear who is brave and who is the coward. It doesn’t truly matter to a god.
 
Nixbits said:
CommonWeal, I suggest you investigate any number of atheist resources. There you will find why atheists believe that the burden of proof has not been met by theists and the many logical fallacies and errors that atheists have found in the proposed proofs for the existence of God.
Click to expand...
I suggest that you name just one logical fallacy or error in the following rationale:

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God…
I, Q.2, art. 3, a. (the “Second Way”).
 
Nixbits said:
CommonWeal, I suggest you investigate any number of atheist resources. There you will find why atheists believe that the burden of proof has not been met by theists and the many logical fallacies and errors that atheists have found in the proposed proofs for the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Or this:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
I, Q.2, art. 3, a. (the “First Way”).
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Nixbits, present in two or three sentences just one argument that proves God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Glancing at #20 I don’t think it’s his position that “God does not exists.” I could be wrong. Though if that were his position I suspect that making and supporting such an argument is prohibited per that thread pined to the top of the forums.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Glancing at #20 I don’t think it’s his position that “God does not exists.” I could be wrong. Though if that were his position I suspect that making and supporting such an argument is prohibited per that thread pined to the top of the forums.
Click to expand...
Read # 20 again?

All atheists do make the claim that God does not exist, they just hardly ever make the claim you can prove that God does not exist.

It is the agnostic who makes the claim you cannot know one way or another. But it’s the AGNOSTIC WHO ERRS ON THE SIDE OF ATHEISM BY HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

Read Clarence Darrow’s “Why I Am an Agnostic.” He trots out all the arguments against God and none of the arguments for God.

positiveatheism.org/hist/darrow2.htm
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Full circle, back to that discussion again…
Click to expand...
Repeat:
All atheists do make the claim that God does not exist, they just hardly ever make the claim you can prove that God does not exist.

If an atheist held to the possibility of the existence of God, he would say so.

The agnostic holds to the possibility and says so.

Both the atheist and the agnostic will not encounter God as a living reality.

Ergo, there is but a dime’s worth of difference between them. 🤷
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Some do.
Click to expand...
Can you name one who has said this?

If some do hold to the possibility of God, they might say that they do only because they cannot prove the impossibility of God.

If an atheist holds to the possibility of God, what is to prevent him from encountering God as a living reality? I do not know any atheists who are willing to do this, nor have I heard of any. Any the ones who do, would of course be the ones most open to realizing that the encounter sooner or later becomes somewhat more than an encounter, and ends in a conversion, as C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Antony Flew and Jean Paul Sartre discovered.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Can you name one who has said this?

If some do hold to the possibility of God, they might say that they do only because they cannot prove the impossibility of God.

If an atheist holds to the possibility of God, what is to prevent him from encountering God as a living reality?
Click to expand...
It’s really up to God. When he wants to prove himself to me, he knows where to find me.
 
AyJSimon said:
It’s really up to God. When he wants to prove himself to me, he knows where to find me.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I’m wondering if this, then functions as some sort of online dating site for meeting God.

You should actually prepare for the encounter.
Be aware that one can be thrown out of the wedding banquet.
I’m not sure I’ve gnashed my teeth at any point, but it doesn’t sound good.
 
Aloysium said:
Hmm, I’m wondering if this, then functions as some sort of online dating site for meeting God.

You should actually prepare for the encounter.
Be aware that one can be thrown out of the wedding banquet.
I’m not sure I’ve gnashed my teeth at any point, but it doesn’t sound good.
Click to expand...
God doesn’t need to check out my web profile to know that I’m open to evidence of his existence, and what it would take to convince me.

Moreover, God has a track record of converting people less open-minded than myself. Lots of Christians have conversion stories that talk about how they were convicted atheists, with no interest in God or religion, then had some remarkable experience which convinced them they were wrong. So we know God is willing and able to make himself known to people like myself.
 
AyJSimon said:
It’s really up to God. When he wants to prove himself to me, he knows where to find me.
Click to expand...
Well now, you can run, but you can’t hide. He will seek you out and you will find Him if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. 😉 The open mind by itself is just a dumping ground for almost anything other than God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top