The absurdity of atheism

[JDaniel]

We can be as absolutely sure of fusion in stars as we can be of anything in science, there is overwhelming evidence. Do you believe in hydrogen bombs?

The problem I think I’m going to have with it is that no one has “seen” it first-hand. We are merely looking at computer generated models of its probability based upon colorimetry perceptions - from millions of years in the past.

You have stated that your evidentiary standards are much higher than the ordinary theist’s. I want to know how that can be justified, on the basis of interpretations of colors from occurrences as far back as 13 billion years ago. There’s lots about the cosmos that is changing almost daily. I need absolute (or, at least almost absolute) assurances that this concept of star formation will not change on us within the next 5 - 10 years, when our technology improves considerably. That’s all I’m asking for.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

You’ve lost me, “use it against the theists with much winning power”??

Are you suggecting there is more empirical evidence for the existence of god than there is for fusion in stars?

No. I’m suggesting that it’s almost the same. How am I to argue that I have"empirical" evidence from 13 billion years ago? Seriously?

jd

 

[Fran65]

Now tell me what influence their religiosity has on their futhering of the knowledge of mankind? Oh thats right, NONE. They followed the scientific method for that.

Actually, there is a strong history and tradition of academic study - including cosmology and astronomy - in the Catholic Church. Many regard studying the universe as a way of understanding more about God and how He works. Indeed, the Church is still actively engaged at the highest levels in these areas:

vaticanobservatory.org/

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20020103_index_general_en.html

The following site has details of an excellent book called How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0101.html

The Catholic Church was a major force for developing literacy, education and the establishment of many universities around the world. There are a couple of threads around from last year that I remember taking part in. You could try searching for them and finding more out for yourself.

Happy reading!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The problem I think I’m going to have with it is that no one has “seen” it first-hand. We are merely looking at computer generated models of its probability based upon colorimetry perceptions - from millions of years in the past.

You have stated that your evidentiary standards are much higher than the ordinary theist’s. I want to know how that can be justified, on the basis of interpretations of colors from occurrences as far back as 13 billion years ago. There’s lots about the cosmos that is changing almost daily. I need absolute (or, at least almost absolute) assurances that this concept of star formation will not change on us within the next 5 - 10 years, when our technology improves considerably. That’s all I’m asking for.

jd

Fusion was discovered before we had computers, i think you need to dig a little deeper then come back and we can discuss the evidence.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

No. I’m suggesting that it’s almost the same. How am I to argue that I have"empirical" evidence from 13 billion years ago? Seriously?

jd

Well we can view 13 billion years ago.

Ok so you are seriously trying to suggest there is the same level of empirical evidence for the existence of god as there is for fusion in stars? This should be good…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Actually, there is a strong history and tradition of academic study - including cosmology and astronomy - in the Catholic Church. Many regard studying the universe as a way of understanding more about God and how He works. Indeed, the Church is still actively engaged at the highest levels in these areas:

vaticanobservatory.org/

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20020103_index_general_en.html

The following site has details of an excellent book called How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0101.html

The Catholic Church was a major force for developing literacy, education and the establishment of many universities around the world. There are a couple of threads around from last year that I remember taking part in. You could try searching for them and finding more out for yourself.

Happy reading!

Did you read what i said? I didnt say they exclude religion, i said the method they followed to futher the knowledge of man kind excludes religion.

 

[Fran65]

The scientific method excludes religion?

If you mean that God is not a falsifiable hypothesis and the question of whether He exists or not cannot be answered by science, then we agree.

However, what you should remember is that an absence of evidence *does not *mean evidence of absence.

Good Night.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

However, what you should remember is that an absence of evidence *does not *mean evidence of absence.

Good Night.

Agreed, that is why i dont believe there is NO god, but instead lack the belief in a god.

 

[buffalo]

Agreed, that is why i dont believe there is NO god, but instead lack the belief in a god.

But there could be a God, right?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But there could be a God, right?

There “could” be. But don’t have any evidence to go on so any speculation is meaningless. There “could” also be a giant green universe making bunny rabbit with 3 heads and wings.

 

[buffalo]

There “could” be. But don’t have any evidence to go on so any speculation is meaningless. There “could” also be a giant green universe making bunny rabbit with 3 heads and wings.

That would fit nicely with the multi-verse theory.

So man for centuries could speculate as to whether there is a God. Then God comes to meet man. Man asks what shall I call you - God replies “I am who am”.

Then later God sends His only begotten Son.

The point is that without God making Himself known through Revelation I probably would agree with you and be an atheist. So would much of humanity. But that is not the history.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

That would fit nicely with the multi-verse theory.

So man for centuries could speculate as to whether there is a God. Then God comes to meet man. Man asks what shall I call you - God replies “I am who am”.

Then later God sends His only begotten Son.

The point is that without God making Himself known through Revelation I probably would agree with you and be an atheist. So would much of humanity. But that is not the history.

And i personally dont consider that strong enough evidence for me to believe. So i guess thats where we differ. Only time will tell if you are right, for it wont if am .

 

[buffalo]

And i personally dont consider that strong enough evidence for me to believe. So i guess thats where we differ. Only time will tell if you are right, for it wont if am .

But in the meantime I am experiencing Christ in Eucharist, all the richness of the Catholic Faith, the sacraments, its beauty, imagery, and joy.

Now any time you want you can experience the Catholic Church. It is open to everyone no matter their past.

I have some good ways to come to know God. PM me if you wish.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But in the meantime I am experiencing Christ in Eucharist, all the richness of the Catholic Faith, the sacraments, its beauty, imagery, and joy.

Now any time you want you can experience the Catholic Church. It is open to everyone no matter their past.

I have some good ways to come to know God. PM me if you wish.

I feel the same way about science and learning about the cosmos.

 

[tonyrey]

Physical reality is the only reality we know of.

What makes you think your thoughts are physical? Do you regard truth as physical? And…free will?

There is no evidence for the existence of any other reality.

I’m afraid that is a physicalist assumption. It is equally possible that the only reality is immaterial.
After all our primary datum is mental activity, is it not?

I believe there are probably two schools of thought. The first is that consciousness et al are a product of the incredibly complex bio-chemical processes occurring in our brain. The second is that there is something else, as yet undiscovered by science, that somehow plays a part.

Yes! But more than a part…

What I have a problem with is the mindless filling of the latter gap with a God for which no evidence exists.

You regard God as a gap when in fact He is the foundation. The “**mindless **filling of the latter gap” is a more appropriate description of the attempt to fill the scientific gap with mindless processes.

If you truly believe that consciousness, free will and so on could only be caused by God (and never mind the follow-on questions regarding God’s origin etc.), then feel free.

Do you favour an infinite regress? Monistic theism is the simplest and richest explanation of reality. In a court of law a person is not regarded as a stopgap but as a responsible agent beyond whom there is no need to look further for ultimate responsibility. Why? Is every legal system throughout the world based on an illusion?

I know it’s illogical, I suspect that you know it’s illogical, but you are free to believe whatever you like.

I suspect that you know that reductionism and atomism are illogical but your free will enables you to opt for them rather than a holistic view of reality. You constantly imply that the mind or self is an entity yet you derive it from a multitude of physical events.

…but when you start a thread with the title, “The absurdity of atheism” then that deserves a response.

It wasn’t an arbitrary choice of words because atheism is literally ab-surd, i.e. without a surd. It implies that everything exists in a mindless void, without a rational foundation, without direction, value, purpose or source of unity and integration.

How can it possibly be absurd to fail to believe in something for which no evidence exists?

I can say exactly the same about physicalism or materialism or scientism. What is the evidence that **everything **is derived from physical energy, material objects or scientific data? There is none whatsoever… whereas the evidence for God is the highest aspect of reality of which we are aware and have direct personal experience. This is hardly surprising because we are made in God’s image. Your constant reliance on reason presupposes that the fundamental Reality is rational rather than irrational… and is purposeful rather than purposeless. How we live is the best indication of what we really believe…

 

[wanstronian]

Can’t beat a bit of quote mining mixed with scientists who lived in time periods (that for obvious reasons) did not have the understanding of the cosmos we have today.

Now tell me what influence their religiosity has on their futhering of the knowledge of mankind? Oh thats right, NONE. They followed the scientific method for that.

That’s what Charlemagne does, as I’m sure you’ve seen in this and other threads. He can’t debate rationally so he misrepresents others to try to prove his point. I’ve given up with him, he’s a waste of time.:nope:

 

[wanstronian]

The point is that without God making Himself known through Revelation I probably would agree with you and be an atheist. So would much of humanity. But that is not the history.

Nor is what you’ve said - it’s just a fable. Do you believe everything you read, or are told?

 

[wanstronian]

I was right, I did know where it was going. Attempting to take ownership of the unknown and make it seem like God is the only answer. Why aren’t I surprised?

What makes you think your thoughts are physical? Do you regard truth as physical? And…free will?

I don’t know. Nobody does. That…does…not…mean…that…God…exists.

I’m afraid that is a physicalist assumption. It is equally possible that the only reality is immaterial.

Possible, but not equally so. Your statement is pure speculation unlike the physical reality that we all (except you, apparently) experience. Unless you’re saying that this is all happening inside your head?

After all our primary datum is mental activity, is it not?

I don’t see how it can be as it’s not objective. But perhaps I misunderstand your point.

Yes! But more than a part…

You have evidence of this?

You regard God as a gap when in fact He is the foundation. The “**mindless **filling of the latter gap” is a more appropriate description of the attempt to fill the scientific gap with mindless processes.

Can’t you see the paradox in what you’ve just said? And I don’t regard God as anything, I just see a bunch of theists filling the gaps in human knowledge with God, for no good reason other than to sustain their own outmoded belief system. Science, on the other hand, accepts that there are gaps in human knowledge and sets about finding rational answers, without preconceptions.

Do you favour an infinite regress?

I don’t really know, but I know that a rational, logical discussion on the subject could not conclude that, “God did it, period.” That explains precisely nothing.

Monistic theism is the simplest and richest explanation of reality.

Simplistic, yes - simple, no.

In a court of law a person is not regarded as a stopgap but as a responsible agent beyond whom there is no need to look further for ultimate responsibility. Why? Is every legal system throughout the world based on an illusion?

This is a relevant point how? Btw, I’d love to put God in the dock. Genocide, fratricide, matricide, coercion, blackmail – the list goes on. He’d never get out!!!

I suspect that you know that reductionism and atomism are illogical

How so? Can you present your logical refutation - one that does not pluck an imaginary force or entity out of the sky to prop up your assertions?

but your free will enables you to opt for them rather than a holistic view of reality. You constantly imply that the mind or self is an entity yet you derive it from a multitude of physical events.

The problem being…?

It wasn’t an arbitrary choice of words because atheism is literally ab-surd, i.e. without a surd. It implies that everything exists in a mindless void, without a rational foundation, without direction, value, purpose or source of unity and integration.

No, it denies the existence of God based on the lack of evidence. No more, no less. The problem is that theists make it sound more than it is because that’s the only way they can attempt to show that it’s ‘absurd.’

I can say exactly the same about physicalism or materialism or scientism. What is the evidence that **everything **is derived from physical energy, material objects or scientific data? There is none whatsoever

True - there is no evidence that everything comes from these properties - by definition, that doesn’t prove anything

… whereas the evidence for God is the highest aspect of reality of which we are aware and have direct personal experience.

This is not evidence. It’s speculation born of both ignorance and a denial of ignorance.

This is hardly surprising because we are made in God’s image.

Do you have a photo of him? How else would you know this?

Your constant reliance on reason presupposes that the fundamental Reality is rational rather than irrational

Ye-ess…???

… and is purposeful rather than purposeless.

Hmmm, depends on how you class ‘purposeful.’ If you class it as ‘serving an ultimate purpose’, then no, there is no reason to suspect that reality is purposeful.

How we live is the best indication of what we really believe…

Quite so - you lead a life where you practise religion, so it’s evident that you are religious. It proves nothing.

 

[tonyrey]

What makes you think your thoughts are physical? Do you regard truth as physical? And…free will?
I don’t know. Nobody does. That…does…not…mean…that…God… exists.

It means you have no explanation.(1)

I’m afraid that is a physicalist assumption. It is equally possible that the only reality is immaterial.
Possible, but not equally so.

Why not equally so?

Your statement is pure speculation unlike the physical reality that we all (except you, apparently) experience.

Let us see (ignoring the argumentum ad hominem ) which is also a red herring).
How do you experience physical reality?

Unless you’re saying that this is all happening inside your head?

That is likely to be your belief rather than mine. Where do you think your thoughts and actions are occurring?

After all our primary datum is mental activity, is it not?
I don’t see how it can be as it’s not objective.

What do you mean by objective? Physical?

Yes! But more than a part.…
You have evidence of this?

It is based on the evidence that rationality, consciousness and free will are irreducible elements of reality.

You regard God as a gap when in fact He is the foundation. The “mindless filling of the latter gap” is a more appropriate description of the attempt to fill the scientific gap with mindless processes.
Can’t you see the paradox in what you’ve just said?

Where is the paradox? Don’t you believe mindless processes preceded mental processes?
That seems more paradoxical…

And I don’t regard God as anything, I just see a bunch of theists filling the gaps in human knowledge with God, for no good reason other than to sustain their own outmoded belief system.

(Argumentum ad hominem)
A picturesque but inaccurate description which is beside the point because we already know full well what you believe.

Science, on the other hand, accepts that there are gaps in human knowledge and sets about finding rational answers, without preconceptions.

Do you really believe science has no preconceptions whatsoever? I shall give you an opportunity to modify that statement. BTW How do you determine what is rational?

Do you favour an infinite regress?

I don’t really know, but I know that a rational, logical discussion on the subject could not conclude that, “God did it, period.”

Is it irrational to say “I did it” or “You did it” of “He did it” as an explanation of an event or events?

Monistic theism is the simplest and richest explanation of reality.
Simplistic, yes - simple, no.

Why not? Does it not postulate one entity?

In a court of law a person is not regarded as a stopgap but as a responsible agent beyond whom there is no need to look further for ultimate responsibility. Why? Is every legal system throughout the world based on an illusion?
This is a relevant point how?

God is defined as a responsible agent beyond whom there is no need to look further for ultimate responsibility.

Btw, I’d love to put God in the dock. Genocide, fratricide, matricide, coercion, blackmail – the list goes on. He’d never get out!!!

(red herring) (Argumentum ad hominem )

I suspect that you know that reductionism and atomism are illogical. How so?

Do you believe purposeful wholes can be explained in terms of their parts?

You constantly imply that the mind or self is an entity yet you derive it from a multitude of physical events.
The problem being…?

That you have **not explained **why it is an entity.

It wasn’t an arbitrary choice of words because atheism is literally ab-surd, i.e. without a surd. It implies that everything exists in a mindless void, without a rational foundation, without direction, value, purpose or source of unity and integration.
No, it denies the existence of God based on the lack of evidence.(???) No more, no less

What about the evidence of rationality, consciousness and free will?

The problem is that theists make it sound more than it is because that’s the only way they can attempt to show that it’s ‘absurd.’

You are retreating to your impregnable position that atheism explains nothing. Yet your attack on theism presupposes beliefs. Otherwise it is vacuous.

What is the evidence that everything is derived from physical energy, material objects or scientific data? There is none whatsoever.
True - there is no evidence that everything comes from these properties - by definition, that doesn’t prove anything.

It proves that you have no explanation.
…

whereas the evidence for God is the highest aspect of reality of which we are aware and have direct personal experience.
This is not evidence.

If it is not evidence to what do you attribute the success of science?

This is hardly surprising because we are made in God’s image.
Do you have a photo of him? (red herring) (argumentum ad hominem)

How else would you know this?

I reach that conclusion because it is the most adequate explanation of the power of reason. Pensee fait la grandeur de l’homme. (Pascal)

It proves nothing.

Do you really mean that your reliance on reason proves nothing?

 

[Fran65]

That’s what Charlemagne does, as I’m sure you’ve seen in this and other threads. He can’t debate rationally so he misrepresents others to try to prove his point. I’ve given up with him, he’s a waste of time.:nope:

Wanstronian,

Your ad hominen arguments undermine any substantive claims and questions that you post.