The absurdity of atheism

[987mk]

You are mistaken. We are aware of the hundreds of proofs… some of them are collected here: Hundreds of proofs for God’s existence

1.TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2.COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

3.ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4.ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5.MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

… and hundreds more.

…and everyone of those proofs have been shattered by far greater minds than I.

You believe on faith, nothing more.

 

[987mk]

Because you are a victim of scientism, there is no evidence that will convince you.

You are a victim of religiosity, there is no convincing you that your God is isn’t real.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…and everyone of those proofs have been shattered by far greater minds than I.

In order to know that these proofs have, indeed, been “shattered” by greater minds than yours, wouldn’t you need to have a greater mind than theirs, to know THAT with any kind of certainty?

Or are you proposing faith in “greater minds than yours?”

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are a victim of religiosity, there is no convincing you that your God is isn’t real.

How do you know he is a “victim of religiosity?” Perhaps he, too, has a greater mind than yours and knows with certainty that God is real.

Why are you only presuming atheists have “greater minds than yours,” whereas theists are merely “victims of religiosity?”

Sounds like a faith-based proposition. Faith in proposed “greater minds” on one side determined by a predetermination in favour of that one side.

 

[zyzz]

Because you are a victim of scientism, there is no evidence that will convince you.

Curiousier and curiousier. I have never met anyone who would have professed to subscribe to “scientism”. On the other hand I saw many people who accuse others to adhere to “scientism”… without any evidence, of course. It looks like that those who have no argument can always try to wiggle out by these unfounded accusations.

Also funny that you already “know” that no evidence would convince me, even before presenting that evidence. Must be “cool” to be omniscient. Besides the question is not if the evidence is convincing or not, the question is the “method” of obtaining the evidence.

 

[zyzz]

…and everyone of those proofs have been shattered by far greater minds than I.

You missed my point. Those “proofs” and there are 666 of them (what a coincidence), are just a tongue-in-cheek compilation of the “proofs” for God’s existence. Check out the URL… “godlessgeeks.com”.

 

[987mk]

In order to know that these proofs have, indeed, been “shattered” by greater minds than yours, wouldn’t you need to have a greater mind than theirs, to know THAT with any kind of certainty?

Or are you proposing faith in “greater minds than yours?”

I guarantee that there are greater minds than me, both believers and unbelievers.

I also guarantee that there is no evidence that proves with absolute certainty that your God is real.

If that were the case, faith wouldn’t be necessary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Also funny that you already “know” that no evidence would convince me, even before presenting that evidence.

Put it this way, I’m not omniscient, but I feel it in my gut that your are impervious to convincing.

So why bother?

Knowing God requires not only an open mind but an open heart.

I’ll grant you an open mind toward God.

Would you grant yourself an open heart?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I also guarantee that there is no evidence that proves with absolute certainty that your God is real.

If that were the case, faith wouldn’t be necessary.

I suppose there is nothing you have learned to believe without absolute certainty.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I guarantee that there are greater minds than me, both believers and unbelievers.

I also guarantee that there is no evidence that proves with absolute certainty that your God is real.

If that were the case, faith wouldn’t be necessary.

So you are of the mind that human beings are naturally good and always faithful to the truth once they know the truth?

Faithfulness to the truth is simply a non-issue because, once the truth is known, human beings are like puppy dogs – forever faithful?

Why do you suppose human beings lie, then?

Or cheat? Or steal? Or kill?

Is it because they don’t realize that lying, cheating, stealing or killing are wrong? That they mistakenly believe these things are right and true, but just have confused notions about the truth of the matter?

Aquinas supposed that what is (the truth) and what is good are one. That would mean, I think, that being unfaithful to the Good implies lack of faith in the Truth. It is possible, therefore, that denial of (i.e., being unfaithful to) the Good is one and the same as denial of (i.e., being unfaithful to) the Truth.

Ergo, the Truth requires faithfulness to it in an existential sense – in the sense of requiring that we live lives of fealty to (in fidelity to or faithful to) the Good.

Do you suppose human beings are always faithful to the True and the Good?

When humans fail to do so, is it always because they do not know with certainty what the True and the Good are? Or is it because of something else?

If we were to not use the word “God” at all, but replace the word with “Truth and Goodness.”

Do you suppose that human beings require “evidence” to know with certainty that Truth and Goodness exist? What would the exact nature of that evidence be?

Do you also suppose that if human beings had certainty about Truth and Goodness, that human faithfulness to (i.e., faith in) Truth and Goodness would no longer be necessary?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Curiousier and curiousier. I have never met anyone who would have professed to subscribe to “scientism”. On the other hand I saw many people who accuse others to adhere to “scientism”… without any evidence, of course. It looks like that those who have no argument can always try to wiggle out by these unfounded accusations.

Are you denying that “scientism” is a definable term? Or merely that it does not, in fact, have any referents?

Also funny that you already “know” that no evidence would convince me, even before presenting that evidence. Must be “cool” to be omniscient. Besides the question is not if the evidence is convincing or not, the question is the “method” of obtaining the evidence.

By what “method” do you establish that you are conscious at this moment? – I mean presuming that you are.

Are “methods” necessary for establishing things that we are certain about or only things that we are uncertain about?

In which case, how do you establish the certainty of any method without an independent method for doing so?

Or is your “method” self-verifying and necessary? A kind of parallel to Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover – The Unmethologized Method?

 

[zyzz]

Put it this way, I’m not omniscient, but I feel it in my gut that your are impervious to convincing.

The same is applicable here when you presented “intuition”. There is nothing wrong with “gut feeling”, but it is mistake to consider it the final arbiter of “truth”.

So why bother?

For the same reason as I keep on trying to get an answer to hard questions. I am very sure about my results, but I am not arrogant to assert that I cannot be wrong.

Knowing God requires not only an open mind but an open heart.

I have idea what “open heart” means.

I’ll grant you an open mind toward God.

That is good news. And I hope you will never bring up the “scientism” again. I explicitly deny that “science” can answer ALL the questions.

Would you grant yourself an open heart?

As I said, I have no idea what you mean. Keeping an open mind is enough. If I would open my “heart”, all my blood would spill out.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is good news. And I hope you will never bring up the “scientism” again. I explicitly deny that “science” can answer ALL the questions.

I think clarification is in order.

I didn’t define scientism as the notion that science can answer all the questions.

Scientism is the view that only scientism can answer any of the questions.

In other words, scientism regards metaphysics as useless.

Would you say that is your view?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Intuition is wonderful. But it is only the first step. Without some method to find out if your intuition corresponds to reality it is useless.

So are you suggesting that if I intuit the existence of truth as a reality, the only way that is useful to me is if I examine truth in a test tube or through a microscope?

 

[PRmerger]

…and everyone of those proofs have been shattered by far greater minds than I.

In order to know that these proofs have, indeed, been “shattered” by greater minds than yours, wouldn’t you need to have a greater mind than theirs, to know THAT with any kind of certainty?

Or are you proposing faith in “greater minds than yours?”

OHO! Trenchant point, Peter!



What mk is saying is that he is not as smart as these guys who have putatively refuted the proofs for God’s existence.

And since he’s not as smart as them, then he can’t know if what they are saying is true or false…

yet he believes them to be true…

which means he believe this based on…

wait for it…
wait for it…



FAITH.

 

[zyzz]

I didn’t define scientism as the notion that science can answer all the questions.

Scientism is the view that only scientism can answer any of the questions.

What? That makes no sense at all. You should not create “new” definitions according your desire. Moreover what you suggest as “definition” is simply a circular usage of the word “scientism”.

In other words, scientism regards metaphysics as useless.

Metaphysics without an accompanying epistemology is really useless.

So are you suggesting that if I intuit the existence of truth as a reality, the only way that is useful to me is if I examine truth in a test tube or through a microscope?

If you “intuit” that truth is an object, rather than a concept, then you are mistaken. We speak about “truth” when the abstract picture we develop in our mind corresponds to the actual reality.

 

[tonyrey]

That do not exist as ontological OBJECTS. They are important concepts, but do not exist independently from our mind. Don’t follow the trickery of tony. Existence does not equal physical existence.

“trickery”?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Moreover what you suggest as “definition” is simply a circular usage of the word ". . …

“Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most “authoritative” worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints.” - taken off the first thing that comes up on google.

Happy now? Seriously, you don’t know what it means.

“trickery”?

I wI’ll keep my views to myself.

 

[zyzz]

“Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most “authoritative” worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints.” - taken off the first thing that comes up on google.

Not precise. The scientific approach is only applicable to the objective reality. It is NOT applicable to the abstract sciences. Only an idiot would say that proving a mathematical theorem requires “testing”.

There are at least 2 epistemological methods. The scientific, which is applicable to the objective reality, and the axiomatic, which is applicable to the abstract sciences.

As such there is no sane person who would advocate this “scientism”. Happy now?

Now, the 64 thousand dollar question - to which it is impossible to get an answer - is: “how do you find out if a religious claim is true or not”? To make your task easier, here is a simple claim: “all humans and only humans have an immortal soul”. Why are you (all) so scared of answering this question?

 

[Aloysium]

Not precise. . . there is no sane person who would advocate this “scientism”. . . “how do you find out if a religious claim is true or not”? To make your task easier, here is a simple claim: “all humans and only humans have an immortal soul”. Why are you (all) so scared of answering this question?

Richard Dawkins would not self-identify himself as an advocate of scientism because he recognizes that it is a pejorative term used by the other side in his favorite types of debate.
I do classify him as such. He is hardly insane.
Likewise, you are not insane, although you arbitrarily discount any sort of revealed truth.
It is a very difficult area, but so is mathematics. We don’t all have a knack for such things.

The only way to know the truth about a religious claim is through one’s relationship with God.
I know I have an eternal soul, grounded outside of time, entering into time, right here and now.
What can I say? You don’t, and you choose not to take the steps required to acheive that understanding.

The predominant mood, I would say is frustration, repeating the same things over and over to someone who refuses to get it, to step outside the box he has created for himself.
Any fear you sense might be one related to the status of your eternal soul. God is all merciful, and although you might be someone difficult to live with, you will do ok.

Math problem: How much heavenly reward does the person get who works one hour, compared to the one who works twelve? They get paid the same. Go figure.