The Absurdity of Atheism

[Solmyr]

…

Are you aware of all the correct answers given by Watson?

 

[tonyrey]

Are you aware of all the correct answers given by Watson?

A question does not refute statements. Nor have you explained why the logical positivists were mistaken in abandoning their theory because the verification principle is** intangible and cannot be verified by sense data. Nor can materialists use mindless energy to prove that only matter exists. No one has ever witnessed the alleged transformation of matter into mind or explained how mindless molecules can become capable of understanding anything. Every theory and every conclusion presuppose the intangible** power of reason.

 

[inocente]

On the contrary, all attempts to reject the reality of qualia in itself are self refuting (I will quote Chesterton bellow to demonstrate this). Furthermore, you haven’t responded to my question about the difference between a living thing or a dead corpse. If the difference between them is qualitative, then what quantity is changing? The “weighing the soul” experiment demonstrate that mass doesn’t change. What is changing when a living animal dies?

I did respond, I said in death the biological systems no longer work. Medics don’t make a qualitative determination of death, that would be totally illegal. The determination is instead the “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”.

And just as with Aristotle’s four elements, qualia still don’t exist.

You are mistaking epistemology with ontology. Motion might be relative to the subject, but it is also objective.

Galileo proved there is no absolute state of rest - physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node47.html

It certainly can’t be a machine, because it created natural substance, and machines are just artifacts. Created substances are far greater than our artifacts, because in natural things, nature moves them internally to fruitfulness, which artifacts can never do (they are just an accidental placement of parts, while the parts of natural things are essentially in relationship with each other to form one whole, which is a quality, not a quantity).

As I said, the unmoved mover argument relies on Aristotle’s wrong physics, which you seem to be invoking here. The fact remains that from the argument alone, the unmoved mover requires no personality or intelligence.

The fact that the Unmoved Mover creates life means it must have life to give; the fact that it creates rational creatures means it must be rational, which means it has intelligent and will.

That’s not in the unmoved mover argument. This is what I meant by having to add many other arguments to arrive at anything approaching God.

*Philosophy isn’t wrong per se, else what Paul said would be self refuting. Grace isn’t at the end of an argument, but God can use whatever means, natural or supernatural, to complete His Will, and that includes cosmological arguments

I am too convinced of the Gospel, but I was first convinced by the cosmological argument. Then, knowing that there is a God, and that He is interested in all of His creation (if He wasn’t He wouldn’t create), it makes much more sense to expect a revelation. Most atheists in this thread reject the existence of God, and so expecting to see a revelation makes not sense to them, which is while they see no reason to trust the New Testament.
*

Doesn’t seem that the argument has convinced anyone here. If a lost soul walks into your church, she needs you to witness the power of the Spirit to change her life, not complicated arguments which are completely irrelevant to her life. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1). The gospel brings salvation, not man-made ideas.

“We are not a religion of ideas” - Pope Francis, ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-christianity-means-giving-witness-christ-every-day

 

[inocente]

inocente;13794707:

Googling “Hawking fine tuning” yields among other quotes:

“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary”.

This just show how poorly you and Hawking have been trained in philosophy.

In point of fact the known laws of physics did not exist until after the Big Bang. Science has no explanation for why or how the Big Bang occurred. The multiverse is science fiction, not science. Until you can prove there is no God (which would be strange coming from a Baptist) God is still a plausible player on the Creation scene, as Einstein, Newton, and even Darwin agreed.

First, the laws of physics don’t have an independent Platonic existence, they simply state that particular phenomena are always seen to occur when certain conditions are present. Those conditions necessarily don’t include the big-bang singularity, on account of it being a singularity, and science isn’t in the business of making arguments from ignorance.

Second, you didn’t read what Hawking said, which was “This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary”.

Third, you were under the impression that Hawking is a closet fine-tuning fan, and it’s good to see you finally accept he’s nothing of the kind.

Forth, the links I gave show that neither Weinberg nor Hawking are fans of intelligent design, you were quoting them out of context. Similarly, read Einstein fully and you’ll see he despised theism, read Darwin fully and you’ll see how he argued with his wife, who remained a Christian.

Fifth, I follow Christ, and Christians are not defined by the American pseudo-religion of intelligent design.

Actually, we do sing hymns to the unmoved Mover and the intelligent Designer, because Christ is in God and God is in Christ.

When Aquinas talks about the (1) unmoved Mover or the (2) intelligent Designer, his argument is addressed not to the Christian, but to the atheist. You have to begin somewhere with the atheist, and these are two good places to begin, since the atheist needs to get the door open just a crack before he is willing to peek at the One who stands waiting for him behind the door.

Otherwise, you have to assume that without an ounce of credibility thst God even exists, the atheist is going to throw himself willy-nilly at the feet of the crucified Christ.

Not going to happen.

It’s risky trying to gain credibility by a man-made idea you have about fine-tuning, since it will be disproved as soon as science discovers the real reason for the values of physical constants.

Traditionally, and this might seem old-fashioned, credibility has simply involved witnessing how the Spirit turned your life around, freed you from your past, and made your life brand new. In other words, rather than relying of your own power, rely on the power of God: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes.” (Rom 1)

The strategy of using man-made arguments which never mention Christ has been tried on this thread, and doesn’t seem to have been a raging success. It might be time to try witnessing instead.

Pope Francis: *“Am I a Christian giving witness to Jesus or am I a simple numerary of this sect," unable to let the Holy Spirit “drive me forward in my Christian vocation?” he asked in his homily at Mass Tuesday in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where he lives.

“A Christian who doesn’t give witness is unfathomable," he said, according to a report by Vatican Radio.

"We are not a religion of ideas, of pure theology, of beautiful things and commandments.

• ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-christianity-means-giving-witness-christ-every-day*

 

[inocente]

Difficult to follow this argument (if it is one). Grace is logically necessary.

If grace was logically necessary then salvation would not be a gift to the undeserving made by God’s free choice.

Catholics reject both scientism and fideism. Because reason and science both tell us about our Creator, one enforces the other. And since God is the source of faith, reason and science; they must be in accord when properly understood.

It’s good to finally hear a Catholic say that out loud! That a good Catholic can be a scientist, and that truth cannot contradict truth.

These quotations are out of context. To be “essentially hidden” is not to be entirely hidden. From the same article:

"Lemaître goes on to say, “It does not mean that cosmology has no meaning for philosophy. Philosophy and theology, when kept in isolation from scientific thought, either change into an outdated self-enclosed system, or become a dangerous ideology.”

“Reaching out this time to his fellow churchmen, Lemaître said, ‘Does the Church need Science? Certainly not. The Cross and the Gospel are enough. However, nothing that is human can be foreign to the Christian. How could the Church not be interested in the most noble of all strictly human occupations, namely the search for truth?’”

Knowing that Christ never appealed to any cosmological scheme to support his teaching, Lemaître also knew that theology and cosmology relate if, and only if, cosmology attains certitude in its findings. Since that cannot happen, modern theologians do not make their theology dependent on the latest cosmological hypothesis. Nor do cosmologists claim their findings have the certitude of faith.

Again agreed, although I don’t see how those quotes were out of context. Science has never been able to state “here is something which can only have been done by God”, and Lemaître says that’s still true even at the very point of creation. Imho that’s what he means by “essentially hidden”. The intelligent design movement’s attempt to “reduce God to a scientific hypothesis” doesn’t change that. Clearly God is not a hypothesis, for “we live by faith, not by sight”. So I think Isaiah, Paul, Lemaître, you and I are all on the same page here.

 

[inocente]

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

hermital.org/book/holoprt2-2.htm

psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Your quotes disprove your statement that “Science wouldn’t exist without the opinions of individual scientists because its theories are always provisional”, and confirm instead the real reason why theories are provisional. so it’s great to see that you’ve been good enough to correct yourself.

In passing, regarding the part you highlighted about “Only the fundamental principles and universal constants discovered during the process remain the same”, note the word discovered - the values of physical constants which cannot be calculated are only known empirically, as parameters dialed-in to make the equations accord with observation.

 

[o_mlly]

If grace was logically necessary then salvation would not be a gift to the undeserving made by God’s free choice.

If God wills all men to come to salvation, and if man without grace cannot come to salvation then grace is (and always has been and will be) necessary. In strict justice, grace remains a gift. But God does not think sequentially – He is omniprescient and knows from all eternity the’ necessity of His grace.

It’s good to finally hear a Catholic say that out loud! That a good Catholic can be a scientist, and that truth cannot contradict truth.

We are on the same page. Perhaps where we differ is in seeing science attempting to elevate its domain to scientism – the source of all knowledge. It was not always that way. To wit: ncregister.com/site/article/god-created-the-heavens-and-the-earth/#ixzz44r7fSxDM

“Science was not founded in opposition to religion, as many people think,” said Stephen Barr, professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware and author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. “Most of its great founders saw science as uncovering the laws by which God governed the universe.”

“Not only has the Church’s contribution to science been overlooked, but also it has been sadly twisted.”

“It [science] helps people see how intelligible God is. In science, we find tremendous evidence for the existence of God. Many working in science today, including some of the most prominent scientists, try to negate God’s existence and prove he has nothing to do with science. They’re guilty of culpable omission, and it just keeps getting worse.”

“In a recent effort to repair the breach between faith and reason, the Church has created a new foundation. On Jan. 19, Pope Benedict XVI launched the Science and Faith Foundation to become the philosophical bridge between theology and science. The foundation will be headquartered at the Holy See and builds on the work of the Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest (STOQ) project, which was created by Pope John Paul II in 2003.”

 

[tonyrey]

Your quotes disprove your statement that “Science wouldn’t exist without the opinions of individual scientists because its theories are always provisional”, and confirm instead the real reason why theories are provisional. so it’s great to see that you’ve been good enough to correct yourself.

The opinions of individual scientists **are **the basis of scientific theories!

In passing, regarding the part you highlighted about “Only the fundamental principles and universal constants discovered during the process remain the same”, note the word discovered - the values of physical constants which cannot be calculated are only known empirically, as parameters dialed-in to make the equations accord with observation.

These details are not relevant to the fact that science presupposes the existence of rational minds which are superior to the entire physical universe. That is where the absurdity of atheism is like a house built on sand: it has no logical foundation for value, purpose, meaning or action…

 

[tonyrey]

If God wills all men to come to salvation, and if man without grace cannot come to salvation then grace is (and always has been and will be) necessary. In strict justice, grace remains a gift. But God does not think sequentially – He is omniprescient and knows from all eternity the’ necessity of His grace.

We are on the same page. Perhaps where we differ is in seeing science attempting to elevate its domain to scientism – the source of all knowledge. It was not always that way. To wit: ncregister.com/site/article/god-created-the-heavens-and-the-earth/#ixzz44r7fSxDM

“Science was not founded in opposition to religion, as many people think,” said Stephen Barr, professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware and author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. “Most of its great founders saw science as uncovering the laws by which God governed the universe.”

“Not only has the Church’s contribution to science been overlooked, but also it has been sadly twisted.”

“It [science] helps people see how intelligible God is. In science, we find tremendous evidence for the existence of God. Many working in science today, including some of the most prominent scientists, try to negate God’s existence and prove he has nothing to do with science. They’re guilty of culpable omission, and it just keeps getting worse.”

“In a recent effort to repair the breach between faith and reason, the Church has created a new foundation. On Jan. 19, Pope Benedict XVI launched the Science and Faith Foundation to become the philosophical bridge between theology and science. The foundation will be headquartered at the Holy See and builds on the work of the Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest (STOQ) project, which was created by Pope John Paul II in 2003.”

Indeed. Modern science wouldn’t have come into existence without the teaching of Jesus preserved by the Church that the beauty in the world is created by God:

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Luke 12:27

It provides a rational foundation for the axioms that we can understand the universe and the universe can be understood! Faith in intelligence and intelligibility were both essential for the development of empirical knowledge.

 

[IWantGod]

How is lack of belief absurd?

Its not absurd If we look at it from the stand point of having no innate understanding of existence, and also there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism so as to protect ones self from erroneous beliefs. However, from a purely logical stand point I have found atheism to be an illegitimate response to the world that we perceive. There is a fundamental failure to realise what it actually means if there is no God, since many of the beliefs and feelings and ideas that atheists retain in the wake of God’s non-existence indirectly imply and require the existence of God in-order to be rational - if the goal is to be rational. They just don’t realise it.

 

[tonyrey]

Its not absurd If we look at it from the stand point of having no innate understanding of existence, and also there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism so as to protect ones self from erroneous beliefs. However, from a purely logical stand point I have found atheism to be an illegitimate response to the world that we perceive. There is a fundamental failure to realise what it actually means if there is no God, since many of the beliefs and feelings and ideas that atheists retain in the wake of God’s non-existence indirectly imply and require the existence of God in-order to be rational - if the goal is to be rational. They just don’t realise it.

Living in a postChristian society makes people take human rights for granted.

 

[Solmyr]

The opinions of individual scientists **are **the basis of scientific theories!

No, they are the starting points of the theories. Without the positive or negative feedback there is no way to decide if the opinions are correct or not. The correct name of the “feedback” is “verification”…

These details are not relevant to the fact that science presupposes the existence of rational minds which are superior to the entire physical universe.

That poor rational mind cannot withstand even a few minutes underwater, or a few seconds in vacuum. Where is the “superiority”? Or as the old proverb goes: “even the best arguments lose to well-wielded baseball bat”.

That is where the absurdity of atheism is like a house built on sand: it has no logical foundation for value, purpose, meaning or action…

Sorry, you have no idea what atheism is all about. It is only a lack of belief in some god or gods, nothing more, nothings less.

 

[tonyrey]

The opinions of individual scientists **are **

The opinions of scientists who are worth their salt take into account all the implications and results of their theories

These details are not relevant to the fact that science presupposes the existence of rational minds which are superior to the entire physical universe.

That poor rational mind cannot withstand even a few minutes underwater, or a few seconds in vacuum. Where is the “superiority”? Or as the old proverb goes: “even the best arguments lose to well-wielded baseball bat”.

You are assuming “might is right” and the mind is merely a lump of tissue inside the skull - an outdated hypothesis which doesn’t explain consciousness or insight or correspond to the way any rational person thinks and behaves.

That is where the absurdity of atheism is like a house built on sand: it has no logical foundation for value, purpose, meaning or action…

Sorry, you have no idea what atheism is all about.

Ad hominem.

It is only a lack of belief in some god or gods, nothing more, nothings less.

It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed out that it is impossible to remain uncommitted. No rational being lives without a logical foundation for value, purpose, meaning or action. At the very least an atheist is a materialist - or a nihilist!

 

[inocente]

The opinions of individual scientists **are **the basis of scientific theories!

The whole point of science is to build knowledge based on empirical evidence rather than opinions or assumptions.

These details are not relevant to the fact that science presupposes the existence of rational minds which are superior to the entire physical universe.

Do you have any evidence for this, especially as you just lumped in all Catholic scientists?

That is where the absurdity of atheism is like a house built on sand: it has no logical foundation for value, purpose, meaning or action…

‘“Christians who are afraid to build bridges and prefer to build walls are Christians who are not sure of their faith, not sure of Jesus Christ,” he [Pope Francis] said.’ - catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2013/pope-says-evangelists-build-bridges-not-walls.cfm

What would you say to that charge, that Tony doth protest too much? Can you instead witness how Christ changed your life for the better, make some positive, encouraging statements about your faith to the atheists reading this thread?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What would you say to that charge, that Tony doth protest too much? Can you instead witness how Christ changed your life for the better, make some positive, encouraging statements about your faith to the atheists reading this thread?

You could do the same for atheists about your faith. Why not?

And would you ever?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

‘“Christians who are afraid to build bridges and prefer to build walls are Christians who are not sure of their faith, not sure of Jesus Christ,” he [Pope Francis] said.’ - catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2013/pope-says-evangelists-build-bridges-not-walls.cfm

And this is what we do at Catholic Answers, build bridges, not walls.

What is dialogue if not a bridge?

If anyone builds walls, it would be someone like you, who tries to take Papal comments and turn them against Catholic participants in this forum. You have been told over and over that this is not really a smart strategy. It shows that you really want to build walls between Catholics and their pope. Never going to work.

 

[Solmyr]

The opinions of scientists who are worth their salt take into account all the implications and results of their theories

And that is exactly what the verification process is for. To find the implications and the results of their theories. To separate the wheat from the chaff.

You are assuming “might is right”

Now where did THAT come from? I am simply pointing out that our mind is contingent upon the workings of the external world. And even a small disturbance to the electrochemical activity of the brain is detrimental to the working of the mind. Peculiar “coincidence”, is it?

…and the mind is merely a lump of tissue inside the skull - an outdated hypothesis

Strange that those “pesky” neurophysicists “cling” to the “outdated” hypothesis that the mind is the ACTIVITY of the brain (NOT the brain itself), and keep on accumulating evidence supporting it day after day.

Ad hominem.

It would be nice if you stopped this annoying habit of calling every dissenting word or pointing out an error of yours an “ad hominem”. Look it up on Google. But that is probably too much to ask for.

 

[Aloysium]

The mind constitutes a different order of structure than the brain.
Both “dimensions” are observed to be present in the totality of the person.
That is, if we extend the concept of mind to include spirit.
Ideas, peceptions, and feelings are elements of mental processes as changes in membrane potential, neuron tracts, grey and white matter are parts of what constitutes the physical structure of the person.
While physically we are continuous with the universe as part of its infinite collection of interactions, spiritually we exist in our individual finiteness, relating to space-time, thereby creating the moment, perceiving the colours and sounds that are part of its nature and gleaning the underlying organization through the evolving fields of science. We can also come to know moral order, good and evil, beauty and truth. We know of our own existence and can love others.
Ultimately, the person is relational, whole, perceiving, thinking, feeling, acting and capable of loving as one being, rooted in its eternal Ground.
There are a number of ways I could comment on neurophysicists. Suffice to say

 

[Aloysium]

The ending of the post above is misleading. The criticism is not on neurophysics, defined as a scientific study of the nervous system, but rather with the previous poster’s understanding that it somehow provides support for the untestable hypothesis that the mind is merely the activity of the brain. A thinking and feeling person will always exhibit neural activity as the movement of a water molecule will naturally result in a change of position of its hydrogen atom. In an analogous fashion, the hydrogen in water does not cause the oxygen.

 

[inocente]

You could do the same for atheists about your faith. Why not?

And would you ever?

Done it often in real life, but non-Catholics are not allowed to proselytize on CAF, which is very reasonable as it would be weird otherwise.

Catholics are allowed of course, but admittedly most people are coy about testifying for the first time.

And this is what we do at Catholic Answers, build bridges, not walls.

What is dialogue if not a bridge?

If anyone builds walls, it would be someone like you, who tries to take Papal comments and turn them against Catholic participants in this forum. You have been told over and over that this is not really a smart strategy. It shows that you really want to build walls between Catholics and their pope. Never going to work.

I think CA certainly does, but whether all posters try to build bridges is a matter of opinion.

You’re the only poster who ever objects to quotes from Pope Francis, everyone else seems to like seeing them .