There is no God

[john_doran]

Alois:

It’s the same issue. Your senses have proven to be accurate time and time again, like I said earlier, you trust your life on them. The world still “is” around you, or there wouldn’t be a source of the energy causing these perceptions. That your existence (sentiently) in this world hasn’t been ended by something you haven’t sensed is evidence that suggests trust in our senses.

it’s impossible to prove that one’s senses are reliable, since one has to rely on those same senses in order to consider any proof or any evidence or any supposed verification of them.

it would be like using the bible to verify the claims of the bible…

belief in the reliability of one’s senses, or in the reality of a mind-independent world, or in the existence of other minds - these are all undemonstrable assumptions.

which are, for all that, unavoidably made; the problem arises when one couples with those assumptions a secondary belief in the need for all one’s beliefs to be demonstrable…

 

[ambrosius]

Not believe in God? Ok, but how one still can has the capacity to love if one don’t believe in God? Well, at least one still has the capacity to love oneself… if one doesn’t have the capacity to love others.

This question is a reflection question - whether one still believe to have the capacity to love others. Anyone?

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

NOT AN ATHEIST. He was, in fact, a Christian. He preached of a society that was Christian Nationalism, a state government based around the “goodness” of Christianity. He used Christianity to persecute the Jews, to persecute the homosexuals, to persecute the atheists, and to persecute anyone who wasn’t Christian. Hitler himself declared that he was on a mission from God to preserve his perfect race. Under the guise of ‘Positive Christianity’ and Order of Creation, Hitler worked with the churches in Germany to produce anti-Jewish propaganda. The Vatican itself assisted Croatian Nazis throughout the war, and the Pope even gave Ante Pavelic (the leader of the Nazi regime in the Balkans) a blessing on his deathbead. It wasn’t a Christian crusade by any means, but to classify Hitler and his counterparts as atheistic is a disgusting bastardization of history on par with those who claim the Holocaust never happened.

Hitler wasn’t a Christian or Atheist or whatever. He was a NAZI. Theological issues did not concern him. He was intent on killing Jews and wiping out Slavs, Communists, homosexuals, etc. and making Deutschland über alles. That was it, that was his Kampf.

It really drives me up the wall when people use Hitler or the Nazis to demonize their ideological rivals.

…] students at Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, New Jersey, have posted papers on a web site (www.lawandreligion.com) detailing Hitler’s desire to eradicate Christianity. The documents are from the archives of General William J. Donovan and were originally prepared for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

The Rutgers site’s presentation is entitled “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches,” and it notes a deep hatred of Christianity throughout the higher Nazi echelons. Hitler was indeed a baptized Catholic, but his rejection of the faith was profound. “It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity,” he said in 1933, “because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.”

(catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0204eye.asp))

How Pius XII Protected Jews

By Jimmy Akin

The twentieth century was marked by genocides on an monstrous scale. One of the most terrible was the Holocaust wrought by Nazi Germany, which killed an estimated six million European Jews and almost as many other victims.

During this dark time, the Catholic Church was shepherded by Pope Pius XII, who proved himself an untiring foe of the Nazis, determined to save as many Jewish lives as he could. Yet today Pius XII gets almost no credit for his actions before or during the war.

*Check the rest out at: * catholic.com/library/how_pius_xii_protected_jews.asp

… to put an end to the lies told to you, out of the many that once also gulled my own atheistic head!

 

[Alois]

it’s impossible to prove that one’s senses are reliable, since one has to rely on those same senses in order to consider any proof or any evidence or any supposed verification of them.

it would be like using the bible to verify the claims of the bible…

belief in the reliability of one’s senses, or in the reality of a mind-independent world, or in the existence of other minds - these are all undemonstrable assumptions.

You don’t need to directly observe something for it to be considered reasonable. Refer to my examples above. We base the accuracy of our senses off of our own existence. We do not need solid, 100% accurate proof to be reasonably sure of something, and, as I have stated many times, I do not believe we have that proof. However, it is completely reasonable to believe that our senses are accurate based on two reasons:

1.) Existence is what it is regardless of what our senses tell us. Your life has been guided by your senses, and you have yet to die because of that. That’s incredibly strong evidence that they are accurate. Do you suggest that there are other undetectable things out there that we just “happen” to be avoiding? After all, using your logic we must assume those things are there because we can’t be 100% sure of our senses. So stop moving! You might hit one!

2.) We have yet to observe the effects of something beyond our senses on something that is detectable by our senses. It stands to all reason that a form of energy produces variations in other forms of energy. We have not noticed any variations in these other forms of energy that haven’t been accounted for by other energies that we can sense. So where do you propose these impulses we can’t sense are?

which are, for all that, unavoidably made; the problem arises when one couples with those assumptions a secondary belief in the need for all one’s beliefs to be demonstrable…

The difference in this situation is that I have evidence to support my viewpoint. (refer to the above) Why do your standards vary so much that you’re willing to stand by your God with no detectable evidence, but need an impossible amount of evidence (100% proof) to believe in your senses? This is quite the double standard you’ve developed…

 

[Alois]

ambrosius:

Not believe in God? Ok, but how one still can has the capacity to love if one don’t believe in God? Well, at least one still has the capacity to love oneself… if one doesn’t have the capacity to love others.

This question is a reflection question - whether one still believe to have the capacity to love others. Anyone?

What does religon have to do with loving each other? Why can’t an atheist love?

 

[john_doran]

Alois:

1.) Existence is what it is regardless of what our senses tell us. Your life has been guided by your senses, and you have yet to die because of that. That’s incredibly strong evidence that they are accurate. Do you suggest that there are other undetectable things out there that we just “happen” to be avoiding? After all, using your logic we must assume those things are there because we can’t be 100% sure of our senses. So stop moving! You might hit one!

you miss the point and the force of the observation: not dying is absolutely no evidence of the accuracy of our senses at all - we could be in stasis, being deceived by an evil cartesian demon, or we could be brains in vats in the lab of some alien cognitive scientist, or…

it’s not (just) a matter of not being able to be sure if what we think is red is actually blue, or if things that look round are actually elliptical - it’s a matter of not being able to deduce the relaibility of our senses to any degree.

do you see what i’m saying? absolutely any evidence you could count as probative depends on the assumption that our senses are reliable. how do you know anything dies? how do you know that the sensation of “moving” or of “hitting” something actually means you’re doing what you think of as moving or hitting something? you don’t, unless you assume that your senses are reliably reporting at least those phenomena. which is preceisely what you can’t do if the very question at hand is whether or not you can depend upon your senses to report truthfully.

Alois:

2.) We have yet to observe the effects of something beyond our senses on something that is detectable by our senses. It stands to all reason that a form of energy produces variations in other forms of energy. We have not noticed any variations in these other forms of energy that haven’t been accounted for by other energies that we can sense. So where do you propose these impulses we can’t sense are?

what i said above applies here, too. additionally, though, we “observe” the effects of unobservable entities all the time: atoms, electrons, quarks, and if either string theory or loop quantum gravity are correct, then there will be strings and loops, too.

Alois:

The difference in this situation is that I have evidence to support my viewpoint. (refer to the above) Why do your standards vary so much that you’re willing to stand by your God with no detectable evidence, but need an impossible amount of evidence (100% proof) to believe in your senses? This is quite the double standard you’ve developed…

you’ve got this backward, i’m afraid - i don’t require “proof” for anything that i believe: belief is a matter of reasonableness, which is a matter of probabilities. all my beliefs are based ultimately on assumptions for which no knock-down, drag-out proof is possible, but for which no such proof is required. from there, it’s a matter of balancing reasons and evidence according to relative probabilities.

that having been said, why do you believe that the only kind of evidence for the truth of propositions about god is “detectable” evidence"? do you have any detectable evidence that the only kind of good evidence is detectable? can you prove that this is the only legitimate kind of evidence?

 

[Alois]

Hitler wasn’t a Christian or Atheist or whatever. He was a NAZI. Theological issues did not concern him. He was intent on killing Jews and wiping out Slavs, Communists, homosexuals, etc. and making Deutschland über alles. That was it, that was his Kampf.

Really now? He sure did put up a good front, to say the least… (refer to my quote towards the bottom)

I agree with you though, his Nazi ideology came before his religon.

However, he used Christianity as the vessel in which to push his agenda, and the hatred of the Jews had a large influence on why the German public was so attracted to persecuting them. I agree that his form of “Christianity” was bastardized, but it was under the Christian front that he polarized the majority of the population to rally behind the Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies. I certainly don’t mean to give the impression that he was the One True Christian type, but if someone is attempting to use Stalin as an archtype for atheists I’m not going to shy away from this topic.

It really drives me up the wall when people use Hitler or the Nazis to demonize their ideological rivals.

Now you know how an atheist feels when someone brings up Stalin. It’s like pointing to an unstable person in a bar and declaring that the entire bar is insane. I’m not trying to demonize Christians, however, I have acknowledged several times over that I do not judge the personalities of the majority by the actions of the minority. Can’t say that much for your fellow Catholic, however.

students at Rutgers University School of Law at Camden …

National Christianity at its worst. I have read that article before, and persecution is often used to describe the take over of churches for “public use”. Of course public use meant nothing, they were used as propaganda centers.

… to put an end to the lies told to you, out of the many that once also gulled my own atheistic head!

In a speech celebrating Germany’s exit from the League of Nations, Hitler again maintained that the Third Reich was actively implementing a Christian agenda: “Along with the fight for a purer morality we have taken upon ourselves the struggle against the decomposition of our religion. We have therefore taken up the struggle against the Godless movement, and not just with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out. And above all we have dragged the priests out of the lowlands of the political party struggle and have brought them back into the church.”

This declaration was quite consistent with Hitler’s speeches earlier in the year and also with the basic attitude he laid out — privately as well as publicly — in the “time of struggle.” Insisting that Nazism as a state would not distinguish between Protestant and Catholic, he recognized only a common supra-Christian faith. True to his promise, Hitler defended Christianity against the “Godless” movement, outlawing the Socialist and the Communist parties very early after the Seizure of Power.

An actual quote of Hitler, from the book The Holy Reich. Pick it up please, before you assert that I’m being told lies.

 

[Alois]

john doran:

you miss the point and the force of the observation: not dying is absolutely no evidence of the accuracy of our senses at all - we could be in stasis, being deceived by an evil cartesian demon, or we could be brains in vats in the lab of some alien cognitive scientist, or…
it’s not (just) a matter of not being able to be sure if what we think is red is actually blue, or if things that look round are actually elliptical - it’s a matter of not being able to deduce the relaibility of our senses to any degree.

do you see what i’m saying? absolutely any evidence you could count as probative depends on the assumption that our senses are reliable. how do you know anything dies? how do you know that the sensation of “moving” or of “hitting” something actually means you’re doing what you think of as moving or hitting something? you don’t, unless you assume that your senses are reliably reporting at least those phenomena. which is preceisely what you can’t do if the very question at hand is whether or not you can depend upon your senses to report truthfully.

I understand exactly what your point is, I was just hoping you wouldn’t attempt to carry this in to solipsism, which has been considered an intellectually bankrupt philosophy for over a thousand years now. Just what do you propose with this philosophy? You can dream up an infinite amount of 'or’s, and I challenge you to do so if you really believe in it. To assume that we’re in a vat is nothing. You can neither prove or disprove it. It’s irrelevant until we see a “glitch” in this vat.

It’s fun to play around with in your mind, but worthless as a philosophy. Stating that “evidence can be wrong” as the reason for believing that evidence is wrong is circular logic. If our brains are in a vat it makes no difference; what’s outside of this vat is irrelevant to our existence stuck inside of the vat. Unless you claim to have evidence that this vat can glitch, in which case you’d be stepping over your own arguments by providing evidence that we can’t be sure of.

Do you see the conundrums this creates?

what i said above applies here, too. additionally, though, we “observe” the effects of unobservable entities all the time: atoms, electrons, quarks, and if either string theory or loop quantum gravity are correct, then there will be strings and loops, too.

They are observable. If you think observable means something that can be seen through the human eye, then you are mistaken. We cannot see quarks, but we can observe them by monitoring their impact on matter that we can see, and then using physics to assess them. This is connected with my final paragraph.

you’ve got this backward, i’m afraid - i don’t require “proof” for anything that i believe: belief is a matter of reasonableness, which is a matter of probabilities. all my beliefs are based ultimately on assumptions for which no knock-down, drag-out proof is possible, but for which no such proof is required. from there, it’s a matter of balancing reasons and evidence according to relative probabilities.

This is exactly what I have been saying. Nothing can be “proven”. There is always the sense of doubt; such as the doubt caused by mind-in-a-vat. Beliefs still have to be measured on evidence however, and the more evidence a belief has the more reasonable it is to believe it.

If you state that you believe in God, and you have no evidence to support it, that belief is unreasonable.

If you state that evidence isn’t needed, then you admit that reason and logic are not needed. We can’t debate without reason and logic.

that having been said, why do you believe that the only kind of evidence for the truth of propositions about god is “detectable” evidence"? do you have any detectable evidence that the only kind of good evidence is detectable? can you prove that this is the only legitimate kind of evidence?

Undetectable evidence is irrelevant to us until we do detect it. When we do, it then becomes detectable. Undectectable evidence, therefore, doesn’t exist. So, detectable evidence is infinitely more legitimate. Did that answer your question?

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by hurst
Perhaps this is a matter of teminology. What do you mean by “a god”?

A being that exists out of the natural realm, and has the traits of a God as defined by man.

By your definition, “God” is something man invented (“defined by man”) and has nothing to do with this world (“exists out of the natural realm”).

It is tantamount to an imaginary number. No wonder you don’t find it compelling to believe.

Alois:

Is it more logical to believe in a Christian God? If so, why?

What is your definition of “a Christian God”?

Alois:

We define God as: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection.

Is that the kind of God you say is not logical?

This isn’t the Christian God, however.

In fact, it is part of a solemnly made definition by a major council of the Catholic Church.

The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.

First Vatican Council 1870
vaxxine.com/pjm/vaticanI.htm

Alois:

This isn’t a God that intervenes in the life of man. This isn’t a sentient God. This isn’t a loving God.

Let’s stick with your initial point, namely, that you are here to
“debate about whether it is logical to believe in a god”.

I am positing the approach that it is logical to believe in “a God” that can be known, from created things, by the light of natural human reason. You don’t need a Bible. You don’t need a church. You don’t need faith.

Alois:

It seems logical to me for there to be such an infinite source providing our own instances of power, time, dimensions, intellect, will, and etc.

What, then, created this infinite source?

Your question assumes that nothingness came first.

There are two options: either “infinity” always existed, or “nothing” ever existed. From infinity, one can conclude that pockets of space can be created and filled with all sorts of goodies. From nothing, we would remain with nothing, since nothing comes from nothing, and would not be here to talk about it. So therefore, infinite existence is the substrate in which everything exists.

Alois:

Why is a universe created by an infinite God more logical than a universe that is infinite?

It is more logical for the universe to be created because it represents a particular manifestation of a much larger potential.

We instinctively know that many more patterns of nature or civilization can be manifested which have not yet been seen.

• One hears that every snowflake is unique. Where then are all the possible designs held in store? If the universe were truly infinite, then all possible snowflakes would already be manifested in it somewhere.
• English contains 26 letters and thousands of words. But the number of possible unique stories that could be written easily exceeds the number of physical particles with which they could be written. The physical universe, even if unlimited in mass, is still much much smaller than the number of stories waiting to be manifested in it.

I hope you see it is a rather simple exercise to show that the physical universe is too small to contain all possible existence such that it should not be considered a manifestation of a greater existence.

Alois:

Using a creationist favorite, Occam’s Razor, it would be more logical to assume that the universe is infinite than to assume an infinite creator.

I showed that the opposite is more likely true.

Alois:

You’ve changed the meaning of God to that of existence,

I would rather say I focused the meaning of God to that of existence. For that is what God is. “I am that I am”. He exists and cannot not exist. Anything else that exists derives its existence from that which exists in its fullness. We only share in it, and all that we see changes and fades away, for though all visible objects share in that existence, it is separate from it, like the moon reflecting light and sharing the brightness of the sun, in changing phases, without any light of its own.

Again, what is more logical? That infinity always existed, or that nothing always “existed”. Logically, only the former option makes sense, for otherwise nothing would exist. And further, it is more logical that an existence greater than the universe created the universe, for the visible universe is not sufficiently infinite. In fact, it doesn’t even take into account our thoughts, and the set of possible concepts that our minds can think.

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

Filius Prodigus:

Hitler wasn’t a Christian or Atheist or whatever. He was a NAZI. Theological issues did not concern him. He was intent on killing Jews and wiping out Slavs, Communists, homosexuals, etc. and making Deutschland über alles. That was it, that was his Kampf.

It really drives me up the wall when people use Hitler or the Nazis to demonize their ideological rivals.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

By your definition, “God” is something man invented (“defined by man”) and has nothing to do with this world (“exists out of the natural realm”).

It is tantamount to an imaginary number. No wonder you don’t find it compelling to believe.

Actually, to me God is more like a fictional character. Imaginary numbers have in fact a lot to do with the natural realm. Waves, impedance, …

There are two options: either “infinity” always existed, or “nothing” ever existed. From infinity, one can conclude that pockets of space can be created and filled with all sorts of goodies. From nothing, we would remain with nothing, since nothing comes from nothing, and would not be here to talk about it. So therefore, infinite existence is the substrate in which everything exists.

I seriously doubt that becuas eof two reasons. First, logically, then whatever created the universe must coming from something. Second, quantum physics allows for something coming from nothing. Granted, that depends on interpretation, but it raises enough doubts to dismiss the postulate nihil ex nihilo.

I would rather say I focused the meaning of God to that of existence. For that is what God is. “I am that I am”. He exists and cannot not exist. Anything else that exists derives its existence from that which exists in its fullness.

Yep, that sounds ok to me. Pantheism with some blurry vocabulary like “he” in essence. Here my nominalistic atheism (i.e. a subform of weak atheism) kicks in. In doesn’t matter, if we call the universe “God” or call existence itself “God”, that does not change the reality or even the meaning of those things.

And further, it is more logical that an existence greater than the universe created the universe, for the visible universe is not sufficiently infinite. In fact, it doesn’t even take into account our thoughts, and the set of possible concepts that our minds can think.

I’d say, a concept does not exist unless it is coded in some way. The the number of codable concepts is in fact limited by the size of the universe, and it is still the “greatest” existing thing.

 

[stanley123]

AnAtheist:

Second, quantum physics allows for something coming from nothing.

I don’t see how this would occur? What something is it that you are claiming comes from absolutely nothing?

 

[AnAtheist]

stanley123:

I don’t see how this would occur? What something is it that you are claiming comes from absolutely nothing?

Virtual particles.
You may of course argue, virtual particles occur in the vacuum and vacuum is far from nothing.
But do virtual particles occur because vacuum is “something” or is vaccuum “something” instead of nothing because of the virtual particles? The vacuum impedance, which is the main property of the vacuum, is what it is due to those particles.

 

[john_doran]

Alois:

I understand exactly what your point is, I was just hoping you wouldn’t attempt to carry this in to solipsism, which has been considered an intellectually bankrupt philosophy for over a thousand years now. Just what do you propose with this philosophy? You can dream up an infinite amount of 'or’s, and I challenge you to do so if you really believe in it. To assume that we’re in a vat is nothing. You can neither prove or disprove it. It’s irrelevant until we see a “glitch” in this vat.

i’m afraid you’re still not getting the point.

this has got nothing to do with solipsism, but rather with the idea that the only beliefs that can have warrant are those that are capable of being demonstrated, or “proven”…

some of our foundational beliefs aren’t capable of deductive proof, whether that be logical or empirical. now, either those beliefs are nonetheless warranted, or they are not; if they are, then why should any other belief have deductive provability as a necessary condition for reasonable belief? if they are not warranted, then neither is anything else we believe.

i am not “assuming” that we’re in a vat - i am merely pointing out that the possibility is consistent with everything we know. that is, none of us believes that we’re in a vat, but none of us can prove that we’re not; therefore “proof” of this sort isn’t necessary for reasonable belief.

Alois:

It’s fun to play around with in your mind, but worthless as a philosophy. Stating that “evidence can be wrong” as the reason for believing that evidence is wrong is circular logic.

but i’m not saying this. i’m saying that the fact it’s always possible that our evidence can be wrong entails that we do not need certainty that our evidence must be right in order to have rational beliefs.

and the objection that i consistently hear levelled against theistic arguments is that we can’t be certain about the evidence marshalled in support of them…

Alois:

They are observable. If you think observable means something that can be seen through the human eye, then you are mistaken. We cannot see quarks, but we can observe them by monitoring their impact on matter that we can see, and then using physics to assess them. This is connected with my final paragraph.

exactly: they’re indirectly observable - observable through their effects. god is observable in the same way.

Alois:

If you state that you believe in God, and you have no evidence to support it, that belief is unreasonable.

well, i don’t state this; i state that one doesn’t require unassailable evidence in order to believe in god. one doesn’t even need to be able to formulate arguments any more than one needs to be able to formulate arguments to support her belief in the real world or the reliability of her senses. such arguments may, in fact, be available, but they’re not needed.

personally, my belief in the existence of god is basic - i am just aware of some more than human source of meaning and value; but i have also subsequently recognized the soundness of some of the arguments for god’s existence.

Alois:

If you state that evidence isn’t needed, then you admit that reason and logic are not needed. We can’t debate without reason and logic.

no. i state that what you’re calling “observable” evidence isn’t needed.

Alois:

Undetectable evidence is irrelevant to us until we do detect it. When we do, it then becomes detectable. Undectectable evidence, therefore, doesn’t exist. So, detectable evidence is infinitely more legitimate. Did that answer your question?

not really. is “detectable” synonymous with “empirical”?

i mean, if all you mean by “detectable” is something like “capable of having an effect on a person”, then i guess i agree with you; in that way, arguments are “detectable”, and mathematical equations, and concepts, and propositions (as opposed to sentences), and numbers, and so on.

if, on the other hand, you’re simply giving a colloquial version of something like the principle of verification (a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is in principle capable of empirical verification or if it is analytical), then i disagree, since propositions of that kind are self-defeating.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

But do virtual particles occur because vacuum is “something” or is vaccuum “something” instead of nothing because of the virtual particles?

the fluctuations occur because the equations of QM entail that you can’t have an area of space in which all of the fields have (and maintain) an energy of zero. so it’s a requirement that there be some energy at every point in space, at all times.

but the idea of “something from nothing” in this way is still model-dependent; there are interpretations of QM in which this is not true.

what’s more, if loop quantum gravity is borne out, then space itself will be quantized, and will be “something”, as it will be in any fully relativistic, background-independent theory.

the point being, of course, that to abandon the causal principle upon which many theistic arguments depend, for the uncertainty of these quantum mechanical conjectures doesn’t seem altogether reasonable.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

but the idea of “something from nothing” in this way is still model-dependent; there are interpretations of QM in which this is not true.

sure

what’s more, if loop quantum gravity is borne out, then space itself will be quantized, and will be “something”, as it will be in any fully relativistic, background-independent theory.

If that is borne out, we will know a lot more about space and time, then some of our discussions about the nature of time may become obsolete.

the point being, of course, that to abandon the causal principle upon which many theistic arguments depend, for the uncertainty of these quantum mechanical conjectures doesn’t seem altogether reasonable.

Most theistic arguments I know follow this schema:
1 You need A to get B.
2 B is a part of the observable universe.
3 A is not observable.
4 A must exist, otherwise no B. (1)
5 A is God.

Now, A has certain properties X, which qualify for the necessity of A for B. Quite often there is some C necessary to get X. When the sceptic asks, where is this C needed for God (5), the causality principle is usually abandoned.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

If that is borne out, we will know a lot more about space and time, then some of our discussions about the nature of time may become obsolete.

perhaps.

AnAtheist:

Most theistic arguments I know follow this schema:
1 You need A to get B.
2 B is a part of the observable universe.
3 A is not observable.
4 A must exist, otherwise no B. (1)
5 A is God.

Now, A has certain properties X, which qualify for the necessity of A for B. Quite often there is some C necessary to get X. When the sceptic asks, where is this C needed for God (5), the causality principle is usually abandoned.

i understand that you’re trying to be general, but i’m afraid i’m not entirely sure i can think of a specific example that instantiates this schema…

do you have an actual argument in mind?

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

do you have an actual argument in mind?

ID/complexity argument (perfect example)
Ultima causa (somewhat self-referencing example)

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

ID/complexity argument (perfect example)
Ultima causa (somewhat self-referencing example)

ah.

if, by the second one of those, you mean something like the kalam cosmological argument, then i, personally, think it’s a solid bit of reasoning.

not sure about the first, except to say that it seems suggestive, at the very least.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

Alois:

Really now? He sure did put up a good front, to say the least… (refer to my quote towards the bottom)

I agree with you though, his Nazi ideology came before his religon.

However, he used Christianity as the vessel in which to push his agenda …]

Self-refutation. Good. End of story. But let me remember my atheist days and be just obnoxious with the rest of your post.

Alois:

I’m not trying to demonize Christians, however, I have acknowledged several times over that I do not judge the personalities of the majority by the actions of the minority. Can’t say that much for your fellow Catholic, however.

And there you are: denying your purpose and then fulfilling it. And on the same paragraph too. Your anti-Christian hatred just seeps through, you just can’t avoid it.

Alois:

National Christianity at its worst. I have read that article before, and persecution is often used to describe the take over of churches for “public use”. Of course public use meant nothing, they were used as propaganda centers.

Refuting your assertions again. The issue is you know the truth, but it cannot keep you from charging against Christianity with statements you know are false.

Alois:

An actual quote of Hitler, from the book The Holy Reich. Pick it up please, before you assert that I’m being told lies.

I don’t need to. You don’t need to. Just read what you yourself wrote on the post I’m answering and then you’ll get it. “Gee, I was wrong” is tough, I know.

And about Stalin, he wasn’t a false atheist. Hitler, he was a false Christian. Stalin followed Marx, but Hitler by no means showed any behavioral allegiance with Christ, his interpretation of the highest commandments or the sermon of the mount. You know it. Leave hatred aside. It does not serve you well.

Alois:

Really now? He sure did put up a good front, to say the least…

Yes he did. A very good front. He knew the beliefs of the German people, he knew they were Christian, and he lied to them. He capitalized on their nationalistic hatred. When he obtained what he wanted he answered the bishops’ and pope’s requests for compassion towards the Jews with increased cruelty towards them.
When he got to power he followed his own beliefs about the Jewish-origin servile religion that poisoned the will of the German people (See: bede.org.uk/hitler.htm ). He sent many religious opponents to concentration camps and substituted crosses on many cathedrals with swastikas. I know an atheist website that publishes only Nazi-propaganda photos ( nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm ) with the intention of beguiling viewers into thinking Hitler loved Christianity and Christianity loved Hitler. Sly and typical. You know the truth and you wrote it on the post I am answering.

I insist: Yes, they have lied to you. I stand dehind this assertion with evidence.