There is no God

[Maranatha]

TySixtus:

If you want to die, you need to seek psychological help. I am not being insulting, and not I’m trying to be funny. If you truly want to die, and the only reason you haven’t is to avoid torqueing off god, my friend I am terribly sorry for you.

Catholics put a high value to life, yet you say you want to die. You claim life is gift? If it is, you squander it by wanting it to end. If you want it to end, you must not be satisfied with it.

I do not want annihilation. I want to experience joy forever. If I wanted annihilation then you’d be correct. The desire to live this life forever seems a little perverted to me.

In all seriousness, this is saddening to read. A few posts ago someone told me their heart was full of joy, and they had god to thank for it. Then I read this. And it reminds me of how terrible I felt when I was a Catholic. The guilt, the shame, the fear. I live with none of it now, because I am better than it. I have accepted that we are all we have. I don’t need threats of hellfire to keep me in line, and don’t need the “love” of tyrant to to make me feel worthy. I love myself for who I am, and revel in the strength of life.

Ty

I do live in guilt because I know I can’t love God the way He deserves - with perfection.

I do fear God because of his just punishments.

I am filled with joy because no mater how bad I am, He will always accept my initiatives at reconciliation.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

A few responses:

Maranatha:

Whoa there big boy. Not so fast. The first premise implies everything in the natural universe. Everything that exists “in the natural universe” has a cause. This proof shows the universal cause must be supernatural.

I believe that this particular tactic is called “special pleading.” Why should we fail to extend causality to supernatural entities while we attribute it to natural ones? Is there any particular reason, aside from perhaps “supernatural things just are that way”?

Limiting your acceptable proofs to “observable” data and not the use of logic is another way of saying you will only accept scientific proof. Liking the question of weather the universe has a cause to comparing numbers and colors seems to me to be a shift in category.

I have not limited acceptable proofs to observable data nor have I rejected logic. Please, go find a logic text that says that everything that exists/begins to exist is caused. Logic is not the point. I introduced the “5=blue” idea just to give people an idea of what a category error is. And I do not believe you actually attacked the statements I made.

As was previously pointed out, Dr. Hawking is a Theist. If he can study these matters for his whole life and come to that conclusion, what should we do in the comparatively little time we are spending on this topic.

Do you have evidence that Hawking is a theist?

 

[Maranatha]

TySixtus:

Maranatha,

If it’s so painfully obvious, please provide verifiable proof of the supernatural.

Thanks.

Ty

Your request for verifiable proof belies an insistence on scientific proof. As stated earlier, if we have scientific proof, then for all practical purposes, we would not have free will.

These proofs demonstrate the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. You can still hold unreasonable doubts.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Do you want me to go through and attack every single one of those arguments? I feel that attempting to discuss every single one of them in a single thread - or even multiple threads at the same time - would be mildly overwhelming, and unproductive. Just present the one you are interested in.

 

[Benedicta]

Whether we believe or not, God still is. …and so are we…His, I mean…someone needs to do some reading- soem real stuff aand perhaps venture into a nursery at al ocal hospital and lookinto the eyes oaf a newborn baby- how sad to choose to ignore the one true living Father of us all- what binds us together if not h=His merciful love…

 

[TySixtus]

Maranatha:

Your request for verifiable proof belies an insistence on scientific proof. As stated earlier, if we have scientific proof, then for all practical purposes, we would not have free will.

Care to start a thread on free-will? I would posit that you don’t have free will now, especially since some of you want to rant and rave about causality.

These proofs demonstrate the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. You can still hold unreasonable doubts.

Every single one of those “proofs” have been so thoroughly debunked as to be ridiculous. It always amazes me that you guys are still using Kalaam and TAG.

Ty

 

[Benedicta]

TySixtus:

Being atheist entails one thing: No belief in god.

The rest of you post is full of hollow euphemisms. “Closer to love”? How can one get “closer” to an absraction? “Fill my heart with joy”? My heart is filled with blood, much like yours.

Atheism is not a source of love, or joy, or peace, or purpose. It is simply a statement regarding belief in god.

I just got out of the Navy after six years. I have a six year old daughter whom I love very much. I’m starting a new career, might get my book published, am surrounded by my family and I have a wonderful girlfriend.

I get up in the morning free of health problems. I’ve got a functioning brain and body to match. I listen to music I like, eat the foods I enjoy, and engage in debate.

I love my life right now. I don’t need a god figure to “fill me with joy”.

Why do you?

Ty

It’s all about you —do you see it…what you have not who you are …start thinking- if you didntt have all htose perfect things, sould you be different?

 

[TySixtus]

Benedicta:

It’s all about you —do you see it…what you have not who you are …start thinking- if you didntt have all htose perfect things, sould you be different?

What?

Ty

 

[Maranatha]

TySixtus:

What?

Ty

He’s using faith arguments. Once again, a Catholic using the right arguments on the wrong person. If we could get this apologetics thing down Catholicism would surge.

 

[Maranatha]

EnterTheBowser:

Do you have evidence that Hawking is a theist?

A Breif History of Time “These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it” (p. 122)."

Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God

“Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He’s certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.”

 

[TySixtus]

Maranatha:

He’s using faith arguments. Once again, a Catholic using the right arguments on the wrong person. If we could get this apologetics thing down Catholicism would surge.

I went back and read his post again. What I think he is trying to imply is that I have god to thank for all the good things in my life.

Concurrently, can I blame him for all the bad stuff that happens, too? Like… say… a tsunami that kills a couple hundred thousand people? Or is that “beyond my ability to comprehend” and I shouldn’t be questioning the motives of god? That double standard is hilarious.

Ty

 

[TySixtus]

Maranatha:

“Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He’s certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.”

Good for Stephen Hawking. Because he’s a good scientist doesn’t make him a good philosopher.

Ty

 

[EnterTheBowser]

There’s a bit of a difference between a theist and a deist; that quote at most supports deism. And frankly, the “X is smart and knowledgeable and believes Y, so therefore it is reasonable to believe Y” argument is not exactly great. I mean, Bertrand Russel was wicked smart, and he was most emphatically an atheist, but I don’t go around saying “Bertrand Russel was an atheist and he was a really smart philosopher, so therefore atheism is reasonable.” It’s just a bad argument. It’s better to give the actual arguments that these people would use to support their position.

 

[Maranatha]

TySixtus:

I went back and read his post again. What I think he is trying to imply is that I have god to thank for all the good things in my life.

Concurrently, can I blame him for all the bad stuff that happens, too? Like… say… a tsunami that kills a couple hundred thousand people? Or is that “beyond my ability to comprehend” and I shouldn’t be questioning the motives of god? That double standard is hilarious.

Ty

I would call a tsunami unfortunate not bad. God in His wisdom has given us problems to overcome. Sometimes these problems are fatal. Without these problem there would be no stress in life. We need to overcome these stresses out of necessity. Necessity is the mother of invention. Without invention there would be no progress.

If one person chooses to rape another, that I would call bad. To be bad the event must contain evil. Evil is an action contrary to the God will. God allows these actions because he give us free will. If God doesn’t exist then the rape of one by another is just another action without consequences.

 

[TySixtus]

Maranatha:

I would call a tsunami unfortunate not bad. God in His wisdom has given us problems to overcome. Sometimes these problems are fatal. Without these problem there would be no stress in life. We need to overcome these stresses out of necessity. Necessity is the mother of invention. Without invention there would be no progress.

Ah. So a couple dead babies is nothing in the face of “progress”. Gotcha.

And my arguments need work? What a horrible thing to say.

Ty

 

[hurst]

This thread became so long so quickly, I can’t keep up with it.

From the posts I did read, I noticed a 3-step causality proof, an assertion about the universe, and statements about thanking god. In between were irrelevant distractions. I would rather not try to start a serious discussion in the midst of such diversity.

It seems to me that if someone wishes to discuss a topic, it should be done in a coherent manner, so that others can benefit from the discussion also.

Could someone split up the issues into separate threads? Ty? Bowser? Anyone else?

Thanks.

hurst

 

[RobNY]

I don’t particuarly put much stock in the argument from first cause, but… I’ll play along.

EnterTheBowser:

I believe that this particular tactic is called “special pleading.” Why should we fail to extend causality to supernatural entities while we attribute it to natural ones? Is there any particular reason, aside from perhaps “supernatural things just are that way”?

I think the idea is that natural and supernatural identities, while it is possible that they might have the same causality, it cannot be asserted that they do, because due to the nature of supernatural entities, we can’t perceive clear cause and effect as we do on natural entities. The reason, then would be, because we can’t at all simply assume that supernatural entities must be caused, because it is simply not logical to assume that natural and supernatural entities necessarily have identitical causation (unless we have a reason to assume it?). I don’t think special pleading quite applies here because there is a rather relevant difference between the two separate types of entities. [and if we were arguing, that would be an interesting point to argue about, I suppose.] (To reclarify myself: from experience we know that in the natural world things need causes, but we don’t know that from supernatural things. That’s why it’s somewhat logical to try to apply causation backwards to the universe, but not necessarily back so to supernatural entities.)

Perhaps, the statement would best be changed to, ‘every natural thing that begins to exist has a cause?’ In my case, that would redundant. It would have to be broken down to. 1. Every natural thing has a cause. 2. Every caused thing begins to exist. 2. Therefore, every natural thing begins to exist. [EDIT: Oh dear, I just reread that, I *should have taken it out! I won’t now, but be kind. ]

I thought of deleting that last paragraph for a moment, but I’ll throw it out there anyway. I’m not exactly anxious to participate in a debate, but I suppose that that’s what I’m asking for by posting here.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I’ve always found the following amusing: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html. It’s fairly short and actually has something to do with the topic! I suggest reading it.

And for anyone who likes to use Pascal’s Wager, another article that I find vastly amusing (though somewhat longer). infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

 

[mikew262]

TySixtus:

Here we go. No, I didn’t suffer some huge tragedy that pushed me away from my religion. I didn’t have a death in the family, and I didn’t start playing Magic: The Gathering.

It was a position I came to after a lot of study and a lot of thought. 8 months out to sea will give a man opportunities like that.

Ty

Obviously, the Navy didn’t keep you busy enough. You thought and studied too much. Just a little humor from a firm believer.

I’ll never understand an atheist’s mindset. Too not have God in my life is incomprehensible. I truly hope you study and think alot more, and complete the circle the back. Christianity is full of former atheists. If you find that insulting, I’m sorry.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I’m curious about these former atheists - how many of them were angry at God, how many of them reconverted during a period of significant emotional stress, and how many of them were familiar with the arguments regarding atheism?