There is no God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TAB19:
This may have been mentioned as I have bounced around this thread. A quote from GK Chesterton

“If there were no God there would be no atheists.”
Click to expand...
He he, logic is not Chesterton’s field of expertise.

That is equivalent to:
“If there was a God, there would be no believers.”
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
So does religion. Do you consider, that there may be no afterlife even if there was a god? It is possible.
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you agree .Although I’m not sure how you can still claim that there is proof that God does not exists. When you do that you fail to be open to “possibility”

As Catholics we do not close our minds to “possibility”. We simply express our faith that if there is a God he would of provided us with a way to know him. Our human nature allows us to be open to this possibility. It is how we manage to think outside the box.

We believe that God wants us to come to him on our own terms without proof. There is no reason to asume that in order to find God you must have proof that he exists.

Yes I have considered that there may be no afterlife and I have even considered that there may be no God. Every man has those doubts. I have doubts like that at times. We all do. But it is my faith and hope that the message of Christ will lead me to eternal life and infinite understanding of the all things and all possibilities.

I would only like you to understand that as Catholics we accept the fact that man has doubts. Even Peter had doubt in Jesus and he rejected him 3 times!

Christ’s message is one of self sacrifice. Self sacrifice doesn’t need a logical explanation because it is an act of love. That is one of our truths as Catholics.

Here is a truth from Christ.
If someone slaps your left cheek offer the other as well.

According to mans logic that isn’t a truth at all.
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
I think we can all agree that the physical world exists – quarks, atoms, molecules, viruses, trees, gorillas, planets, galaxies, universe(s), etc. All these things science can measure and quantify.

Do you think that there is some other “realm” or set of entities that exist (other than “quarks to universe(s)”), and yet are not quantifiable by science?
Click to expand...
actually science is already starting to find out that it can’t always make predictions. All it is finding is possibilites.
 
40.png
TySixtus:
No, I’m a strong atheist. Meaning, I believe it’s impossible for a god of any kind to exist.
Click to expand...
in the spirit of looking for proofs for one’s beliefs, i’d be curious to understand yours for this particular belief.

thanks,
  • jd
 
40.png
TySixtus:
It most certainly does negate the fact, with regards to this discussion!

You assert that “Religions contain truth that cannot be found anywhere else” I say that’s nonsense, and asked for a truth that could be found only in religion.
Click to expand...
well, i don’t think i’m entirely sure what you’re getting at, but the following would be two of the most obvious examples:
  1. god is three persons in one being; and
  2. jesus christ is fully god and fully man.
of course, you will simply reject those propositions as false, just as you would reject as false the proposition, “some truths can only be found in religion”…

what’s the point of asking a question to which you surely know the answer, and your questioning of which you must be equally sure will simply lead to both parties simply re-stating their initial positions: X and ~X?

i’m not sure i’m following your dialectic.
 
TySixtus said:
A1) To make any concrete claim about a being is to subject it to empirical investigation.

B1) Christians make the concrete claim that god is loving (to pick one attribute among many).

Conlcusion 1: God has attributes that, according to Christians, can be proven to be true.
Click to expand...

whether or not the conclusion is true, it doesn’t follow from your premises. at all. i can only assume that you are eliding a number of other unstated assumptions with these two that you have made explicit.

for example, A1 says nothing about the possibility of empirical investigation succeeding with regards to the being of whom charateristics have been predicated. i mean, any non-corporeal being will not be capable of having its properties subject to empirical demonstration. what’s more, there’s a good chance that some putatively “empirical” beings will be similarly immune to experimental observation: witness strings and loops, or anything else that inhabits the planck domain.

TySixtus said:
A2) If you subject one aspect of a being to empirical testing, you must now subject all parts of that being to empirical testing. *

B2) If you have one aspect of a being that has already been proven as empirically true, it is possible to verify other aspects of this being in the same empirical fashion.

Conclusion 2: Once a single characteristic of a being has been defined, it is logical to assume that empirical methods will work in defining the other characteristics of said being.
Click to expand...

this, again, doesn’t have the basic characteristics required for logical validity…

that having been said, i assume that the point you’re trying to make is that if it’s possible empirically to demonstrate the possession by some (empirical?) being of a particular property, then it (necessarily? possibly? probably?) follows that any other of that being’s properties must be similarly capable of empirical verification.

but why should anyone believe that? i mean, what if a being has both “empirical” and “non-empirical” properties? or what if only some of its empirical properties are within our abilities to measure? or to understand?

in the same way, being able to know something doesn’t entail an ability to know everything; but just because there are things we we will never be able to know or understand doesn’t mean that we don’t know the things we think we know. in the same way, there’s absolutely nothing illogical or otherwise unreasonable in the catholic position that we can know some things about god, but just not everything.

does the fact that i don’t know (i.e. can’t prove) the continuum hypothesis mean that i don’t know the pythagorean theorem?
 
40.png
TySixtus:
So why do you gladly use science, empiricism and logic in one arena of your life, but throw it out as “unreliable” in another arena?
Click to expand...
???

the same reason i don’t use a steak knife to brush my teeth, or a toothbrush to cut my steak…
 
40.png
TAB19:
This may have been mentioned as I have bounced around this thread. A quote from GK Chesterton

“If there were no God there would be no atheists.”
Click to expand...
The game of quotes, huh? Well I agree. A quote from Sam Harris:

“Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.”

Ty
 
john doran:
in the spirit of looking for proofs for one’s beliefs, i’d be curious to understand yours for this particular belief.

thanks,
  • jd
Click to expand...
Because any concept of god you care to name is easily disproven. It really is that simple.

Ty
 
40.png
TySixtus:
The game of quotes, huh? Well I agree. A quote from Sam Harris:

“Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.”

Ty
Click to expand...
Of course “reasonable people” is open to broad interpretation.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TySixtus
*But you’ve yet to prove that religion is the cause for the finding of these truths. The only thing you’ve offered is “People are religious”.

Ty*

These truths were packaged in the religion and transmitted to the next generation. As additional truths were stumbled upon or reasoned they too were passed forward. An accumulation of truths thereby exists in religons.
Ty, did you miss this post?
 
I think you may want to try reaching God on His terms.
Logic can take us so far, no further. It’s your choice whether or not to go beyond the things logic can prove or disprove.
If you’re here to convince us, you are wasting your time.
If you’re here to be convinced by logic alone, you’re wasting your time.
I can’t prove anything to you, but maybe Someone Else can?
Read this, if you like.
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/BVM/ratisbonne.html
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
He he, logic is not Chesterton’s field of expertise.

That is equivalent to:
“If there was a God, there would be no believers.”
Click to expand...
What would you be against if there were no God then?

I already admitted that I cannot give you proof. I believe because I feel it in my heart. I don’t really know much about the philosophy of Atheism and am not trying to argue but why do you and the other self proclaimed atheists feel like you need to defame Catholicism or any other Christian religion? Do you all feel it is causing harm to you somehow? I feel like it is just like my philosophy prof argue for the sake of argue. If you replace a plank on boat is it the same boat? Maybe you all are actually seeking the Truth. What is your motivation? Go ahead and take your digs
 
40.png
TySixtus:
Because any concept of god you care to name is easily disproven. It really is that simple.

Ty
Click to expand...
Well we are 428 posts into this thread and you have not done it yet.
 
40.png
TySixtus:
The game of quotes, huh? Well I agree. A quote from Sam Harris:

“Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.”

Ty
Click to expand...
Sam who??? It is interesting that when people mention Chesterson there is no need to post a link. He is well known and respected (except by you, who think’s he’s stupid)

I find it absolutely hillarious that you, who mock the Bible, consider the H-bomb to be a credible source!
 
40.png
TySixtus:
Because any concept of god you care to name is easily disproven. It really is that simple.

Ty
Click to expand...
ok, fair enough - but you’re making a principled claim that it’s not possible to come up with a consistent concept of a god; simply saying that you’ll be able to disprove each individual concept as it is articulated is not support for that claim.

you’re going to need to demonstrate the inherent inconsistency of any concept that can reasonably claim title to “divine”. in the philosophical jargon, you’re going to need to make an a priori argument.

of course, you can retreat from the original statement, and limit yourself to something like “i have never been presented with a concept of god the possibility of whose existence i wasn’t able to disprove”…
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
I think you may want to try reaching God on His terms.
Logic can take us so far, no further. It’s your choice whether or not to go beyond the things logic can prove or disprove.
If you’re here to convince us, you are wasting your time.
If you’re here to be convinced by logic alone, you’re wasting your time.
I can’t prove anything to you, but maybe Someone Else can?
Read this, if you like.
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/BVM/ratisbonne.html
Click to expand...
I agree. When a man is focused on logic he goes against his human nature. Love, faith, hope, and imagination are part of mans nature.

Perhaps he is like Mr Spock. Mr Logic himself. only problem is that Spock is only half human.
 
40.png
estesbob:
Well we are 428 posts into this thread and you have not done it yet.
Click to expand...
You would think that if there was proof that God didn’t exist it would be easy for him to get us to reject our faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top