There is no God

[Alois]

You are making the assumption that the middle ages were a stagnant cesspool. When we consider the atrocities of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, I don’t think it is the slam-dunk you think it is.

Exceptions don’t set the rules. Or would you like me to point out the Inquisition any time Catholics attempt to take the moral high ground? Be careful of the tools you debate with.

It’s the people behind the technology, not the technology itself.

Science may have advanced our knowledge of the natural world, but it most decidely not made any moral advancement.

I think we all know that today, the most industrialized countries are also the most “moral”. (perhaps not of Christian morals, but that’s a different issue) Technology on the whole has decreased suffering exponentially more than increasing it. Either way, knowledge is not a direct result of technology. The two terms are not interchangeable, and I’d enjoy it if you didn’t try to switch them around.

At best it seems about the same. One could conceivably conclude that we occupy a fallen world. I wonder where I’ve heard that before.

Ooooooooor, not? I’m sure you have a good enough grasp on history to understand the problems of early civilization, and why civilization today is much more successful.

 

[Mijoy2]

Alois:

Only strong atheists claim that God doesn’t exist. (and they can be right in a certain way) I’m claiming that logically we have no reason to assume it exists, and much more reason to assume that it doesn’t. Much like you wouldn’t expect some unknown thing to tear your arms off right this second, you shouldn’t expect someone unknown being labeled God to be judging you this very second and “guiding” you through life.

?

There is a mountain of evidence. It, for whatever reason, is simply not enough for you. This may and may not change.

 

[Alois]

Mijoy2:

There is a mountain of evidence. It, for whatever reason, is simply not enough for you. This may and may not change.

You have yet to provide any. Where is it?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

For kev7: let’s get a new thread going. You start it, lay out your argument, and I (and whoever else is interested) will respond; there’s just too much going on in this particular thread to keep track of everything.

For this whole question of meaning…
Does the word “Euthyphro” mean anything to anyone? It’s a very old question, but here it goes: given that God has commanded moral system X, did God command this system because it is a good moral system, or is it a good moral system because God commanded it?

Now, if God commanded it because it was good - if there are reasons why it is good - then what exactly does God have to do with it? I mean, even if God hadn’t commanded it, then these reasons would still be reasons for X to be a good system. So if that’s the answer - if there’s any kind of reason at all for God to command X - then an atheistic universe is as meaningful as a theistic one.

On the other hand, if it’s a good system solely because God commanded it… then should we really consider it a good system? It seems to be a rather arbitrary sort of morality - God could just as easily have commanded murder, rape, and betrayal (remember, there’s no reason why these things are wrong aside from God’s command; otherwise we’re back to the other answer to the question). And if God had commanded these things, would we want to say that they’re good? Lastly, this sort of God can’t be called a good God. We wouldn’t praise a person for picking an arbitrary set of rules and then following them; why should we praise God?

Aside from the Euthyphro question, I wonder exactly how eternal life would make things meaningful. In what relevant ways would an endless existence here on Earth make things meaningful? I don’t see how an increasingly long life makes that life more meaningful.

 

[Aaron_I]

EnterTheBowser:

For this whole question of meaning…
Does the word “Euthyphro” mean anything to anyone? It’s a very old question, but here it goes: given that God has commanded moral system X, did God command this system because it is a good moral system, or is it a good moral system because God commanded it?

I am familiar with Euthyphro and am a big fan of Plato (Symposium would be the best I’ve read)

EnterTheBowser:

Now, if God commanded it because it was good - if there are reasons why it is good - then what exactly does God have to do with it? I mean, even if God hadn’t commanded it, then these reasons would still be reasons for X to be a good system. So if that’s the answer - if there’s any kind of reason at all for God to command X - then an atheistic universe is as meaningful as a theistic one.

On the other hand, if it’s a good system solely because God commanded it… then should we really consider it a good system? It seems to be a rather arbitrary sort of morality - God could just as easily have commanded murder, rape, and betrayal (remember, there’s no reason why these things are wrong aside from God’s command; otherwise we’re back to the other answer to the question). And if God had commanded these things, would we want to say that they’re good? Lastly, this sort of God can’t be called a good God. We wouldn’t praise a person for picking an arbitrary set of rules and then following them; why should we praise God?

You have to realize that a key problem with Euthyphro’s assertions was his belief in the the Greek gods. The Greek gods fought amongst themselves and thereby proved to be an inadequate source of transcendence. With or without this, the issue must still come up of whether piety is loved by God because it is pious, or if it is pious because it is loved.

In the one case, we must obey the ordinances of the divine simply because the divine is more powerful than us. The divinity may act arbitrarily because justice is defined by his whims.

In the second case, as you assert, the pious is something unto itself whether or not it is recognized by the divine. Can the divine truly have a purpose then?

Yes. The first thing you must understand is that the atheistic universe has NO transcendent authority. If atheism is true, then it is logically impossible for something to be pious of its own accord. Plato does believe in a true piety, but it is grounded in his belief in a true transcendence. Notice at the end of his speech in the Symposium that Socrates asserts that acting with true virtue is only available to those who have seen transcendent Beauty. So don’t humor yourself by believing that atheism can have true justice. Atheistic morality can exist, but it must surely be arbitrary as it is without grounding in the transcendent.

The scenario you do not consider is the Christian one. God is transcendence itself. God defined himself as “I Am Who Am”, so surely you can see that he would qualify as existence itself if this statement were true. God serves as the basis for what is pious. NOT because of his whims, but rather by virtue of His essence. Any true morality must be based on a transcendent reality. Either atheism is true, leaving the world without a true justice, or God exists and justice is based on His existence.

EnterTheBowser:

Aside from the Euthyphro question, I wonder exactly how eternal life would make things meaningful. In what relevant ways would an endless existence here on Earth make things meaningful? I don’t see how an increasingly long life makes that life more meaningful.

How about some more Plato? In the Symposium, Socrates’ speech asserts that love is wanting to possess the good forever. Another line (I’m skipping the logic involved, read the symposium if you’re curious) reads as follows “It follows from our argument that love must desire immortality.”

Basically the point is that everyone desires to possess good things. Needless to say, people want to possess these good things forever. Also, realize that Catholics don’t see eternal life as a continuation of our earthly life. Eternal life is being joined into perfect unity with God. If we’re still talking in Platonian terms, I suppose that would be the same as a person seeing the Beautiful itself.

It’s late, so my thoughts may not be too clear. Feel free to ask for clarification where necessary.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

To tell the truth, I haven’t read much Plato; that which I have read I am not a big fan of. I am really not concerned with the arguments he makes; I made reference to the Euthyphro simply to show off.

In that case, you’ve made mostly assertions and references to arguments made elsewhere, and I do not see quite how the things you said apply to what I said. Perhaps they do indeed deal directly with other arguments or related arguments that Plato made; but again, I am not much concerned with this.

 

[AnAtheist]

estesbob:

Well our very existence is logically impossible. In your atheism you accept through blind faith two illogical (dare I say impossible) propositions.-. That all matter sprung out of nothing and that life spontaneoulsy evolved from non-life. Can you prove to me either of these propositions…

1. Matter and energy are basically the same (E=mc^2). The total energy of the universe is 0 (energy can be gauged).
2. Life is composed of exactly the same matter as non-life (a carbon atom is a carbon atom, no matter whether it is a part of a diamond or a blood cell). Self-organisation exists.

Those statements are of course no empirical proof, but they show, that both propositions are consistent with the observable universe. Thus neither the universe nor life are logically impossible.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1. Matter and energy are basically the same (E=mc^2). The total energy of the universe is 0 (energy can be gauged).
2. Life is composed of exactly the same matter as non-life (a carbon atom is a carbon atom, no matter whether it is a part of a diamond or a blood cell). Self-organisation exists.

Those statements are of course no empirical proof, but they show, that both propositions are consistent with the observable universe. Thus neither the universe nor life are logically impossible.

Your statement are absolutely right, except I take issue with the part about “no empirical proof.”

The basic problem I see with your idea is that they are, in fact, empiricle, thus they are based on driving a theory by observations.

I also agree that the universe in not illogical, although the cause of the logic is axiomatic, as we mathematicians and engineers have no basis other than logic and reasoning by which we can conclude.

We are free to wonder whether there was something before the ostensible “big bang” because even an abyss takes up space unless it is somehow negated.

Alan

 

[AnAtheist]

AlanFromWichita:

We are free to wonder whether there was something before the ostensible “big bang” because even an abyss takes up space unless it is somehow negated.

If time came into existence with the big bang, then there was no “before”. The question “what was before the big bang” is then as unvalid as “what does matter do below 0K”.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

If time came into existence with the big bang, then there was no “before”. The question “what was before the big bang” is then as unvalid as “what does matter do below 0K”.

sure, but i hope you’re not implying thereby, that the question “what caused the universe to come into being” is equally as invalid…

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

sure, but i hope you’re not implying thereby, that the question “what caused the universe to come into being” is equally as invalid…

We can derive two statements, if the beginning of time and the universe are identical.

1. The universe cannot be the effect of a cause, that happened before.
2. Keeping in mind that interactions are not instantaneous but travel with light speed, a natural cause could not have happened at the same time.

That leaves either no cause at all or a supernatural cause. And we both can still be (logically) happy with the universe as it is.

 

[john_doran]

We can derive two statements, if the beginning of time and the universe are identical.

1. The universe cannot be the effect of a cause, that happened before.

perhaps not “before” if by that you mean temporally prior.

but it certainly can (and must be) the effect of a cause that is ***causally ***prior.

AnAtheist:

1. Keeping in mind that interactions are not instantaneous but travel with light speed, a natural cause could not have happened at the same time.

depends if you believe in a non-local universe or not; non-locality is certainly a viable option.

AnAtheist:

That leaves either no cause at all or a supernatural cause. And we both can still be (logically) happy with the universe as it is.

well, there’s definitely no “natural” cause, since, by definition, at t=0 there’s nothing natural in existence.

but that’s the point - there needs to be a cause; if it’s not natural (and it can’t be) then it must be supernatural.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

but that’s the point - there needs to be a cause; if it’s not natural (and it can’t be) then it must be supernatural.

It cannot be natural does not equal it must be supernatural, it could be no cause at all.

 

[buffalo]

From NA:

I. AS KNOWN THROUGH NATURAL REASON
(“THE GOD OF THE PHILOSOPHERS”)

**A. THE PROBLEM STATED**

1. Formal Anti-Theism

Had the Theist merely to face a blank Atheistic denial of God’s existence, his task would he comparatively a light one. Formal dogmatic Atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men. Nor can Polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher. But there are several varieties of what may be described as virtual Atheism which cannot be dismissed so summarily.

There is the Agnosticism, for instance, of Herbert Spencer, which, while admitting the rational necessity of postulating the Absolute or Unconditioned behind the relative and conditioned objects of our knowledge declares that Absolute to be altogether unknowable, to be in fact the Unknowable, about which without being guilty of contradiction we can predicate nothing at all, except perhaps that It exists; and there are other types of Agnosticism.

 

[estesbob]

Alois:

All atheists believe matter sprang out of nothing? That’s news to me. Even if we do assume that as truth, I think you should look into quantum mechanics a little and tell me the answer to that question.

Read up.

No-you tell me where the properties of the universe tat that Quantum Maechanics exlores came from. and while you are at it tell me where all the matter that makes up the universe came from. If you believe its all from the “Big Bang” please tell us where the hydygeon that fueled this came from and what caused the catalyst for the Bang came from. And please dont speculate-like you I demand PROOF.

BTW-the link you gave me was worthless. Lots of bashing of Creationists, lots of SPECULATION on how non-life could spring from life but no proof-you hve to take it ion Faith.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

It cannot be natural does not equal it must be supernatural, it could be no cause at all.

not plausibly, it couldn’t.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

not plausibly, it couldn’t.

But supernatural causes may have no cause at all? Is that plausible?

 

[pgoings]

As others have alluded to, it seems that what we have here is an epistemological dead end.

A proof of God’s existence from empirical evidence does not (and, I believe, cannot) exist.

There is no proof necessary for those who believe by faith.

I do, however, submit that those atheists who claim that the existence of the Christian God is a logical impossibility are incorrect. (Usually their understanding of what Catholics mean by God is incorrect or incomplete.)

In general, though, what is the purpose to this discussion? What common ground can there be?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

estesbob:

If you believe its all from the “Big Bang” please tell us where the hydygeon that fueled this came from and what caused the catalyst for the Bang came from.

AlanFromWichita:

We are free to wonder whether there was something before the ostensible “big bang” because even an abyss takes up space unless it is somehow negated.

I’d recommend reading A Brief History of Time; it’s an excellent book, or if you don’t feel like buying it, this might also help.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

This isn’t an argument I’m making; it’s just informative.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Regarding abiogenesis, evolution, and perhaps even the big bang: theistic arguments for the existence of God usually run like this:

1- Phenomenon X occurred
2- Natural explanations cannot account for X
3- Therefore X is explained by the supernatural cause known as God.

Atheists will admit that 1 is true. On the other hand, they will generally dispute 2. If it is shown that it is possible that natural forces can account for the generation of living creatures from nonliving materials, then the theistic argument fails. The atheist does not actually need to prove that it definitely did happen that way (I mean hell, there might be some God making the universe appear exactly as if it were entirely without supernatural forces), the atheist just needs to prove that it could have happened.

Incidentally, 3 is a non sequitur; it does not follow from the premises.