There is no God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is an interesting article about a famous atheist who last year decided to believe in “a God”…

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
Associated Press
NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives.

“I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article “Theology and Falsification,” based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?”

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland’s University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew’s turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine. “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,” he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder’s “The Hidden Face of God” and “The Wonder of the World” by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his **“God and Philosophy,” scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well “that’s too bad,” Flew said. “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”**

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a “minimal God” and believes in no afterlife.

Flew’s “name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up,” Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew’s reversal, “apart from curiosity, I don’t think it’s like a big deal.”

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American “intelligent design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister’s son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 “The Presumption of Atheism,” playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

As it says, he primarily accepts “a God” on the basis of intelligence and purpose. I think this is a reasonable start, though he doesn’t seem to acknowledge this God as the source of all conceivable existence.

hurst
 
40.png
Alois:
No offense to you kev7, but I feel like I’m beating my head on a brick wall here. Please, answer these questions: (which I have proposed in response to you 3 times now)
Yes you are hiting your head over and over again because I have rejected the logic of this world for the wisdom of the next. I do not need your proof. Like I’ve said many times mans logic is limted, transient and linier.
Do you believe that when you walk outside, a being not of our existence will tear you limb from limb?
Such a thing has never happened to me or anyone I know. Does that mean that it couldn’t happen? No it doesn’t If there are other levels of existance then it could be possible that a being could enter our own existance and cause some kind of distruption.
If you don’t, how can you claim to believe in a God with the same physical traits (or rather, lack thereof) but not believe in the being I just mentioned?
The being that you talked about could exist, but that doesn’t mean I have any reason to put faith in him. My reason for faith in God is related to my understanding of Gods love. The reason I believe in God is because through him I can gain eternal life.

I don’t belive that God has the same physical traits as we do.

This is what I believe in

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

here is a link to what we believe as catholics. Study it and then come back here to ask us questions. It would be great if your understanding was at a higher level.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
If you concede that you have no logical reason for believing one over the other, then you have conceded the debate itself. You have stepped into illogic, where anything is possible and nothing can be proven. Good luck trying to get anything done there.
Wrong. I have a logical reason to belive in God and that is the quest for eternal life. I am smart enough to know that other forms of existance could exists. With that in mind it is possible that I have a soul and that there is an after life. I put my hope in that and follow the path of love because I believe that love is a truth of the next world.
You put your faith in what you know each time you take a step. Each time you exhale. Each and every moment you exist. Your life depends on what your rational mind tells you. Your life does not depend on what your irrational mind tells you. Nothing does.
Again, your understanding of the universe is linier. In other words it is subject to time. Your logic is therefore limited. Such concepts of logic are not needed in a non-linier eternal existance.

I am both a rational creature and a creature with imagination. I can come to the rational conclusion that my perspective is limited. That is all I need to know to consider other possibilities.
As for the love comment; ridiculous. You bastardized the definition of love in an attempt to fit it to your own argument.
Show me one example in history of an atheistic society that didn’t murder people in the millions. Nazi german, stalin… etc.

Yep you have already convinced me that man should outlaw religion. After all man has this love thing under control. lol

Don’t even try to suggest to me that mans love is perfect love.

Also show me an atheist who as said more about love then Christ himself.
So why put this “faith” into one being? Under your definition of a God’s properties, it could be anything. There are an infinite amount of possibilities that you create when you assume a being can exist out of logic, detection, and existence. I say there are round squares in this realm where you god exists, and that your god actually worships them. Disprove me.
Why do you put your faith in man?

I don’t care to disprove you. If you want to believe that then do so. How it will lead you to eternal life is another question.

All I can do is pray for you. I can’t try to convince you with mans foolish sense of logic.
The burden of proof is on you. How could there not be any greater Truth? After all, you’ve opened up all possibilities in this brave new realm of illogic.
I have no burdern to prove anything to you. I don’t require proof to know that the love of Christ is truth. It is through love that I come to know God. Love is the path to truth and love is the path to eternal life.

Give me a reason why you should not try to show perfect love for your neighbour? Or do you also justify hate with your logic? the logic of man.
 
This is the problem I see with Atheism.

In the end, for an atheist it is all about what you can logically get away with. Your actions are only kept in check by those with the power to do so. Ater all, man is an emotional creature not just a logical one.

You can try to hold yourself true to some sort of moral compass. Perhaps you could even rip off a few Christian moral teachings. But why? why restrict yourself in such a manner? Why not just act as you naturally are?
It is not as if you are going to gain eternal life from it. Eternal life… what a joke.

Why not just do exactly what you could get away with? Why not be totally selfish? After all, your life has no meaning behond death. You have no proof and therefore no use of anything behond that of your own understanding. All you need is your own natural logic. You don’t need God! It is just some stupid concept to control people anyway. To keep them in line just like the police do.

I mean if you really hate what that guy did to you then why not just kill him? All you have to do is make sure you get away with it. Why not make him pay for what he did? Why should you act against your human nature by showing any love for him as the christians suggest? Those fools -that just isn’t logical - that bas-tard doesn’t love you!. Furthermore, if you don’t kill him he will just continue to cause you suffering. It is not as if you are going to upset some kind of eternal creator. After all if he really existed then why would he even let that guy cause you so much pain?



This is why Gods message is perfect love.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
We also agree on reason. However, Catholics believe in both faith and reason. Coming to a Catholic forum was a good idea for you. We have always had the great thinkers.
I agree. That’s why it is much more fun to discuss things here.
The Prots are the ones with the blind faith. Protestantism is quite illogical. Christ promised to preserve His Church all throughout history, yet they believe it went into apostasy early on, but good old Martin came along 1500 years later to restore it. To me, this seems to call Christ a liar.
Actually, Protestants believe “the Church” is the community of all Christians and not an organisation, and that community exists without a hierachy or a leader. So luther did not restore it, he just pointed out, what “the Church” “truely” is. In short they have a different definition of “the Church”, thus their position is not illogical on that topic. But anyway, you have to go deep into conspiracy theories to be a protestant.
 
40.png
kev7:
Yes you are hiting your head over and over again because I have rejected the logic of this world for the wisdom of the next. I do not need your proof. Like I’ve said many times mans logic is limted, transient and linier.

(emphasis mine)

I see no point in trying to discuss issues with those who reject reason. Without reason there can be no basis for discussion. Observe:

A reasonable discussion between A and B.
A: X is true
B: X is not true because Y and Z
A: But Y and Z are actually K
And so forth.

A discussion between A and B, without reason - perhaps based on faith:
A: X is true
B: X is not true because Y and Z
A: X is true
B: But look at Y and Z - and what about M?
A: X is true because I know it is true
And so forth.

It is not possible to discuss, to debate, to argue with those who deny reason. What in the world could I possibly say to convince someone who doesn’t believe what I believe? What could someone else say to me that could possibly change what I believe?

PS: What do you actually mean when you say that reason is linear?
 
40.png
kev7:
This is the problem I see with Atheism.

In the end, for an atheist it is all about what you can logically get away with. Your actions are only kept in check by those with the power to do so. Ater all, man is an emotional creature not just a logical one.

You can try to hold yourself true to some sort of moral compass. Perhaps you could even rip off a few Christian moral teachings. But why? why restrict yourself in such a manner? Why not just act as you naturally are?
It is not as if you are going to gain eternal life from it. Eternal life… what a joke.
I have three objections and one remark to this rant:
  1. It is possible for a reaonable human to derive ethics from reason, and keep to it for the sake of the society and thus for the sake of the individual. That way egoism and altruism in the right balance gives you the maximum benefit.
  2. Exactly the same can be said about Theists. Fear of God keeps them in line. They don’t act morally because it is a good thing to so, but because they don’t want to get punished in their afterlife.
  3. Even if all that would be true, that’s still no argument for the existence of God. It just says, it would be better, if there was a God. If would be better too, if humans didn’t need to eat, that would solve a bunch of problems. But wishful thinking doesn’t change reality.
Remark: It is often said, that belief in God leads to a better society, because of the reasons you mentioned in your post. That has recently been disproven. In secular countries we have less murder, less violence, and less abortions than in religious countries. (Gregory S. Paul; “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies”; Journal of Religion and Society, 7/2005;
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html)
 
Regarding Antony Flew:

secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Flew based his statements regarding the possibility of deism based on the supposed inability of natural forces to account for abiogenesis.
Antony Flew:
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.
Furthermore, I don’t even know why this was mentioned. Should I present Dan Barker as evidence against theism? Present arguments, not the names of other people who present arguments.
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Regarding Antony Flew:

Furthermore, I don’t even know why this was mentioned. Should I present Dan Barker as evidence against theism? Present arguments, not the names of other people who present arguments.
“Famous atheist renounces atheism.”
  1. I doubt the “famous”. I never heard of that guy until he renounced atheism. Perhaps he is famous among thiests because of his renouncement?
  2. Millions of people change thier opinion and beliefs over time. What’s the point?
How about this headline: "31.10.1517: Famous catholic theology professor renounces Catholicism."
Is that a good protestant argument against Catholicism?
 
40.png
Alois:
It starts with a Q, and I’ve said it before. You’re being willfully ignorant.

READ THIS and actually refute the statements it makes about life forming from simple chemical proteins. I’ve linked it three times now. Either refute it, or concede that you can’t.
You cant tell us, can you?? Didnt think so-your links couldnt tell us either.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Actually, Protestants believe “the Church” is the community of all Christians and not an organisation, and that community exists without a hierachy or a leader. So luther did not restore it, he just pointed out, what “the Church” “truely” is. In short they have a different definition of “the Church”, thus their position is not illogical on that topic. But anyway, you have to go deep into conspiracy theories to be a protestant.
I’m aware of their re-interpretation of what “the Church” is, but that’s not what I meant by their supposed restoration. I was referring to their belief that Luther brought back pristine biblical Christianity with sola scriptura and sola fide. LOL, you’re right about the conspiracy theory thing! Take it easy.

-Jon
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
I have three objections and one remark to this rant:
  1. It is possible for a reaonable human to derive ethics from reason, and keep to it for the sake of the society and thus for the sake of the individual. That way egoism and altruism in the right balance gives you the maximum benefit.
  2. Exactly the same can be said about Theists. Fear of God keeps them in line. They don’t act morally because it is a good thing to so, but because they don’t want to get punished in their afterlife.
  3. Even if all that would be true, that’s still no argument for the existence of God. It just says, it would be better, if there was a God. If would be better too, if humans didn’t need to eat, that would solve a bunch of problems. But wishful thinking doesn’t change reality.
Remark: It is often said, that belief in God leads to a better society, because of the reasons you mentioned in your post. That has recently been disproven. In secular countries we have less murder, less violence, and less abortions than in religious countries. (Gregory S. Paul; “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies”; Journal of Religion and Society, 7/2005;
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html)
Hail Hitler.
 
AnAtheist

*Remark: It is often said, that belief in God leads to a better society, because of the reasons you mentioned in your post. That has recently been disproven. In secular countries we have less murder, less violence, and less abortions than in religious countries. *

As I have pointed out to you so often in other forums, this is not the basis for comparison. The basis for comparison is to look at the vast majority of people in prison and see that very few of them ever had any real religion in their lives. Yes, Christians go to prison too, but they are the vast minority in prison, they are among the few who go to chapel, and their recidivist rate is much much lower than that of prisoners who are a (without) theist (God).

Why is it you never answer this fact?

The whole tenor of your argument is to suggest that America must be a criminal country because it is largely Christian, and that if we became atheist like yourself, we’d be so much better for it. Tell that to the millions who were slaughtered in China, Russia, and Germany by their atheist leaders … Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. They never conquered the world because they were stood up to by Christian America. No other force so great as ours ever rose up to stop them.
 
AnAtheist

*1. It is possible for a reaonable human to derive ethics from reason, and keep to it for the sake of the society and thus for the sake of the individual. That way egoism and altruism in the right balance gives you the maximum benefit.
*
It is also possible for reason to outfox itself by lying to itself … by arguing to itself that what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right. Reason has done this many times in the history of the world. It did so with Adam and Eve. It is doing it today with the argument that a fetus is not a human being and so we can kill all of them we want with stark raving impunity.

The Commandments do not offer such loopholes as reason can invent … and this is why Orwell in Animal Farm had the Commandments on the barn wall changed from one generation to the next. The people changing those Commandments were pigs.

And the pigs are still at it.
 
Gilbert Keith:
AnAtheist

*1. It is possible for a reaonable human to derive ethics from reason, and keep to it for the sake of the society and thus for the sake of the individual. That way egoism and altruism in the right balance gives you the maximum benefit.
*
It is also possible for reason to outfox itself by lying to itself … by arguing to itself that what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right. Reason has done this many times in the history of the world. It did so with Adam and Eve. It is doing it today with the argument that a fetus is not a human being and so we can kill all of them we want with stark raving impunity.

The Commandments do not offer such loopholes as reason can invent … and this is why Orwell in Animal Farm had the Commandments on the barn wall changed from one generation to the next. The people changing those Commandments were pigs.

And the pigs are still at it.
Indeed, but AnAtheist might have a little bit of a point. The Church teaches that non-believers have morality “written on their hearts,” right? Don’t we call it Natural Law?
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Indeed, but AnAtheist might have a little bit of a point. The Church teaches that non-believers have morality “written on their hearts,” right? Don’t we call it Natural Law?
AnAtheist has an ***excellent ***point…

it really pains me when these discussions with atheists and agnostics devolve into invectic against their moral character - when we end up telling them over and over that they have no reason not to be evil or to love their children or their friends, or whatever.

at the very least we believe that god made us all so that we will be inclined to find certain things good and fulfilling. like friendship and love and knowledge and inner peace - and we will be inclined toward those things whether we believe in a god or not. or, to put it another way, belief in a deity is no guarantee of moral uprightness. there are good and bad atheists and there are good and bad christians.

so why don’t we just drop it?

on the other hand, if it’s possible to engage in a reasonable discussion about moral philosophy without saying things like “hail hitler”, then let’s do it…
 
Gilbert Keith:
The whole tenor of your argument is to suggest that America must be a criminal country because it is largely Christian, and that if we became atheist like yourself, we’d be so much better for it.
No, neither I nor the study said that. The study just shows that there is a correlation between religiosity and bad society. Causality does not follow from correlation.
But correlation follows causality. IF much religiosity would improve society, THEN the correlation should be the other way round. The facts say otherwise, so the proposition religious masses == good society is wrong. That says nothing about what kind of society is prodcued by secular masses.
 
40.png
estesbob:
You cant tell us, can you?? Didnt think so-your links couldnt tell us either.
(Regarding abiogenesis and the origin of the universe)

Abiogenesis is one of those things which can be explained by natural forces; Alois posted a link to an excellent site, and you see to have ignored it. Additionally, this argument smacks of a God of the gaps argument.

Regarding the origin of the universe: where, then, did God come from? I imagine you will argue that God did not begin to exist and so therefore God need not have come from anything. On the other hand, if time in fact is part of the universe, there never was a time when the unverse did not exist; hence the universe did not begin to exist.
 
EnterTheBowser said:
(Regarding abiogenesis and the origin of the universe)

Abiogenesis is one of those things which can be explained by natural forces; Alois posted a link to an excellent site, and you see to have ignored it.

i can post links, too:

godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

trueorigin.org/abio.asp

in my experience, this typically solves nothing, since posting links isn’t engaging in productive debate.

if you actually understand the arguments for abiogenesis presented in the talk origins article, then explain them in your own terms, and lets see if we can discuss them.
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Regarding the origin of the universe: where, then, did God come from? I imagine you will argue that God did not begin to exist and so therefore God need not have come from anything. On the other hand, if time in fact is part of the universe, there never was a time when the unverse did not exist; hence the universe did not begin to exist.
has the universe existed for an infinite, or for a finite period of time?
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Thanks for that link. It certainly makes a good point about him not having kept up on things for years and of being forgetful.
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Furthermore, I don’t even know why this was mentioned.
Simply because it was interesting that someone came to such a conclusion based on “scientific evidence”.
Present arguments, not the names of other people who present arguments.
Who made that rule?

Are you “seeking truth”, or are you just trying to force individuals to bear the heavy burden of proof?

Ironically, Flew himself is a major proponent of making believers bear the burden (in “The Presumption of Atheism”), and once he started believing, found himself unable to bear it. He has fallen in his own trap, hasn’t he?

This suggests that atheists are lazy tyrants. I am not just calling out names here. The basis for laziness is that they 1) refuse to prove their position, 2) refuse to acknowledge they need to, and 3) do not try to keep up on reasons for belief, remaining stuck in some old caricature thereof. The basis for tyrant is that they 1) command the believers to present arguments, defend their cause and prove their points, 2) prevent them from mentioning names of others whose prior work might help them, and 3) accuse anyone (including Flew) who does not keep up on the latest theories explaining a natural cause of everything. I will grant that not all atheists necessarily fall into this categorization, but your statement and general disposition certainly seem to match it. I hope I am wrong, but then why did you make that statement?

The fact is, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the work and thoughts of others, such as Plato or Aquinas or others. You can do the same. In fact, I have seen your side do so, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Finally, I did not just give a name. I pasted in what the article said and bolded relevant parts. (Thank you for the followup info on it.)

hurst
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top