To Atheists

[wolpertinger]

puzzleannie:

God may have answered, and you may have heard the answer, accepted the answer, and incorporated it into your moral and ethical thinking and world view, without realizing its source in God.

I’m sorry, but this amounts to a cop-out. We expect our fellow humans to maintain a minimal standard of communication skills and it seems more than reasonable to hold a god to that same standard, particularly if you allege that this god has a personal relationship with us.

GilKobrin:

Furthermore, your classic example - “Can God create a stone he is unable to life?” - assumes that God, a non-physical entity, is able to physically lift something.

I don’t care how a god lifts a stone or lifts a stone, but I consider the ability to manipulate physical objects, directly or indirectly, as a necessary qualification of godhood.

 

[AnAtheist]

GilKobrin:

I disagree with your assertion, sir, that an eternal being can not terminate it’s own existence - as such a being does not lack the ability to do such a thing, but simply refrains from doing so. Furthermore, your classic example - “Can God create a stone he is unable to life?” - assumes that God, a non-physical entity, is able to physically lift something.

I do not believe that the inability to do the impossible compromises the omnipotent quality of God’s nature, as omnipotency, as it is defined, simply means “having virtually unlimited authority or influence” - authority over things which are subjectable to influence, i.e. creations. God, having influence over all creations as the First Cause, is therefore omnipotent.

Ok, then you have a different definition of omnipotence. If there is something a god cannot do, whatever it is, then there is the possibility of the existence of another god with more powers. Like a creator of the Creator.

 

[RobedWithLight]

AnAtheist:

Or the classic: Can God create a stone, he is not able to lift? The list of examples is endless.

Well, it seems you have put that in the form of a question, instead of putting it in the form of a proposition. Are you avoiding stating it as a proposition in order to escape being saddled with a double negative?

*God cannot create a stone so big he **cannot *carry it. — > Can God create a stone he is not able to lift ?
**
Personally I don’t see any problem here. If He can make a stone, then He certainly can carry it as well.

Gerry

 

[AnAtheist]

RobedWithLight:

Personally I don’t see any problem here. If He can make a stone, then He certainly can carry it as well.

Sorry but you have totally missed my point.

Please read my post again and/or refer to the answers of GilKobrin and UnknownCloud, they have understood me.

 

[UnknownCloud]

AnAtheist:

The unmovable stone argument doesn’t have a rational premise. If God is infinite being, thus omnipotent, this implies that one ‘ability’ or ‘attribute’ cannot be compared in a less than/greater than way. Thus, the capacity to create does not exceed the capacity to work and vise versa. Since infinite being refers to that which has no measure, any comparisons of any attribute is nonesense.
You cannot expect our reason to be able to imagine God, nor understand Him - if we could, we wouldn’t be speaking of God, but of our mind. No matter what ideas we attribute to God or what we think God should be, He will always be greater, He will always be Beyond. This shouldn’t be totally foreign to you, since you can accept the speed of light, but in no way can you imagine or even begin to understand how fast it really is in comparison to slower things. Light will always be faster, no matter how fast you try to go.

Theists really don’t have the burden of proof. We can defend our position with intellectual merit, but ultimately, our intellectual understanding falls quite short of the essential meaning of God - and that actually, is the highest knowledge of God that we can have, ‘…that we know Him to be above any thought we can think of Him’. However, as an atheist, you maintain that everything has an explanation that is not beyond our senses or capacity to reason, therefore, if you cannot demonstrate your point of view then your point of view cannot be held in contempt of what you attempt to deny. We accept the mystery of existence - you do not. If it is not a mystery, then what is it? The very idea of ‘rational thought’ directly implies the ability to prove beyond doubt, like the Pythagorean Theorem. You can’t simply say ‘the square of the length of the hypotenus of a right triange is the sum of the sqaures of the length of its other 2 sides’. To maintain that means it can be proven. To maintain it without proof is not a ‘rational’ position.

So I’m afraid you are stuck, since you cannot prove a univseral negative about everything whatsoever and still consider yourself to hold a ‘rational’ position. It’s a dogmatic position, and you need to admit that. If logic demonstrates impossibilities, then let it do so.

 

[AnAtheist]

UnknownCloud:

AnAtheist:

The unmovable stone argument doesn’t have a rational premise. If God is infinite being, thus omnipotent, this implies that one ‘ability’ or ‘attribute’ cannot be compared in a less than/greater than way. …Light will always be faster, no matter how fast you try to go.

Ok, that is a good argument. If I define “omnipotence” like “the ultimate possible power without contradicting itself”, would that satisfy your view of it? If such a power does exist, why must that power have an intellect, like most religions claim?

Theists really don’t have the burden of proof. We can defend our position with intellectual merit, but ultimately, our intellectual understanding falls quite short of the essential meaning of God - and that actually, is the highest knowledge of God that we can have, ‘…that we know Him to be above any thought we can think of Him’.

That may be true for agnostics and deists. But people who claim to know specific attributes of God, should have some backup for their claims.

It’s a dogmatic position, and you need to admit that.

No, I don’t. A dogma is to be followed in any case. Prove the existence of your god andI am going to change my mind and I will “believe” in him. I might actually start worshipping him, if it turns out he is worthy of that.

 

[ncgolf]

AnAtheist:

Prove the existence of your god andI am going to change my mind and I will “believe” in him. I might actually start worshipping him, if it turns out he is worthy of that.

I dont think he has to prove anything … he cant prove God … but on the other hand you cannot disprove God. So where does that leave us.

It leaves us with a whole lot of circumstantial evidence to ponder. The biggest piece of evidence being Jesus himself. The claim of what Jesus said is that he is God come down in the flesh. This claim got him crucified and if you think about it is downright scandolous. What sort of man would make that claim … that he is God himself. I have read where he must have been either Lord, liar or lunatic. Liar if what he claimed is not true and if he is a liar then Jesus could not have been a good man … in fact he would have been a bad man. Lunatic if he was delusional … we see those kinds of people even today … those who claim to be God. If not those two then he is who he claimed to be. He is God in the flesh therefore worthy of the praise of worship due to the creator of all things.

The living proof was here on earth although 2000 years ago. Many changed based on the evidence then and it still happens today.

The data seems to show that there is a God and he walked on earth some 2000 years ago. I see the same data as you, I choose to believe. As a child I believed because I was a child and thought like a child but as an adult I choose to believe based on what I see, read, and know in my heart and mind.

We make decisions based on circumstantial evidence all the time. I know I have at least once … I sat on a jury. I did not see the crime committed nor was there a witness to say he saw the man commit the crime. But the evidence showed he indeed was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I cannot ever proved God to you … it is beyond any human’s capacity … all that leaves is our testimony and the testimony of those who lived in those times … just like a trial. That throws the decision back to you. I have read your posts in the past and know you are a very intelligent person. You seem to want evidence beyond what is ever going to be available to us. I know the evidence available to believe is beyond a reasonable doubt because if it wasnt Christianity would have died long ago.

 

[Meggie]

Pro-Life_Teen:

I was wondering, what are some of your beliefs if you don’t have a religion. Do you frown of church goers, or try to show them that there is no God??

Definatly don’t frown on churchgoers. I still go to Daily Mass. People don’t need to be shown there is no God, they are better off believeing there is one.

Pro-Life_Teen:

How did you decide that there was no God, or Higher Power?

Life.

 

[wolpertinger]

ncgolf:

I dont think he has to prove anything … he cant prove God … but on the other hand you cannot disprove God. So where does that leave us.

Right here: The theists don’t have to prove anything unless they want to convert an atheist to their theistic faith, in which case they have to meet the atheist’s standard of proof - which may well be set impossibly high. Similarly, atheists have nothing to prove unless they themselves attempt to deconvert theists. In my opinion, “proving” or “disproving” god is an exercise in futility unless you are talking to the already (de)converted, in which case it serves as a means to reinforce an already existing belief.

Personally, I couldn’t care less about what an individual actually believes in, but I do care very much about what their beliefs prompt them to do.

 

[Exporter]

AnAtheist http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_349957”, true);
Senior Member

Hello Atheist,

You seem like a rational poster, therefore I have a question for you.

Knowing that all the stars and planets that have been observed are made of the same elements ( atoms, ions and molecules) and the density of the universe approaches zero… lots of space and little matter].

Where did the matter (atoms, ions) come from or how did they originate? How did this matter arise?

Thanks for your answer.:tiphat:

 

[AnAtheist]

Hello Atheist,

You seem like a rational poster, therefore I have a question for you.

Knowing that all the stars and planets that have been observed are made of the same elements ( atoms, ions and molecules) and the density of the universe approaches zero… lots of space and little matter].

Where did the matter (atoms, ions) come from or how did they originate? How did this matter arise?

Wow, to answer that comprehensively would take more than a forum’s posting, but I try condense it as much as possible. For further reading I suggest Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes and some basic literature on quantum physics (Berkeley course Vol. 4 is quite good).

Matter originated in the Big Bang (15-20*10^9 years ago) due to a slight symmetry breach. It was produced mainly as Hydrogen and Helium. Gravity then produced stars out of that matter, those stars produced higher organised matter by nuclear fusion later on.
As time and space cannot be viewed separately and both seem to origin in the Big Bang as well, that means there was an infinitesimal time interval at the beginning of this universe. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle allows an unlimited energy uncertainty in a zero time interval, and as energy can be converted to matter, the whole universe is one huge quantum fluctuation.
Does that answer your question?

 

[kliner]

Who created the matter that “originated” in the big bang?

i invite you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to help you with some questions you may have. you can read it here.

stay curious, open to Answers, & Godspeed

 

[TizMe]

I was born in Australia to a Catholic mother and a Protestant father. I have spent many years living and working in Saudi Arabia and am now living in Thailand married to a budhist.

My perspective on all religions is that they have been invented for a few reasons.

1. To answer the “what will happen to me when I die?” question.
2. To control the masses and instill a reason to be humane to thy fellow human.

A catholic believes that a budhist or a moslem cannot get to heaven unless they follow the way of “Jesus”.

A moslem believes that a catholic cannot get to heaven unless they follow the way of “Mohammed”, etc.

So who is right? “The catholics of course”, I hear you say.

There is a 99.999% chance that you are only a catholic because your parents were catholics. Just as most moslems are only moslems because their parents were. So to me you would change the “The catholics of course” answer to “The moslems of course” if you had just been born to a different family or in a different place.

If you were born 200 years ago to an aboriginal family in Australia then you would believe in the dream time.

 

[nordskoven]

PAX CHRISTI +

There is one true religion, the love of God. It is a mutilation and mischaracterization to suggest that God has not revealed to and through Judeo-Christianity His embrace of all, all, who respond to Him in love. The Old Testament says that God will accept the pure-hearted sacrifice of the pagan, and the New Testament says those who know God only through His creation will be saved.

God revealed Himself from Adam onward, and all cultures originally shared monotheism, like Ptah of the Egyptians and Shang-Ti of the Chinese. All cultures engage in marriage, the first sacrament instituted in Genesis Ch. 2. Cultures universally share a story of the Great Flood, involving God’s displeasure, animals, man’s salvation, and a mountain landing. Cultures universally have a standard of modesty, the nakedness clothed of the Genesis Fall.

Prophecy of Messiah is so ancient that it is preserved in the “Gospel of the Stars” elucidated by D. James Kennedy, with theology deftly drawn in the names of stars and constellations, the Leo of the Tribe of Judah, and the Virgo. China’s emperor saw a strange star and asked the sages what it was. They looked it up, finding the ancient prophecy of the coming Savior.

There is a universality of belief in an afterlife, and even moderns record near-death experiences that show the continuation of consciousness. One example is the dead man who was floating outside his hospital room and when re-animated, said there was a sneaker on a high ledge. Not visible from the street, the sneaker was found where stated.

Shared morals and an afterlife were revealed universally from the beginning, not imposed by some wily dictator. Non-Jewish prophecy was given universally is fulfilled in Jesus Christ along with the three-hundred plus Jewish prophecies, including Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem.

What was also prophesied was the grand self-delusion of intellectuals, who have not the love of the truth, and would be given cause to believe a lie. Daniel’s prophecy of Antichrist is also imminent, one who adores, not the God of his fathers, but the god of Force, God reduced to a force of nature. Fulfilled prophecy proves there is an eternal, provident God. “May the Lord enlighten the eyes of our hearts.”

Daniel also prophecies that “Contact” will occur. Heaven will be breached, doubtless by godless physicists, and the Archangel Michael will incinerate them as not entering in by the Way, the Truth and the Life which is Messiah, Jesus Christ.

The atheist’s satanic disdain of man’s relations with others and with the Creator, a disdain indulged in by those who ironically makes man the measure of all things, has resulted in the greatest genocidal slaughter in the history of the world, that of the twentieth century. Atheism leads to “death and cursing.”

This withering elitism voices itself in the patronizing contempt of atheists for those of faith who are reduced to idiots and mere cultural automatons. Atheist Allen Dershowitz decries the American guarantee of inalienable rights as deriving from God, and wants them to be reconstituted as deriving from man. Dershowitz recently came out in favor of torture. Here is where atheist contempt inexorably leads.

To reiterate, those of any faith who know and love the Lord, and love His children, their fellows as brothers, are following the Great Command to love as given from the first. The fullness of this faith is revealed in Christ’s Church founded on Peter the Rock to men endued with divine power and authority to teach and discipline. Keep asking, seeking, knocking. All Catholic parishes offer free instruction and welcome inquiry.

 

[Carl]

TizMe

There is a 99.999% chance that you are only a catholic because your parents were catholics. Just as most moslems are only moslems because their parents were.

No, I am a Catholic because I am heir to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Why do you remove Jesus Christ from your statistical oddity?

 

[TizMe]

Carl:

TizMe
No, I am a Catholic because I am heir to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Why do you remove Jesus Christ from your statistical oddity?

My point exactly, if you were heir to the teachings of Mohammed then you would be a moslem, if you were heir to the teachings of Buddha then you would be a buddhist.

Why is it that all the major religions believe that the only way to salvation is *their *way.

 

[TizMe]

From Lance Armstrong’s book It’s Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life.

The night before brain surgery, I thought about death. I searched out my larger values, and I asked myself, if I was going to die, did I want to do it fighting and clawing or in peaceful surrender? What sort of character did I hope to show? Was I content with myself and what I had done with my life so far? I decided that I was essentially a good person, although I could have been better–but at the same time I understood that the cancer didn’t care.

I asked myself what I believed. I had never prayed a lot. I hoped hard, I wished hard, but I didn’t pray. I had developed a certain distrust of organized religion growing up, but I felt I had the capacity to be a spiritual person, and to hold some fervent beliefs. Quite simply, I believed I had a responsiblity to be a good person, and that meant fair, honest, hardworking, and honorable. If I did that, if I was good to my family, true to my friends, if I gave back to my community or to some cause, if I wasn’t a liar, a cheat, or a thief, then I believed that should be enough. At the end of the day, if there was indeed some Body or presence standing there to judge me, I hoped I would be judged on whether I had lived a true life, not on whether I believed in a certain book, or whether I’d been baptized. If there was indeed a God at the end of my days, I hoped he didn’t say, “But you were never a Christian, so you’re going the other way from heaven.” If so, I was going to reply, “You know what? You’re right. Fine.”

 

[kliner]

see above link (in my previous post) to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. i don’t believe you will find any reference to “if you’re not Catholic you’re not going to Heaven” in it. in fact, for your example of the Muslims, the Church recognizes them as worshipping the God of Abraham (which is also our God).

in his interview before the release of “The Passion of The Christ,” Mel Gibson put it in a good way: “you can have a bone through your nose and still make it to Heaven.”

we believe that the Catholic Church is the “normative means” of growing closer to God (not to mention the Mystical Body of Christ). that doesn’t mean that God is restricted by His Church. He transcends time and boundaries, and if He wants to forgive someone, allow someone to enter into Heaven, etc, then He can do it.

i would also like to note that this would mainly apply to people who are ignorant, but not by their own fault.

if i’ve written (in this post) any Catholic understanding/teaching incorrectly, someone please clarify.

 

[Tlaloc]

Pro-Life_Teen:

I was wondering, what are some of your beliefs if you don’t have a religion. Do you frown of church goers, or try to show them that there is no God?

How did you decide that there was no God, or Higher Power?

I’m not an atheist so maybe I should stay out of it. I’m also not a Christian. I don’t frown at Church goers so long as they don’t try to push their faith on others.

I didn’t decide there was no God but I deduced that it was almost certainly not the Christian God. Thats really a pretty easy argument to get across:

The Christian God acts like a person while a truly omniscient, omnipotent god would be completely alien. If I was really reading God’s words it shouldn’t be so easy to psychoanalyze him. Furthermore there are far too many convenient cases where “god” just happens to say what a church interested in temporal power would want him to say. Combine that with a reading of the history and anthropology of the early christian church and it becomes clear it acted out of expediency rather than any holy mission. The idea that God would actually have a list like santa claus and check off who was naughty and nice is such an obvious ploy to play on people’s fear of mortality.

Finally I decided that if there is an Omniscient God who judges me after my death then he’ll obviously know how I should be judged because he knows everything. If God isn’t omniscient then he’s just another tyrant and doesn’t deserve my allegiance anymore than any other authority. Either way I am beholden to try and live my life well as I see it, and according to my morals.

I don’t mean to insult anyone here, but thats my perspective.

 

[kliner]

I don’t frown at Church goers so long as they don’t try to push their faith on others.

you’ve stated that you’ve studied Catholicism and Christianity (in general), but did you know that we are supposed (by our God’s Word) to spread The Faith to the ends of the earth?

The Christian God acts like a person while a truly omniscient, omnipotent god would be completely alien.

how could you say in that sentence what God would act like? since you’re not atheist, then i would guess that you are aware of the superiority of God.

If I was really reading God’s words it shouldn’t be so easy to psychoanalyze him.

examples please…

Furthermore there are far too many convenient cases where “god” just happens to say what a church interested in temporal power would want him to say.

conspiracy theories are not the result of faith. examples here would be helpful too. please realize that there have been/will be wolves among the sheep.

Combine that with a reading of the history and anthropology of the early christian church and it becomes clear it acted out of expediency rather than any holy mission.

again, you said that you studied Catholicism and Christianity (in general). noting that, it would take a great amount of time to dive into the teachings of the Church Fathers. there are compilations of their writings that could be a little easier to read. secondly, with the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit, the amount of time doesn’t seem to weigh in too much for me.

The idea that God would actually have a list like santa claus and check off who was naughty and nice is such an obvious ploy to play on people’s fear of mortality.

i don’t recall hearing this one either. have you read any the Catechism of the Catholic Church for your study of Catholicism? please list another (largely believed) religion that isn’t aware of right and wrong or good vs evil. i recommend reading what the Catholic Church teaches in this area. i guarantee it not to be any “ploy to play on people’s fear,” but what God has revealed through His Church. it would be helpful if you read this being open to God’s Will.

Finally I decided that if there is an Omniscient God who judges me after my death then he’ll obviously know how I should be judged because he knows everything. If God isn’t omniscient then he’s just another tyrant and doesn’t deserve my allegiance anymore than any other authority.

be careful that you don’t block His Help on this journey. and how could God be God without being omniscient?