What do you do to combat atheism?

[niceatheist]

If the imaginary time hypothesis is true, it means space-time is a compact manifold; it is finite in size and time, but has its geometry has no 0 point in the x,y,z or time dimensions. There is a finite universe without a beginning.

 

[IWantGod]

There is a finite universe without a beginning.

What difference does a universe with no measurable starting point make to metaphysics?

 

[niceatheist]

It means there is no concrete starting point, and thus no place for a creator or creation event. It’s the fundamental upsetting of the Aristotlean metaphysical system.

Please note I’m not claiming that the Universe, at least in a temporal dimension, is a compact manifold. Certainly Classical Physics, which General Relativity sits firmly within, does not assert this. Quite the opposite, General Relativity gives a definitive starting point; though that starting point is a singularity, which isn’t an object or a moment, but rather a point at which the math breaks down and Einsteinian mechanics starts producing gibberish results. That indicates the math is insufficient to describe that region of space-time (much as GR breaks down when describing black holes). It’s entirely reasonable to assert an Aristotlean “unmoving mover”, but if one rejects those Classical notions (both the metaphysics and the Newtonian and Einsteinian physics represent), then we run into a communications problem. I can’t find appropriate language to describe space-time as a compact manifold, but I do know that it represents a notion of the Universe as self-contained, finite in all directions, but without boundary or starting point.

 

[SteelArchangel]

I would say more unsavory.

I’ve yet to find an atheist who before long, begins to show contempt and outright disgust at Catholicism.

 

[Anrakyr]

I’ve yet to find an atheist who before long, begins to show contempt and outright disgust at Catholicism.

Sorry I got here as quickly as I could.
Passes around newly minted atheists membership card
My issue is with Catholicism as much the fans. You lot have a nasty trend to preach love and patience but then spare off those virtues in favour of social trench war on [insert social thing here]. The frankly staggering bit is the same Catholics who also brag about the scientific breakthroughs of church are also the first to forget the silencing of science.
Example: Nicolaus Copernicus, was celebrated up till the protestant revolution. Partly because his model of the universe was challenging to people’s biblical read. The church saw it more important to try and bring unity then truth.
So in summery while society and science tries to march forward we “atheist” tire of waiting for Catholics to tie their shoes for the thousandth time.

Just to check and recheck with your church who normally is cool with it.
Unless it’s that one time it may not be because politics.

 

[Bradskii]

I would say more unsavory.

I’ve yet to find an atheist who before long, begins to show contempt and outright disgust at Catholicism.

Hey, the new boy.

Well why not stick around for a few years, Steely. You may find a few atheists in this very forum that may confound that sweeping statement.

Love the name by the way.

 

[niceatheist]

I would say more unsavory.

I’ve yet to find an atheist who before long, begins to show contempt and outright disgust at Catholicism.

I certainly know many atheists who feel that way. I do not. I can’t say I agree with every aspect of Catholicism, but I’m not blind to the fact that Christianity contributed an enormous amount to Western Culture, nor do I believe there is no room for faith in public life (providing it isn’t exclusionary). If I’m going to question Catholicism, then I have to be intellectually honest and question my own world view.

My axiom is “always be ready to learn, and test my own views against what I’ve learned.”

 

[IWantGod]

It means there is no concrete starting point, and thus no place for a creator or creation event. It’s the fundamental upsetting of the Aristotlean metaphysical system.

There is no place for an absolute temporal cause, but that doesn’t prove that it needs no cause in-order for it to exist.

A circle has no starting point, but it doesn’t follow from the fact of it being a circle that it doesn’t require a creator, and neither does the idea of having no beginning negate the requirement of an existential cause (unless you can show me why). In fact Aquinas was willing to concede for the sake of argument that the universe was infinite in extent and he still proved that it was a contingent being.

Proving that the universe has a beginning is not the goal of these types of arguments, so i don’t understand why you would think that it’s the “fundamental upsetting of the Aristotlean metaphysical system.”

 

[niceatheist]

I’d argue Aquinas didn’t prove anything. He started with a pre-existing notion of how things are and then argued his point.

All I’m saying is that in a closed manifold, where there is no T0, it’s justifiable to argue that there is no point of intervention. I can invent any kind of entity I want to get around that, but then if someone goes “So why is this entity necessary?” I’m just going to restate my case.

That’s my problem. It’s not that I don’t think God exists or could have done it, I have yet to see why God is necessary. What we’re left with is the age-old question of why the laws of physics are what they are, and at the moment I’m satisfied to say “I don’t know”.

 

[IWantGod]

I’d argue Aquinas didn’t prove anything. He started with a pre-existing notion of how things are and then argued his point.

You’re saying that, but you have not demonstrated that a compact manifold is a self existing entity. For Aquinas it is irrelevant whether it has a beginning or not, it is still in some way shape or form changing. And that’s the nail in the coffin.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m just going to restate my case.

You have no case because you have no understanding about what you are talking about.

 

[IWantGod]

That’s my problem. It’s not that I don’t think God exists or could have done it, I have yet to see why God is necessary.

It’s been explained many times and you have dismissed it without a sufficient rebuttal.

What we’re left with is the age-old question of why the laws of physics are what they are, and at the moment I’m satisfied to say “I don’t know”.

What we are really left with is a physical nature that moves from potentiality to actuality; and that’s why i know it’s a contingent being or not something that can be described as fundamental reality. It doesn’t matter if it’s a compact manifold.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I’d argue Aquinas didn’t prove anything. He started with a pre-existing notion of how things are and then argued his point.

You’re saying that, but you have not demonstrated that a compact manifold is a self existing entity. For Aquinas it is irrelevant whether it has a beginning or not, it is still in some way shape or form changing. And that’s the nail in the coffin.

Only if one ascribes to Aristotlean metaphysics. If you don’t, then there’s no coffin at all.

 

[IWantGod]

Only if one ascribes to Aristotlean metaphysics.

And what exactly is it that you think metaphysics is lol.

To me that’s like saying “only if you subscribe to the principle of non-contradiction”

 

[niceatheist]

And if I don’t accept that these properties signify anything at all, then what? What if there really is an infinity, no beginning and no end, but it isn’t intelligent. Then i guess the most you can accuse me of is pantheism.

 

[niceatheist]

I’m not honestly convinced that metaphysics is anything other than a load of rubbish. I tend towards Hume’s view of the whole enterprise.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m not honestly convinced that metaphysics is anything other than a load of rubbish. I tend towards Hume’s view of the whole enterprise.

Loool. I don’t think you really understand metaphysics enough to make that sort of claim. After all Hume thought it was a possibility that something can come out of nothing without a cause just because he could imagine it!

Is that really the guy you want to support as a representation of reason?

 

[Neithan]

The veracity of the scientific method depends on inductive reasoning, so one must at least, for methodological reasons, accept the underlying metaphysics, otherwise it has no predictive power and we cannot formulate any meaningful natural laws and claim they correspond with reality. Also, the cosmological argument predates Aristotle by a couple of centuries (Parmenides).

 

[niceatheist]

I think there are no lack of physicists out there who would argue we determine natural laws by observation and testing, not by coming up with the answer before we can even formulate the question.

 

[Pattylt]

Can I ask a few simplistic questions? I’ve never had a philosophy class and sometimes struggle with terms and meanings.

What we are really left with is a physical nature that moves from potentiality to actuality; and that’s why i know it’s a contingent being or not something that can be described as fundamental reality.

I almost get what you are saying here but why does it have to be a contingent being and not just a contingency?

Then you say…

After all Hume thought it was a possibility that something can come out of nothing without a cause just because he could imagine it!

What is the difference between potential and imagining for God?

If these questions are too ridiculous, just ignore me!
Thanks