Who's freer athiest or Catholic?

[Planty_Business]

Why is it an inherently contradictory concept?

Also, to say that only those that are scientifically testable are true is itself not scientifically testable.

Agreed, which is why I acknowledged the fact that philosophical and logical proofs are sufficient for certain concepts beyond the purview of science.

If you presuppose the possibility of the supernatural, on what grounds do you deny the possibility of God’s existence?

I deny the possibility of God’s existence on the grounds that God, defined as specifically as Christians define the concept, is a demonstrably (through logic and philosophy) incoherent concept. It would be nigh impossible to prove that a deist god does not exist, but the Christian God has such a specific definition that if even one logical hole were found in the attributes of such a God, it would be disproven. I can’t be bothered to do the research on reasons for atheism that you should be doing as a participant in this debate. You know why I find the God concept contradictory and I know why you find metaphysical naturalism contradictory.

But that is only because you think matter is all there is. Which cannot be proven to be true. So you are actually espousing an ism incapable of being proven to be true as well.

This is a complete non sequitir. Did you quote the wrong passage from my post? What does my statement that reality does not conform to the will of humans (unless humans actually act on that will, of course) have anything to do with my metaphysical materialism?

Now that is downright absurd. Whether a Supernatural Being is in your court or not does not depend on your criteria. Because after all, if it is indeed the case that He is a Supreme Being, puts Him beyond your purview and therefore outside of everyone’s court.

benedictus2, do you realize the fact that the claim that God exists is a truth claim? That is to say, if I am to be expected to believe your claim that God exists, you must first demonstrate why God’s existence is the truth. If I cannot be the judge of any theist’s reasons for belief in God, how am I supposed to come to the conclusion that God exists in the first place? I would gladly give God the respect he is due if 1) he existed and 2) he actually earned that respect.

Well if that is not the most arrogant and stupid statements I have ever read.

It’s statements like these that make me wonder if theists like you are even actually interested in a rational debate, or if you just want to throw around ad hominems all day. Stop acting like a child, and drop the emotional terms if you want me to take your position seriously.

In case you are unaware, there is another jury of humanity who has determined that God exists. What makes you think that you speak for humanity - you itsy, bitsy tiny bit of humanity?

Once again, we could do without the childish terms here - seriously, “itsy, bitsy, tiny bit”?

At any rate, yes, I acknowledge the fact that many other humans have reached a “guilty of existing” verdict. That does not make them part of a different jury, nor does it make my verdict false. I do not claim to speak for humanity, thank you very much, any more than a single member of a jury claims to speak for the entire jury before a unanimous verdict is reached.

So what is your objection then to the teleological proofs? They’re considered logical proofs of God.

My objection is that the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for the development of intelligent life is not sufficient grounds for concluding that God exists. Multiverse theory could just as easily explain this fact, but the problem is that neither theory is falsifiable or testable. They are both just arguments from ignorance.

 

[Planty_Business]

Yes, that is true. They take it as given because they can’t prove it. So they deride the believers for their scientifically unproven assumptions while they strut around brandishing their own equally unproven one and claim to be in possession of the higher intellectual ground, blissfully unaware that they are the emperors on parade - naked as the day they were born.

It is uncanny how much strawmanning and ad hominem can be stuffed into one paragraph!

Perhaps I should make myself clear here that atheism is - despite denial by some atheists these days of the fact - a belief that the proposition “at least one god exists” is almost certainly false. Agnosticism is the more neutral position of “I don’t think God exists, but I don’t think he doesn’t either”. So in that sense, I must admit that most self-professed atheists, including me at the point I wrote that post, are unjustified in believing God doesn’t exist because they do not think that providing proof for God’s nonexistence is necessary for atheism. For the sake of going by the traditional use of the word “atheist”, however, yes, such proof is necessary.

The proof I give, among other proofs, is that:

1. God, according to the generally accepted definition of the term, is an interventionist being among things; he supposedly uses his supernatural powers to manipulate natural affairs, as described in the Bible. However, the suspicious lack of evidence that any supernatural intervention whatsoever has occurred throughout history - even when the Bible makes claims that suggest that such evidence should be found - is reason to believe that there is no God to supernaturally intervene in the first place. An example is prayer; Jesus makes numerous claims in the Gospels that intercessory prayer will work (and how - apparently a believer can move mountains!), yet these claims are demonstrably false. Any perceived “answered prayers” are coincidences that occur just as often without prayer.
2. My aforementioned argument from nonbelief.
3. The demonstrably mythological nature of the Gospels. This is not the topic of this thread, so let us please not go off on a tangent about the Gospels’ historical reliability. However, much historical evidence suggests that the many divine attributes that Jesus of Nazareth supposedly had according to the Gospels are fabrications on the part of the authors, who borrowed from numerous Egyptian, Buddhist, and Hindu myths about such divine figures as Horus, the Buddha, and Krishna.

Hmmm. Let’s go by history. Human beings by nature have always been theists - whatever they may conceive their gods to be.

So really, it is the atheists who are making a novel claim so proof actually sits in your court.

The fact that humans have believed in gods for millennia is as irrelevant to the truth value of that belief as the fact that humans had believed in a flat earth for millennia is to the truth value of that belief. Positing God as a hypothesis for certain phenomena in the universe is a truth claim that the theist must defend. Those who are skeptical of such a claim - but are not necessarily strong atheists - have no such onus. But atheists have gladly defended their position for centuries anyway.

Well no. Theists came first. So therefore it is atheists who have to defend their position. Atheism is a novel invention.

So if I start a religion where one of its doctrines is that there exists a 100-foot-tall alien on Venus as we speak, and no one challenges that claim for thousands of years, is it then the job of the skeptic to defend his/her skepticism, rather than that of me to defend my belief in 100-foot-tall aliens?

You can’t just come up with any irrational belief and then claim “we came first, so skeptics are the ones with the burden of proof here”. The simple fact is that belief in gods originated in an era where humans were as scientifically illiterate as those who invented astrology. Upon subjecting that belief to scrutiny, it has failed the same test that astrology failed.

But there is plenty of evidence for God. It is not that there isn’t any. But it is the kind of evidence that your philosophy (scientism, materialism, empricism) demands. Which is a ridiculous demand considering that if God does exist, scientific proof would not be the way by which we can prove His existence by the fact that we claim Him to be Super - natural.

I am not a scientismist (if that is even a word?). Anyway, I’m going to assume you meant to stick a “not” in that third sentence, because your argument makes no sense without it

If there is evidence, present it. I am open-minded and skeptical at the same time, so I will not reject your evidence on the grounds that is contradictory to my current worldview. That would just be silly.

I shake my head every time I see such profound ignorance on display. Now, it would not be so bad if you are not out to dispute theism (Christianity in particular). I think, it would bade you well if you spend time studying that which you hope to debunk. Otherwise, you just sound like an empty can rattling in the wind.

Replace “theism” with “atheism” there, and I could say the same to you.

 

[benedictus2]

Agreed, which is why I acknowledged the fact that philosophical and logical proofs are sufficient for certain concepts beyond the purview of science.

Okay then, what is your objection to the First Cause Proof ?

I deny the possibility of God’s existence on the grounds that God, defined as specifically as Christians define the concept, is a demonstrably (through logic and philosophy) incoherent concept. It would be nigh impossible to prove that a deist god does not exist, but the Christian God has such a specific definition that if even one logical hole were found in the attributes of such a God, it would be disproven. I can’t be bothered to do the research on reasons for atheism that you should be doing as a participant in this debate. You know why I find the God concept contradictory and I know why you find metaphysical naturalism contradictory.

The Christian understanding of God is not a simple deduction or inference from the Supernatural.

Let’s limit the discussion to the generic God, i.e. Creator.

So I restate my question – If you presuppose the possibility of the Supernatural, on what grounds do you deny the possibility of the Creator God’s existence? ***

This is a complete non sequitir. Did you quote the wrong passage from my post? What does my statement that reality does not conform to the will of humans (unless humans actually act on that will, of course) have anything to do with my metaphysical materialism?

Okay let me explain this better.

You said: Reality does not conform to what you want, even if what you want is eternal life or a decent reason to stay alive.
**I said: **But that is only because you think matter is all there is. Which cannot be proven to be true. So you are actually espousing an ism incapable of being proven to be true as well.

So why did I reply thus?

Your initial reply makes the assumption that matter is all the reality there is. That is the only way that you can say that reality does not conform to what Charlemagne wants. That statement derives from your materialism.

But how do you know that for a fact? How do you know that there is no other reality (as what Charlemagne would admit) other than the material reality.

benedictus2, do you realize the fact that the claim that God exists is a truth claim? That is to say, if I am to be expected to believe your claim that God exists, you must first demonstrate why God’s existence is the truth.

I may believe that but where did I make that claim?

I was replying to this post from you: “Until he can be demonstrated to exist, yes, he is in my court - and the court of all other human beings.”

Can you see how illogical that is? First part says you are not sure he exists then in the second part you claim that he is in your court until he can be proven to exist. How can something be in your court if that something is not even said to exist?

The most that can be said to be in your court is the question of God’s existence not God Himself.

If I cannot be the judge of any theist’s reasons for belief in God, how am I supposed to come to the conclusion that God exists in the first place? I would gladly give God the respect he is due if 1) he existed and 2) he actually earned that respect.

Well duh, the conclusion of God’s existence or not does not derive from your judgement of a theist’s belief?

Point 2 says that if He existed he needed to earn that respect. Here’s another duh. If God existed and He is everything we say He is, then He does not have to earn your respect. Clearly there is some concept here that you are grasping.

It’s statements like these that make me wonder if theists like you are even actually interested in a rational debate, or if you just want to throw around ad hominems all day. Stop acting like a child, and drop the emotional terms if you want me to take your position seriously.

Firstly, it would help this discussion if you would look up ad hominem and use that correctly. There was no ad hominem. And no, it is not childish to say that your statement was arrogant and stupid because it plainly was.

Once again, we could do without the childish terms here - seriously, “itsy, bitsy, tiny bit”?

Compared to the mass of humanity that have ever lived and now lives, you are an itsy, bitsy,teeny bit of humanity, So why should your opinion matter more than the greater majority of the population?

At any rate, yes, I acknowledge the fact that many other humans have reached a “guilty of existing” verdict. That does not make them part of a different jury, nor does it make my verdict false.

And nor does it make your verdict true. But you speak as if you verdict is true and theirs false.

Furthermore, you are right, it does not make them part of a different jury. It is one humanity, so therefore one jury of humanity. So, if 1) you take every human being that ever was and is to this point in time and consider that to be the “jury of humanity” and 2) if God’s existence depends on this jury’s vote then by jove, the conclusion could not be anything other than a resounding “He exists!.”

I do not claim to speak for humanity, thank you very much, any more than a single member of a jury claims to speak for the entire jury before a unanimous verdict is reached.

Well then stop speaking as if you do.

 

[benedictus2]

My objection is that the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for the development of intelligent life is not sufficient grounds for concluding that God exists. Multiverse theory could just as easily explain this fact, but the problem is that neither theory is falsifiable or testable. They are both just arguments from ignorance.

How does a multiverse theory explain a fine tuned universe and gets you out of a God? Are you in Dawkins’ corner in this regard and are therefore appealing to aliens?

Secondly, what is the consensus on the multiverse among cosmologists?

 

[benedictus2]

It is uncanny how much strawmanning and ad hominem can be stuffed into one paragraph!

Again, please try to get a definition of ad hominem. You seem to be throwing this around a lot without knowing its application. And there is no strawmanning in the post either. Adherents of scientism strut around as if they have the intellectual higher ground and regard theists as poor miserable souls helplessly buried in intellectual darkness unable to extricate themselves from the “irrationality” of antiquity…

Perhaps I should make myself clear here that atheism is - despite denial by some atheists these days of the fact - a belief that the proposition “at least one god exists” is almost certainly false. Agnosticism is the more neutral position of “I don’t think God exists, but I don’t think he doesn’t either”. So in that sense, I must admit that most self-professed atheists, including me at the point I wrote that post, are unjustified in believing God doesn’t exist because they do not think that providing proof for God’s nonexistence is necessary for atheism. For the sake of going by the traditional use of the word “atheist”, however, yes, such proof is necessary.

So therefore you are an Agnostic. To say agnostic-atheist is a ridiculous position Either you are agnostic or you are atheist…

The proof I give, among other proofs, is that:

1. God, according to the generally accepted definition of the term, is an interventionist being among things; he supposedly uses his supernatural powers to manipulate natural affairs, as described in the Bible. However, the suspicious lack of evidence that any supernatural intervention whatsoever has occurred throughout history - even when the Bible makes claims that suggest that such evidence should be found - is reason to believe that there is no God to supernaturally intervene in the first place. An example is prayer; Jesus makes numerous claims in the Gospels that intercessory prayer will work (and how - apparently a believer can move mountains!), yet these claims are demonstrably false. Any perceived “answered prayers” are coincidences that occur just as often without prayer.

I never argue for the Christian God with atheists. That would be like expecting a primary school child to comprehend calculus.

So, the Bible is not presented here as evidence and the God I speak of is the generic God – Creator.

So maybe you would like to re-write your proof no 1.

1. My aforementioned argument from nonbelief.

1. The demonstrably mythological nature of the Gospels. This is not the topic of this thread, so let us please not go off on a tangent about the Gospels’ historical reliability. However, much historical evidence suggests that the many divine attributes that Jesus of Nazareth supposedly had according to the Gospels are fabrications on the part of the authors, who borrowed from numerous Egyptian, Buddhist, and Hindu myths about such divine figures as Horus, the Buddha, and Krishna.

I am ignoring this part because at this point I am not arguing for the Christian God.

One thing I have found with atheist in this board through is their inability to keep that. They can’t seem to help going back to what they think is the Christian God in spite of numerous reminders that I am not arguing for this.

The fact that humans have believed in gods for millennia is as irrelevant to the truth value of that belief as the fact that humans had believed in a flat earth for millennia is to the truth value of that belief.

Maybe so but it is very relevant to your post.

You are saying that the burden of proof lies with the theist and I am saying that the burden of proof lies with the atheist.

Let me explain this slowly.

Both propositions cannot be proved true or false scientifically speaking.

Since humanity has always believed in God in one form or another, it is those who are now claiming that no such being exists, who has the burden of proof with regards their position.

Take for example the Galileo case.

For centuries, everyone has believed that the earth is flat. In comes Galileo who says otherwise. Now he may have the correct view, but since humanity has always believed the earth is flat and he comes thousands of years later claiming otherwise, then the burden of proof rests on him. He can’t just stomp his foot and demand that everyone believe his doctrine unless he can prove it and he couldn’t. His belief was vindicated but not by a convincing proof from him.

So, the same thing with atheists. Since you are the one debunking centuries old belief of the hefty majority of humanity, it is up to you to prove that the hefty majority is wrong.

But here’s the thing. You can’t… and you know you can’t.

Positing God as a hypothesis for certain phenomena in the universe is a truth claim that the theist must defend.

Certain phenomena is not necessarily proof of God and serious Christian thinkers would hardly use them as proof.

Those who are skeptical of such a claim - but are not necessarily strong atheists - have no such onus. But atheists have gladly defended their position for centuries anyway.

Those who are sceptical of such a claim who tell theists that they are wrong, have an equally heavy onus. When one starts making claims, that the burden shifts.

 

[exnihilo]

Which origins theories are you referring to here? I agree that multiverse theories and such are not scientific in the strict sense of the word, but neither are intelligent design or divine creation theories. That is the key problem with the KCA, for example; even if the first and second premises were valid, positing “God did it!” as an explanation is not scientific in the slightest. Scientists don’t pretend to know how the universe came into existence (the Big Bang theory only tells us how the universe as we know it exists in its ever-expanding form, not how matter and energy began to exist), but religious people do.

If the universe has a cause then what else would it be other than God? The KCA provides a tight proof that there is a cause of the universe. Then it shows that God is the most reasonable cause of that universe. The first part is hard to refute. The second part, the cause being God, is most reasonable and deniers certainly dont have a more plausible explanation.

How can science tell us anything about causes outside of the universe? You are using the wrong tool for the job if you rely on science to think about metaphysics.

The video that ThinkingSapien cites demonstrates how absurd your notion of God’s being virtuous by honoring this sad excuse for free will is.

I actually pointed out some flaws in thinking that this video implies which were never answered. To summarize again it posits a world without justice where doing the right thing is not rewarded and doing the wrong thing is not punished. Doing right or wrong would make no difference. The video is funny but if taken seriously would create a ridiculous world that not even those who deny God would want.

 

[benedictus2]

So if I start a religion where one of its doctrines is that there exists a 100-foot-tall alien on Venus as we speak, and no one challenges that claim for thousands of years, is it then the job of the skeptic to defend his/her skepticism, rather than that of me to defend my belief in 100-foot-tall aliens?

The skeptic is the one who must defend his claim because he is the one bringing the novel idea with him. The atheist is not up against one religion but all religions which happens to be the great majority experience of humanity from the beginning.

Even science works along the same principles.

If we have always believed that salt is good and should be ingested in large amounts, the burden of proof rests on the one refuting such a belief. They have to prove that ingesting large amounts of salt is actually bad for you.

If a cosmologist were all of a sudden to claim that the Big Bang is erroneous, it is he who has the burden of proof because he is the one going against the general consensus.

You can’t just come up with any irrational belief and then claim “we came first, so skeptics are the ones with the burden of proof here”.

Well, there is that stupid statement again. Irrational belief?! . How do you know it is irrational? If anything you are being irrational by stating that such a belief is irrational because you cannot prove that it is indeed irrational.

You are saying “Hey don’t believe in God it is totally irrational to do so” but when pressed to prove that there is No God - to drive home the point that such a belief is irrational - you can’t.

The simple fact is that belief in gods originated in an era where humans were as scientifically illiterate as those who invented astrology. Upon subjecting that belief to scrutiny, it has failed the same test that astrology failed.

Well helloo, if belief in God has indeed been proven wrong and has indeed failed, then you must be able to prove that God does not exist.

But a while back, you stated that you can’t. So make up your mind : either you prove that God does not exist which accounts for this failure or you stick with your earlier stated position that you can’t prove that God does not exist hence you can’t really say that this belief has failed.

I am not a scientismist (if that is even a word?). Anyway, I’m going to assume you meant to stick a “not” in that third sentence, because your argument makes no sense without it

Yes that’s correct: there should be a “not”. I leave out words and put words that should not be there it is a wonder people can actually understand my post. Not to mention the innumerable typos…

If there is evidence, present it. I am open-minded and skeptical at the same time, so I will not reject your evidence on the grounds that is contradictory to my current worldview. That would just be silly.

But this is precisely the point of that section of my post. The kind of evidence you demand is of the natural order but the Being we are talking about is Supernatural.

The only proof one can provide is philosophical and St Thomas provided some. St Thomas was not arguing for the Christian God in these proofs but simply God – Creator.

It is only when that point is bedded down that one can start looking at the various propositions that humanity has come up with to define the attributes of this God beyond being “just” Creator.

Replace “theism” with “atheism” there, and I could say the same to you.

Well no it couldn’t because try as you might you will not find any post of mine in this thread where I have actually set out to debunk atheistic/agnostic belief. It would only apply to me if I am guilty of your error - trying to debunk a belief that I am not exactly au fait with.

So far all I have done is uncover the hole and expose the flaws in some of the posts here.

Although I must say that it would be really simple because atheistic claim of the absence of a deity makes for a very simple proposition. There are no attributes that need to be defined.

 

[benedictus2]

If the universe has a cause then what else would it be other than God? The KCA provides a tight proof that there is a cause of the universe. Then it shows that God is the most reasonable cause of that universe. The first part is hard to refute. The second part, the cause being God, is most reasonable and deniers certainly dont have a more plausible explanation.

Deniers have an explanation: Dawkins think its the aliens

 

[benedictus2]

The video that ThinkingSapien cites demonstrates how absurd your notion of God’s being virtuous by honoring this sad excuse for free will is.

Based on the exchange that ThinkingSapien included in his post, the video must be a by product of an little mind incapable of rational thought.

It show a totally impoverished understanding of Christian Theology which will never be remedied because it seems he prefers to be mired in this ignorance, spend his time ridiculing a belief he is clueless about rather than actually exerting some effort and perhaps actually learn first that which he aims to debunk. Sad, pathetic case of a demented Don Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills.

 

[jochoa]

I haven’t “closed my heart to God” any more than I have closed my heart to Horus!
I don’t expect to be able to know God with the intellect alone, but an intellectual basis for even thinking God exists is a prerequisite to knowing him with the heart.

Planty, throughout your posts, you have excellent questions, ones I have also asked. I would like to address and request insight regarding the intellectual basis I found concrete for myself.

Proposed Intellectual Basis for Thinking the Christian-God is The Truth
What is Truth?
a. Patience, Kindness, Motivation, and Role Modeling are the basis for achieving the best (respectively) Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Education.
So who first demonstrated this Truth in its entirety?
b. Jesus role modeled patience, kindness, and motivation through His Crucifixion, and stated loving God is the Greatest.
How do we know?
c. The Writers of the Gospels noted Jesus’ story and defined Jesus’ Method in Greater Detail - Love is patient and kind.
Since Jesus and/or the Writers collectively discovered and shared this knowledge, they can respectfully give credit. Who do they credit? God.

Request for Insight
Planty, given that you have greater knowledge, regarding other religions and beliefs, than I do, which religion and/or philosopher stated and demonstrated this truth as a whole prior to Jesus and the Gospels?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Planty

I don’t expect to be able to know God with the intellect alone, but an intellectual basis for even thinking God exists is a prerequisite to knowing him with the heart.

That there is no intellectual basis for the idea of Deity is refuted below, unless you want to argue those below were not men of great intellect:

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding” (Plato)

“If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal.” Aristotle, Metaphysics (XII.1072b24)

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” Francis Bacon, Philosopher of the Scientific Method

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists …”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

CONTINUED:

CHARLES TOWNES Nobel Laureate in Physics.

On May 24, 2002, Charles Townes wrote a letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. To the inquiry, “What do you think about the existence of God?” Prof. Townes gave the following answer: “I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.” (Townes 2002a).

WILLIAM PHILLIPS Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. …I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.” (Phillips 2002b).

SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG Nobel Laureate in Physics:

“What should be the principles of a nation? …Christ stated them in the form of two Commandments: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart’, and ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ ” (Bragg, as cited in Caroe 1979, 111).

ALEXIS CARREL Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

“We are loved by an immaterial and all-powerful Being. This Being is accessible to our prayers. We must love Him above all creatures. And we ourselves must also love one another.”

“Christianity offers men the very highest of moralities. …It presents to them a God who can be adored because He is within our reach and Whom we ought to love.” (Carrel 1952, Chap. 9, Part 4). “I want to be like smoke in the wind at God’s disposal.” (Carrel, as cited in Newton 1989).

SIR JOHN ECCLES Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

In his article “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God” that he wrote for the book, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984), John Eccles came to the following conclusion:

“We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” (Eccles 1984a, 50).

In an interview published in the scientific anthology, The Voice of Genius (1995), Prof. Eccles stated: “There is a Divine Providence over and above the materialistic happenings of biological evolution.” (Eccles, as cited in Brian 1995, 371).

JOSEPH MURRAY Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

In an interview for the National Catholic Register (December 1-7, 1996), Prof. Joseph Murray asserts that there is no conflict between religion and science:

“Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist - I don’t see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation - the way it emerged - it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I’ve never seen a conflict.” (Murray, as cited in Meyer 1996).

“We’re just working with the tools God gave us. …There’s no reason that science and religion have to operate in an adversarial relationship. Both come from the same source, the only source of truth - the Creator.” (Murray, as cited in Meyer 1996).

SIR ERNST CHAIN Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

Concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution Professor Ernst Chain (who is a theistic evolutionist) states:

“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. …I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts.” (Chain, as cited in Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, pp. 147-148).

In his public lecture “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society” (University of London, February 1970) Sir Ernst Chain declared:

“As far as my own actions are concerned, I am trying to be guided by the laws, ethics and traditions of Judaism as formulated in the Old Testament, which are, of course, also the basis of Christianity. I am convinced, and have been for many years, that it is impossible to construct a sort of absolute and generally applicable code of ethical behaviour on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, if only for the reason that our knowledge about the basic problems of life is far too fragmentary and limited, and will always remain so.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Also:

GEORGE WALD Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

In 1954 Prof. George Wald (who was still an atheist at that time) wrote in Scientific American:

“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Wald 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American.

By the 1980s Wald had repudiated materialism:

“Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

SIR DEREK BARTON Nobel Laureate in Chemistry:

Prof. Barton wrote: “God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.” (Barton, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, 144).

“The observations and experiments of science are so wonderful that the truth that they establish can surely be accepted as another manifestation of God. God shows himself by allowing man to establish truth.” (Barton, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, 145).

CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN Nobel Laureate in Chemistry:

To the question, “Many prominent scientists - including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck - have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?” Christian Anfinsen replied:

“I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” (Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997, 139).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jean Paul Sartre and Antony Flew, two of the most respected atheists of the 20th Century, also repudiated atheism before they died.

 

[Planty_Business]

Charlemagne, I will not deny that there have been many great minds throughout history who have believed in God, though some of the examples you cite border on quote-mining and are not an accurate representation of the quoted people’s views. Einstein, for example, did not believe in a personal God or a creator God of any kind; he believed in, as your quote says, Spinoza’s God, which is basically a form of pantheism, not theism or deism.

But these quotes mean nothing; they are merely the affirmations of intelligent’s people’s belief in God, not cases for the existence of God. Your argument is basically an argument from authority, which does nothing to help your case.

Incidentally, there have also been many ingenious atheists and agnostics throughout history as well. Carl Sagan was somewhere between skeptical agnosticism and pantheism, I believe. Mark Twain was certainly not a theist, at least not a Christian. Bertrand Russell was an atheist, obviously. Many of the Founding Fathers were relatively skeptical for their time, though most of them were deists at the very least. And we cannot forget Epicurus.

But all of these examples are pointless in this debate; just because many theists or atheists throughout history have been intellectuals, that says nothing about whether they were right.

Okay then, what is your objection to the First Cause Proof?

Since the First Cause Proof is very similar to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I will address them both when I respond to exnihilo’s comment about the KCA.

The Christian understanding of God is not a simple deduction or inference from the Supernatural.

Let’s limit the discussion to the generic God, i.e. Creator.

So I restate my question – If you presuppose the possibility of the Supernatural, on what grounds do you deny the possibility of the Creator God’s existence?

I do not deny the possibility of a generic creator god; that would be absurd. I do, however, think that there is no decent reason for me to believe in such a creator god, as I will demonstrate in my critique of the KCA.

Your initial reply makes the assumption that matter is all the reality there is. That is the only way that you can say that reality does not conform to what Charlemagne wants. That statement derives from your materialism.

No, it does not. Surely you don’t think that reality conforms to what you want, do you? Are you a solipsist; do you think that reality only exists insofar as sentient beings perceive it, thus you are free to define reality as whatever you like according to your imagination? That is preposterous. If I want God to not exist, that does not mean that God does not exist in reality. It merely means that, if I am being consistent with my desire, my perception of reality is one in which God does not exist. That does not mean that God does not exist.

But how do you know that for a fact? How do you know that there is no other reality (as what Charlemagne would admit) other than the material reality.[sic]

I do not know that for a fact; again, it would be absurd for me to suggest that the immaterial cannot possibly exist because I cannot detect anything immaterial, much less prove or disprove its existence logically.

I merely subscribe to the philosophy of metaphysical materialism because everything in the history of human experience seems to confirm materialism. My experience is devoid of the immaterial, and I have not been provided with evidence that the immaterial exists, so I do not believe in the immaterial. Technically, I suppose you could say that I am agnostic on the material/immaterial issue, but my belief, based on experience, is that the immaterial does not exist. It is like my atheism; I cannot prove that God does not exist, but my perception of reality is such that God does not exist and has no impact on my life. So I am agnostic, but my belief is materialistic atheism. I am more confident that no gods exist than that at least one god exists. I daresay most theists are agnostic on the issue as well, but their belief is that at least one god exists, despite the fact that this cannot be conclusively proven.

I may believe that but where did I make that claim?

If you were not making the claim that God exists, you would not be a practicing Catholic who actively opposes behaviors that the Catholic Church deems immoral on the basis that they are offensive to God.

 

[Planty_Business]

Can you see how illogical that is? First part says you are not sure he exists then in the second part you claim that he is in your court until he can be proven to exist. How can something be in your court if that something is not even said to exist?

The most that can be said to be in your court is the question of God’s existence not God Himself.

This is correct; I should have made myself clearer here. When I say that “God is in my court”, I mean that “the question of God’s existence is in my court”. It’s figurative language.

Point 2 says that if He existed he needed to earn that respect. Here’s another duh. If God existed and He is everything we say He is, then He does not have to earn your respect. Clearly there is some concept here that you are [not] grasping.

Yes, he does. I do not grant respect to any being simply because that being happens to be my creator. That would be the same ridiculous reasoning that allowed feudalistic monarchs to enjoy priveleges that other people did not enjoy simply because they were not born into royalty.

Firstly, it would help this discussion if you would look up ad hominem and use that correctly. There was no ad hominem.

Ad hominem: A logical fallacy in which one participant in a debate attacks the character of the other participant - rather than that participant’s arguments - and acts as if, by succeeding in an attack on his opponent’s character, he has succeeded in discrediting his opponent’s arguments.

By this definition, yes, you were committing an ad hominem by calling my statement stupid and arrogant - and by extension, offending my intellectual standing - rather than actually addressing my arguments on logical grounds. If you did not think that such a remark added to the merits of your arguments - and detracted from those of mine - you would not have made the remark. Hence, ad hominem.

And no, it is not childish to say that your statement was arrogant and stupid because it plainly was.

You are only proving my point that you are childish for using petty insults rather than actually demonstrating why my statement was “arrogant and stupid”. Clearly it was not either of the two.

Compared to the mass of humanity that have ever lived and now lives, you are an itsy, bitsy,teeny bit of humanity, So why should your opinion matter more than the greater majority of the population?

My opinion matters more because it is an educated opinion. The opinions of the majority of human beings regarding the existence of God are uninformed opinions, based on nothing more than faith and tradition. Yes, some theists have better reasons for their opinions, but they are not the majority either. You are acting as if most theists believe in God for intellectual reasons - as apologists do - when that is not the case at all. Most Christians, if I were to ask them what they think about the KCA, would just give me a puzzled stare. Their pastors and nuns never told them about apologetics. And that is a shame.

And nor does it make your verdict true. But you speak as if you verdict is true and theirs false.

Of course I do! Don’t you have intellectual confidence in your beliefs? Would not you say that my verdict is false, even though you cannot prove that?

Furthermore, you are right, it does not make them part of a different jury. It is one humanity, so therefore one jury of humanity. So, if 1) you take every human being that ever was and is to this point in time and consider that to be the “jury of humanity” and 2) if God’s existence depends on this jury’s vote then by jove, the conclusion could not be anything other than a resounding “He exists!.”

“Resounding” does not mean “unanimous”, which is necessary in a jury’s final, collective verdict. Ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Clearly almost everybody was ready to hang Tom Robinson high, but did that mean that he was guilty? No. Atticus Finch proved him innocent. And many atheists have offered proofs of God’s innocence of existing.

Well then stop speaking as if you do.

I do not, but it seems as if you do.

 

[Planty_Business]

How does a multiverse theory explain a fine tuned universe and gets you out of a God? Are you in Dawkins’ corner in this regard and are therefore appealing to aliens?

Um…no, to the latter question. The multiverse hypothesis explains fine-tuning because, if there is a vast number of universes, the existence of a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life (at least in one very small fraction of that universe) is pretty much inevitable. If this is the only universe, then fine-tuning is more of a difficult problem, for both the theist and the atheist, as I explained given the fact that “God did it” is an unfalsifiable, untestable hypothesis, and it is nothing short of “magic!”.

Secondly, what is the consensus on the multiverse among cosmologists?

I do not know; probably that it is nothing more than an untestable hypothesis at this point. Rather like the God hypothesis.

Adherents of scientism strut around as if they have the intellectual higher ground and regard theists as poor miserable souls helplessly buried in intellectual darkness unable to extricate themselves from the “irrationality” of antiquity.

This is a strawman because I do not subscribe to “scientism”, nor do I feel the need to insult theists on the grounds that they are intellectually inferior.

So therefore you are an Agnostic. To say agnostic-atheist is a ridiculous position Either you are agnostic or you are atheist.

Right; at the time that I described myself as an “agnostic atheist”, I was ignorant of the definition of “atheist”, as many self-proclaimed atheists are. I will change that.

I never argue for the Christian God with atheists. That would be like expecting a primary school child to comprehend calculus.

More insulting ad hominem and condescension, but I digress. Does not Jesus instruct Christians (according to the Bible) to evangelize Christianity, not deism? How would proving a generic creator god to me do anything to help your case, as a Christian? “The Great Debate” by NonStampCollector illustrates this point well.

One thing I have found with atheist in this board through is their inability to keep that. They can’t seem to help going back to what they think is the Christian God in spite of numerous reminders that I am not arguing for this.

A lack of clarity on your part does not constitute a failure of comprehension on mine. You are a Christian, not a deist, so I assumed you wanted me to disprove your God, not a generic god.

So, the same thing with atheists. Since you are the one debunking centuries old belief of the hefty majority of humanity, it is up to you to prove that the hefty majority is wrong.

I agree, which is why I am not a strong atheist. I am a skeptical agnostic, meaning I see no reason to believe that God exists, but I do not pretend to know that he does not.

But here’s the thing. You can’t… and you know you can’t.

I know I can’t disprove God, right, but theists cannot prove him! That is my point; Christians are the ones making a positive claim that God is real. They have to defend that claim rather than hide behind the “quantity over quality” fallacy. Same with strong atheists.

I’ll get back to the rest of your post later; I have other obligations at the moment.

 

[PennyinCanada]

As someone free from alcoholism, from drugs, from being sexually exploited by teenage boys when a teenager myself, (I could go on), and knowing I am a beloved daughter who has a Father in heaven that cares and loves me so much that I would weep if I could comprehend it, I would say I’m so much more free and joyful than an atheist. I have a source of strength in difficulties, I am free from the pressures to wear high heels and worry that I gained a pound. I am so much more than that, because Jesus died for me that I can live and bless others.

 

[Planty_Business]

To exnihilo:

No, the first part is not hard to refute. It is rather easy. Let me explain.

The KCA for the existence of God is as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The cause of the existence of time and space cannot be anything that exists in a realm of time and space.
4. The universe is a realm of time and space.
5. Given 1 and 2, the universe must have a cause.
6. Given 3 and 4, the cause of the existence of the universe must exist outside of the universe, in a realm without limits of time or space.
7. The only being that could fulfill the criteria of 6 is God.
8. Given 5, 6, and 7, God caused the universe to exist.

The primary proponent of the KCA, William Lane Craig, generally shortens the argument down to 1, 2, and 5, omitting the proof that the cause must be God, since that is implied in his view.

So let’s examine the premises one by one.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Is this the case? That depends on if we are talking about “beginning to exist ex nihilo” or “beginning to exist ex materia”. In the latter case, yes, this is true; a human “begins to exist” ex materia; the cause is sexual reproduction, and the materials from which the human begins to exist are the preexisting sperm and egg cells. A human could be said to begin to exist in this manner.

However, a human could not be said to begin to exist ex nihilo. I did not just pop into existence from nothing, without a cause (now the choice of words here is important, so remember the distinction here between “coming into existence from nothing, without a cause” and “coming into existence from nothing”). So I was not created ex nihilo, nor, as per the law of conservation of energy, has anything been created in such a manner for the past 13.7 billion years.

When the KCA refers to “beginning to exist”, in the case of the universe, it means “beginning to exist ex nihilo”. Otherwise, the argument would be asserting that the cause of the universe is material, which is obviously not what theists are aiming for here.

If this is the definition of “begins to exist”, then I see no reason to think that the first premise is valid. There is no evidence in human experience that suggests that anything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause. WLC has actually admitted that his belief in this premise is based primarily on “metaphysical intuition” (the maker of the video “William Lane Craig is Not Doing Himself Any Favors” explains this quite nicely). If you can provide evidence that says this, I would be happy to hear it.

The coming into existence of something ex nihilo with a cause is no less intuitively absurd or illogical than the coming into existence of something ex nihilo uncaused. I maintain that the latter is the case for the universe, as far as we know.

2. The universe began to exist.

This is probably the case. One might argue that a B-theory of time negates the problem of the absurdity of an infinite past, thus calling into question the logical conclusion of premise 2. However, I am not a philosopher of time, so I would not know. As it stands, this premise’s truth does nothing to validate the KCA as a whole.

3. The cause of the existence of time and space cannot be anything that exists in a realm of time and space.

Again, perhaps this could be debated, but it makes logical sense to me.

4. The universe is a realm of time and space.

Agreed.

5. Given 1 and 2, the universe must have a cause.

Now this is where the argument falls apart. As I have shown, it is not necessary for the universe to have a cause, since it came into existence ex nihilo, not ex materia. The argument makes a baseless assertion in premise 1, so much so that even its main proponent acts as if premise 1 is intuitively obvious, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. He would not say this if he could prove the premise on logical grounds rather than intuitive grounds.

6. Given 3 and 4, the cause of the existence of the universe must exist outside of the universe, in a realm without limits of time or space.

If a cause were necessary, this would be true.

7. The only being that could fulfill the criteria of 6 is God.

This is the other huge hole in the argument. The leap from “only a timeless, spaceless being could be the cause of the universe if a cause is necessary” to “the cause must be a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being” is illogical. So far, I have not heard a decent defense of this premise even by its main proponent.

8. Given 5, 6, and 7, God caused the universe to exist.

Given that premises 1, 5, and 7 are false, this conclusion is false as well.

This is by no means an extensive critique. The video I have cited is more comprehensive. Interestingly, WLC responded to the initial critique made by the uploader of that video, and he has neither refuted his critique nor refrained from elitist condescension towards the uploader on the grounds that he does not have professional credentials. How disappointing.

As for your other remark, that was not the point of the video. Its point was to illustrate that the Christian God’s idea of a free choice regarding one’s eternal destiny is not truly free. It is actually blackmail. The only choices given are “worship God forever” or “burn in hell forever”. An actual free choice would not only include the option to not worship God but to also escape damnation, it would also include sufficient evidence to think that this choice is even given to humans.

Refusing to worship God in no way has the same natural negative consequences that overeating (your own example) does. The latter is a result of the pitiless indifference of nature. The former is the result of a petty god’s jealousy and hubris.

 

[exnihilo]

Deniers have an explanation: Dawkins think its the aliens

And Hawkins says something like the universe would create itself.

Einstein, for example, did not believe in a personal God or a creator God of any kind; he believed in, as your quote says, Spinoza’s God, which is basically a form of pantheism, not theism or deism.

Of course this is not a proof of anything but people always appeal to Einstein when Kurt Goedel was probably the greater mind. In fact

Einstein once remarked to Oskar Morgenstern, one of the cofounders of game theory, that he went to the Institute chiefly to walk home with Gödel.

Source

Goedel believed in a personal God. He also came up with an ontological argument that he was reluctant to share because he was concerned with the negative reaction it might cause from his fellow scientists.

If this is the definition of “begins to exist”, then I see no reason to think that the first premise is valid. There is no evidence in human experience that suggests that anything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause.

The coming into existence of something ex nihilo with a cause is no less intuitively absurd or illogical than the coming into existence of something ex nihilo uncaused. I maintain that the latter is the case for the universe, as far as we know.

So the opposite would be true (if you are going to deny the truth of this principle the opposite *must *be true) anything that begins to exists has no cause? You would advocate for a causeless world where anything could pop into existence at any moment without cause?

The fact that things dont tend to pop into existence is in fact evidence for the fact that things dont begin to exists ex nihilo without a cause. If the opposite were true we would have things frequently popping into existence.

To reject this premise is to reject causality. That is an extreme measure for the purpose of rejecting this argument. You would be undermining all of science since it would be unreliable due to the random popping into existence that surely must be taking place.

As for your other remark, that was not the point of the video. Its point was to illustrate that the Christian God’s idea of a free choice regarding one’s eternal destiny is not truly free. It is actually blackmail. The only choices given are “worship God forever” or “burn in hell forever”. An actual free choice would not only include the option to not worship God but to also escape damnation, it would also include sufficient evidence to think that this choice is even given to humans.

If annihilation was the choice people would still complain about that not being a free choice. I just restate that it is unreasonable to expect a world without consequences for your choices.