Why are you an Atheist? - Catholic Answers Live - 12Nov2018

[Damian]

We don’t know why consciousness of some things occurs but not others, it just happens. Explaining precisely nothing.

Yes you’re right. Stating “We don’t know.” doesn’t explain it because it an honest response to the question being asked. Sorry you don’t get everything tied off in a neat little bow, but that just points out what I pointed out much earlier, “The more we learn, the more we learn what we don’t know.” But we all need to learn what is justified to conclude about reality. Saying “We don’t know” is actually the true honest answer. You can have an argument about how to weed out the logical conclusions of where to study reality next to solve our current barrier of “We don’t know”, but you’re not at all justified in concluding your logical model is actually true for reality until you run the test and reality actually demonstrates that for you.

At least positing a transcendent reality points to an explanation

No argument here, but you’re not justified in concluding that its actually true for reality yet. That’s all I’m pointing out.

 

[Damian]

The physical-chemical world would, apparently just go on doing its thing without any conscious observers being necessary to begin with.

Yes you’re right, this is demonstrated in reality right now with amoebas. They are biological organisms that are just responding to the biochemistry of their environment. They are not as developed in their processes of responding to the environment to be conscious of what they are doing it seems. However, we are advanced enough in this process with our brains to be able to be both conscious and unconscious of the decision making processes of the biochemical pathways in our brains it seems.

 

[vz71]

The story doesn’t exist prior to the author,

And by what process was it created?
Having talked to many writers, the words and ideas are there before they are actually written.
Where?

 

[IWantGod]

Sure just like 1+1=2 is completely justifiable and defensible. But when you claim 1 apple +2 apples = 3 apples. That is a claim that is in direct reference to reality.

Firstly, making a metaphysical argument is not the same thing as claiming that there are 3 particular apples in reality. Metaphysical arguments deal with the general fact of being as opposed to nothing at all and the necessary requirements in-order for a thing to be a thing and not nothing. It has nothing to do with the particulars of a beings nature and whether or not a particular contingent possibility exists…

Secondly you seem to be subscribing to either logical relativism. or the idea that we cannot know metaphysical absolutes.

Accept, we know the idea that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time is a reference to reality because that is what reality demonstrates to us all. A being is not absolutely nothing, and so we can in fact know a metaphysical absolute, and we can know that certain truths follow necessarily from that absolute. Thus i have refuted your position and therefore proven you incorrect.The scientific method is not required for that kind of knowledge.

It’s now a question of whether or not you are going to continue being in denial.

 

[Wozza]

Hi Damien,

I think you are struggling in unreasonable denial. Rather than offering a long series of supernatural events let’s just look at Fatima. Do your own research if you have an open mind.

Weeks beforehand the children asked for a sign so people would believe them. They were given a day a time and a place for any doubters like you to ridicule and prove them silly.

70 + thousand turned up and it poured rain all morning to render the area a quagmire by the due time. Suddenly the Sun began to dance changing colours then fell down upon the terrified crowd whilst religious images appeared in the sky and many invalids and sick were instantly cured. People some 25miles away also witnessed the phenomenon. Photographs Newspaper reports supported the numerous testimonies. The children also reported many predictions regarding the wars and Russia that proved totally accurate.

Damien I am beginning to think that if you lost an arm and grew another you would see it as natural. I forgot to mention that when the sun retired everyone found themselves and the once swampy ground completely dry.

Is it your position that the more witnesses there are then the more likely it is for an event to have actually happened?

 

[Wozza]

HarryStotle:

The physical-chemical world would, apparently just go on doing its thing without any conscious observers being necessary to begin with.

Yes you’re right, this is demonstrated in reality right now with amoebas. They are biological organisms that are just responding to the biochemistry of their environment. They are not as developed in their processes of responding to the environment to be conscious of what they are doing it seems. However, we are advanced enough in this process with our brains to be able to be both conscious and unconscious of the decision making processes of the biochemical pathways in our brains it seems.

There seems to be an idea that one either has consciousness or one doesn’t. But as far as I can see, there is a gradual and continuous line from acting purely automatically and acting consciously. There’s no problem in using the term ‘subconsciously’ for acting automatically (as when one is driving without consciously thinking about changing speed, changing gear etc) . But some may reject the term being used, for example, an amoeba acting to avoid a certain environment, in that you need consciousness in the first instance to be able to act sub consciously.

Notwithstanding that, it is not credible to think that somehow a switch is flicked at some point during the evolution of a species so that at one point it is acting automatically (acting subconsciously) and then is immediately fully conscious of its surroundings and its place within it.

So it appears obvious to me that consciousness evolves gradually. We automatically and subconsciously remove our hand from a hot surface just as an amoeba would recoil from a heat source. Yet we have developed the ability for conscious thought which allows us to avoid the danger in the first instance.

The latter is simply a more evolved version of the former. Exactly what it is seems to be a problem for us to describe. But how it came to be seems not to be a problem.

 

[Wozza]

It isn’t as if consciousness is a prerequisite for survival or life. So why isn’t at all unconscious? Why the woke observer part, if everything is simply biochemical reactions to begin with?

Let’s say that something like an amoeba recoils from a heat source. Totally instinctive. No consciousness. Just like when we unconsciously remove our hand from a hot metal rod.

But we can make a conscious decision not to reach for the rod as well. Is there significant difference in pulling our hand away automatically, making an unconscious decision not to touch it and consciously avoiding it? I say it’s only a matter of degree.

It’s simply parts of our nervous system being able to store past events to a greater extent. The more neurons you have available for this loop of information, the more aware you are of your environment. That is, the more consciousness you have.

And that has a huge survival benefit. So evolution will tend in that direction.

 

[goout]

As human beings we are the only creature that can ponder the meaning of our own life, do self reflection, think about where we came from, where we are going.

Atheists (I’m sorry) deny human nature. Human beings are wired to seek that which transcends the material and observable world.
(I mean, here we are with 400 posts debating abstract concepts, looking for Truth, while an atheist can’t explain love, peace, joy, meaning, purpose… while insisting all of life is materially reducible. Circular, but it’s all good. )

 

[Wozza]

As human beings we are the only creature that can ponder the meaning of our own life, do self reflection, think about where we came from, where we are going.

Atheists (I’m sorry) deny human nature. Human beings are wired to seek that which transcends the material and observable world.
(I mean, here we are with 400 posts debating abstract concepts, looking for Truth, while an atheist can’t explain love, peace, joy, meaning, purpose… while insisting all of life is materially reducible. Circular, but it’s all good. )

Why do you think that if life is materially reducible then we cannot explain love and joy as being aspects of reality? This has always puzzled me. ‘You are a materialist therefore you don’t accept there is something called love’.

Abject nonsense.

If you are a chemist, all is not reduced to simple chemical equations. if you are a molecular scientist, life is not simply quarks and neutrons. Where does this idea come from?

If you explain the colour of a rose by means of light absorbtion and rceptors in the eye and electrical charges stimulating parts of the brain, does that make it less beautiful? It’s simply a different aspect of the one thing.

Is it that claiming that atheists (who are not all materialists in any case) ‘don’t understand’ implies that you are somehow better positioned to make declarations on life? That we poor schmucks are trapped in an unthinking world of bytes and wave functions and electrical charges?

It’s worth repeating: Abject nonsense.

 

[Benny44]

Hi Wozza

Truth is truth but the more witnesses the more credible is a claim - certainly in a court of law or public opinion.

 

[Benny44]

Hi again

If numbers prove anything google Our Lady of Zeitoun as over 1million saw a woman hover over and around a Church in Egypt between 1968 and 70. There is ample photographic proof of this supernatural event. The army did all they could to stop people from seeing it. She appeared both day and night sometimes minutes other times hours.

 

[Wozza]

Hi Wozza

Truth is truth but the more witnesses the more credible is a claim - certainly in a court of law or public opinion.

Indeed. But you weren’t discussing courts of law of public opinion. Just whether more witnesses to a supernatural event increases the probablity of something being true. Like Zeitoun for example.

Hi again

If numbers prove anything google Our Lady of Zeitoun as over 1million saw a woman hover over and around a Church in Egypt between 1968 and 70. There is ample photographic proof of this supernatural event. The army did all they could to stop people from seeing it. She appeared both day and night sometimes minutes other times hours.

‘A woman’? is that how you describe the mother of your Lord? It was the Virgin Mary who was reported to have been seen. Not just ‘a woman’.

And ‘ample’ is a little vague. Seeing as over a million people were present at various times and this was in the 60’s when photography was hardly in its infancy, can you be specific on the number of photos available and the amount of film available (because tv crews were present)? I can only find 3 or 4. and this being the biggest event of the century, I thought there might have been more.

And did you know that one of the very few photographs shows Mary with a halo? Maybe you can explain why.

And while you are at it, seeing as this was so well documented a miracle and there were so many witnesses, the Catholic Church does not recognise its validity. Although it seems that you do. Do you have evidence that your church does not?

And Mary appeared not just the once, but on many ocassions. for a considerable time each time. On the roof of a church. Which was (and still is), easily accesible. Have you never thought why nobody climbed the stairs to the roof to check this out?

And more witnesses equals greater validity. Are you sure you are still going with that?

 

[Benny44]

Hi Wozza I do not know your position thinking I could be talking to another Damien who thinks regrowing an amputated arm as natural. He might claim the apparition as a plasma ball when even to the worst sceptic it had the form of a woman though people of faith familiar with similar appearances would recognise the mother of Jesus.

I am not promoting this event just offering a supernatural one seen by a large number of witnesses. The apparition by the way usually hovered above not touching the Coptic Church sometimes to the side, often stationary but sometimes moving

 

[Wozza]

Hi Wozza I do not know your position thinking I could be talking to another Damien who thinks regrowing an amputated arm as natural. He might claim the apparition as a plasma ball when even to the worst sceptic it had the form of a woman though people of faith familiar with similar appearances would recognise the mother of Jesus.

I am not promoting this event just offering a supernatural one seen by a large number of witnesses. The apparition by the way usually hovered above not touching the Coptic Church sometimes to the side, often stationary but sometimes moving

I think you are promoting this event as an example of many people witnessing a supernatural event as adding veracity to it. But you didn’t answer any of the questions which would add credence to the event.

Such as hkw many pictures there are available and why Mary was shown with a halo and wby your church has not accepted it as a venuine miracle.

Perhaps you could clear up these points. Otherwise this miracle might appear not to be genuine. Which will counter your argument.

 

[Benny44]

Hi Wozza

The apparition appeared over and around a Coptic not Catholic Church. Even when light issued from the grave of St Chanel the Catholic Church was silent as it was not their position to make judgement. Good photos show 12 stars surrounding Our Lady’s head not a halo.

But Wozza you are missing my point. I am simply giving an example from numerous of a supernatural event witnessed by heaps making denial an arrogant petulant stubborn unreasonable position.

 

[Benny44]

Wozza the danger of auto correction - Saint Charbel not Chanel

 

[Wozza]

Hi Wozza

The apparition appeared over and around a Coptic not Catholic Church. Even when light issued from the grave of St Chanel the Catholic Church was silent as it was not their position to make judgement. Good photos show 12 stars surrounding Our Lady’s head not a halo.

But Wozza you are missing my point. I am simply giving an example from numerous of a supernatural event witnessed by heaps making denial an arrogant petulant stubborn unreasonable position.

Looks like a halo to me. Any idea why Mary is shown with one? And this is the best photo of about half a dozen that exist. Pretty pathetic for an apparition that was seen over a period of weeks for up to an hour a time.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And you are incorrect in saying that the Catholic church could not make a judgement. They could and they chose not to. So what you class as a supernatural event, the church decided was not.

And it does appear that you claim that the more people see an event then the more likely it is to be true. As you say, if it is seen by many then denial would be ‘an arrogant petulant stubborn unreasonable position.’

Presumably the converse would be true. The less people who see an event, the less likely it is to be true. Which kinda throws doubt on some events you hold to be factual.

Maybe we should agree that the number of people which are reported to have seen an event is less important than evidence. Which hearsay is not.

 

[Benny44]

Hi Wozza the Coptic Church declared it a miracle. It would be seen as patronising for the Catholic Church to make judgement. Truth is truth and is not rested on a show of hands though a million witnesses make it hard to deny. The Church made a careful investigation before it declared it worthy of belief. There have been outstanding miracles at Lourdes with valid supporting medical evidence such as a man with a leg shattered with a canon shot infected with gangrene healed instantly with xrays showing bone repair - but no million witnesses. I have seen better photos. Fatima miracle is irresistible as it was predicted to happen by small children and a high proportion of the crowd there to prove it would be a fizzier.

 

[Benny44]

Wozza there is ample proof of a supernatural realm to put atheists in a corner to either accept reality or live in shallow denial.

Guadalupe, St Joan of Arc, Lourdes, Fatima, etc; I have seen a bleeding Host, a lady with stigmata that is bleeding on Friday and heals on Saturday, a lady bent over for 20 yrs with a spinal disorder instantly cured plus some amazing conversions.

I recommend you watch the testimony of Roy Shoeman recently put on line - starts slow but worth sticking with.

 

[Wozza]

Hi Wozza the Coptic Church declared it a miracle. It would be seen as patronising for the Catholic Church to make judgement. Truth is truth and is not rested on a show of hands though a million witnesses make it hard to deny. The Church made a careful investigation before it declared it worthy of belief. There have been outstanding miracles at Lourdes with valid supporting medical evidence such as a man with a leg shattered with a canon shot infected with gangrene healed instantly with xrays showing bone repair - but no million witnesses. I have seen better photos. Fatima miracle is irresistible as it was predicted to happen by small children and a high proportion of the crowd there to prove it would be a fizzier.

Benny, I don’t think that you know enough about these matters for a sensible conversation to proceed. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.