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

[Damian]

Guess this is the difference in our world views. I’ll accept something as true for reality when reality demonstrates it. You’re using logic to define something into existence it seems when you can’t demonstrate it.

 

[IWantGod]

I’ll accept something as true for reality when reality demonstrates it.

Reality does demonstrate it. And i showed you how it does, and you are ignoring it, and i know that because you are not addressing it.You are merely building straw-men and knocking them over, using the fallacy that only scientific knowledge is possible and perpetuating the false claim that I’m using principles that are not grounded in reality. That points to more than just a difference in our worldviews.

 

[vz71]

Guess this is the difference in our world views. I’ll accept something as true for reality when reality demonstrates it.

Not as long as you claim human emotions in animals.

 

[goout]

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.

Wrong, we are the only ones that can communicate this concept to other human beings. Elephants and primates are able to express all the ranges of emotion that people do, just they don’t speak your language, for example.

Do you see how you misunderstood what was said? It’s hard to see how you can conflate self awareness and self reflection with “ranges of emotions”.

In my opinion, you are not thinking, you are throwing batter against the wall, hoping it sticks and forms a waffle.

 

[Damian]

But as far as I can see, there is a gradual and continuous line from acting purely automatically and acting consciously.

Yes I agree here. The term, “Consciousness” is a term applied to a mental process. The degree of “consciousness” seems to be what you’re referring to.

 

[Wozza]

Couldn’t agree more.

There is some confusion over anthropomorphising. Which can be cleared up by moving away from describing emotions such as love and hate and fear as human emotions in the first instance.

What we see exhibited in the great apes, for example, could be described as love and compassion in themselves. It’s not human love and compassion but it looks exactly how we descibe those emotions. If it walks like a duck…

And it sure looks to me as if a great ape exhibits self awareness. Ape socities are based on hierarchies and what better example of being self aware when you exhibit awareness of where you are in that hierarchy. So it doesn’t take too much of a leap to realise that self awareness is an evolved condition.

 

[Damian]

and we know what nothing is

We do understand what the concept of “nothing” is, but reality has yet to demonstrate that the concept of absolute “nothing” has ever existed. So I agree that reality does indicate that something comes from something, but reality has yet to demonstrate that a deity or the concept of “nothing” is actually part of reality yet. So again, back to the logical models, “0+0=1” that is the logical representation of nothing creating something. Yes it logically doesn’t make sense. But, again, our logical understanding is based off what reality demonstrates to be the case and we create the logical models first off of referencing what reality demonstrates to be possible. So that is why I use what reality demonstrates to be possible as a justified true belief to hold about reality, not our logical models that have yet to be verified to be possible. We can be justified to use our logical conclusions to determine where to investigate in reality for that logical conclusion though, but until we actually discover it, we are not justified to hold that logical conclusion as actually true about reality.

 

[vz71]

There are no specifically “human” emotions, and “animal” emotions. There are simply emotions, a certain configuration of the neural system, which we call “happiness” or “sadness” or some other type of emotions.

The only experience we have is what humans feel. We have no frame of reference with which to claim any other species feels the same thing.
projecting our feelings upon another species is the definition of anthropomorphism.

But the higher animals, and especially the great apes exhibit very similar signs as we do, so to associate those signs with our emotions is an obvious extrapolation.

Given the fuss created over God being something that cannot be tested, it would appear the height of hypocrisy to be making these extrapolations

admit that some of the great apes are much more civilized than humans. The bonobos live their life according to the principle of “make love not war”… When they are upset, they don’t fight, rather engage in sexual activities. If only humans would reach that level if civilized behavior.

To come to this conclusion, one must make a tremendous leap of faith into something that we simply cannot know.

There is some confusion over anthropomorphising. Which can be cleared up by moving away from describing emotions such as love and hate and fear as human emotions in the first instance.

One needs to know what exactly these animals think in order to determine if what they are experiencing is anything at all like human emotions. Until we know that, our only evidence tells us these are human emotions.

 

[Wozza]

One needs to know what exactly these animals think in order to determine if what they are experiencing is anything at all like human emotions. Until we know that, our only evidence tells us these are human emotions.

No. These are not just human emotions. We cannot claim them for ourselves. They are emotions in themselves.

It is PLAINLY obvious that animals experience fear. And we know that not by comparing their reactions to ourselves but to comparing their actions to what we define as fear.

And check out the definition of that word and there is no mention of it being solely a human reaction. So why would you claim that love or hate or regret or pride are only human constructs?

 

[vz71]

So why would you claim that love or hate or regret or pride are only human constructs?

Because they are.
The only evidence we have indicates humans are the only species to experience love, hate, regret, or pride.

It is PLAINLY obvious that animals experience fear.

No, it is obvious that they experience something.
We cannot know the specifics of what they feel any more then we could describe what it is like to have gills.

These are not just human emotions. We cannot claim them for ourselves. They are emotions in themselves.

Until we can definitely say that the emotions are common to all, they are not.
And since they are unique to humans, they are human emotions.

 

[IWantGod]

We do understand what the concept of “nothing” is, but reality has yet to demonstrate that the concept of absolute “nothing” has ever existed. So I agree that reality does indicate that something comes from something, but reality has yet to demonstrate that a deity or the concept of “nothing” is actually part of reality yet.

You don’t seem to understand what i am saying. It’s irrelevant whether or not we have scientific evidence of nothing (an empirically measurable nothing is an absurd notion to begin with anyway). We do not need scientific evidence to know the general fact that things come from things because we know that absolutely nothing is the ontological absence of things; otherwise the concept is meaningless.

As far as God being the cause of all contingent things, i am not going to waste my time debating you on that subject because you refuse to accept basic ontological facts without any reasonable justification. and you assert the epistemological authority of the empirical method where it has none.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So why would you claim that love or hate or regret or pride are only human constructs?

Because they are.
The only evidence we have indicates humans are the only species to experience love, hate, regret, or pride.

It is PLAINLY obvious that animals experience fear.

No, it is obvious that they experience something.
We cannot know the specifics of what they feel any more then we could describe what it is like to have gills.

These are not just human emotions. We cannot claim them for ourselves. They are emotions in themselves.

Until we can definitely say that the emotions are common to all, they are not.
And since they are unique to humans, they are human emotions.

So a dog has been beaten regularly and now you approach it with a stick. It cowers in tbe corner of the room. It defecates and urinates as you raise your arm. It tries to turn away from any blow. It whimpers and whines.

What on EARTH would be the word you would best use to describe what it is feeling?

Then when you have answered that, to save me typing it out again, just replace the word ‘dog’ with ‘child’ and answer the same question.

 

[vz71]

If you see a rabid dog attacking you, you do not “believe”… wow, nice puppy, let’s pet it.

Rabid dogs illustrate symptoms of the illness.
One is not looking at emotions, they are looking at a threatening animal.

“if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, then it is extremely probable that it IS a duck and not a platypus in disguise”

Yet this argument is insufficient when the prospect of God is brought up.

 

[vz71]

So a dog has been beaten regularly and now you approach it with a stick. It cowers in tbe corner of the room. It defecates and urinates as you raise your arm. It tries to turn away from any blow. It whimpers and whines.

What on EARTH would be the word you would best use to describe what it is feeling?

I wouldn’t.
What a dog feels is unknown to me.

That said, a great deal of what you describe is submissive behavior that would be common in a pack animal that has an alpha they submit to.

Perhaps the animal is communicating submission to a superior force.

 

[vz71]

Then when you have answered that, to save me typing it out again, just replace the word ‘dog’ with ‘child’ and answer the same question.

A human child we could say is experiencing fear.
We can say this because we are human and can empathize with other humans.

A human child does not communicate as dogs in a pack.

 

[vz71]

Only to a veterinarian. To an everyday person it displays anger, and aggression - obvious “emotions”.

You are reading further into this and claiming information you do not have.
There is a much simpler reason people would stay away from a rabid dog that does not at all involve emotions on the part of the animal.

The frothing mouth, erratic behavior, and gnashing teeth indicate danger to most.

 

[Damian]

You don’t seem to understand what i am saying. It’s irrelevant whether or not we have scientific evidence of nothing ( an empirically measurable nothing is an absurd notion to begin with anyway ). We do not need scientific evidence to know the general fact that things come from things because we know that absolutely nothing is the absence of things ; otherwise the concept is meaningless.

All of this falls under my objection that you can be logically correct, but factually wrong when referencing reality because what reality demonstrates to you for existence is what is justified to believe about existence claims of reality. The idea of the concept of “nothing” is exactly no different to me than the mathematical concept of “0”. These are just logical concepts to consider because an absolute “nothing” has yet to be demonstrated as possible at all in reality yet. So all this argument is doing is forcing people to argue about mathematical model idea of “0=1” concept. “Nothing can result in something.” argument.

As far as God being the cause of all contingent things, i am not going to waste my time debating you on that subject because you refuse to accept basic ontological facts without any reasonable justification.

That’s fine because you understand my objection to making claims about reality when reality does not demonstrate that to be possible at all to even consider.
Seems like the idea of a deity is being pushed back to being no different than the label of “first cause”. Well that’s progress of a sort. Where the religious claims are forced to be updated to what reality actually demonstrates and what logic dictates just so that religion can continue to be relevant to society instead of going the way of alchemy and astrology. But no more claims to magical powers, intervening hands of miracles, no more appealing to a divine dear leader to appease, etc. Deity = First cause, so the next step is just to ditch the idea of a deity and just say “first cause” because we have no way of concluding anything at all about what this “first cause” is.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So a dog has been beaten regularly and now you approach it with a stick. It cowers in tbe corner of the room. It defecates and urinates as you raise your arm. It tries to turn away from any blow. It whimpers and whines.

What on EARTH would be the word you would best use to describe what it is feeling?

I wouldn’t.
What a dog feels is unknown to me.

Abject nonsense. You have now given up the right to continue in any rational debate. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, for what it was worth.

 

[vz71]

Abject nonsense. You have now given up the right to continue in any rational debate. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, for what it was worth.

Generally when people run out of logic and reason, they resort to personal attack.
With that in mind, I ask…other then personal attacks, do you have anything of substance?

 

[IWantGod]

The idea of the concept of “nothing” is exactly no different to me than the mathematical concept of “0”. These are just logical concepts to consider because an absolute “nothing” has yet to be demonstrated as possible at all in reality yet.

What does this have to do with my argument? What difference does it make that we cannot demonstrate that nothing is possible?

If nothing is impossible then it certainly cannot be true that reality comes from nothing because it is the ontological absence of things. And if nothing is possible we still know that nothing is the absence of reality and therefore it cannot be the cause of reality. Either way only a being causes the existence of another being, not nothing. From nothing, nothing comes.