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

[Damian]

reality comes from nothing

I also don’t agree that reality comes from nothing.

if nothing is possible

Now you’ve transitioned out of arguing about reality and just arguing about a logical concept. Arguing about logical concepts is perfectly fine once everyone agrees with the terms and language, just like arguing about why 1+1=2. We’re just arguing about the logical concept of that mathematical equation.

therefore it cannot be the cause of reality.

Never stated it was.

a being causes

Trying to sneak in your deity here. The correct phrase is “only something can come from something” in reference to what reality demonstrates.

From nothing, nothing comes.

Now you’re back to logical arguments not referring to reality. See how you keep bouncing back and forth it seems to me? Yes we can talk about how 0 does not equal 1.

 

[IWantGod]

I also don’t agree that reality comes from nothing.

IWantGod:

Therefore if a thing begins to exist it is caused to exist by power or nature of another being.

 

[Damian]

power or nature of another being.

No, you go to far here. You can’t be this targeted on the conclusion. You have to leave it as broad as possible since we have no way to determine anything else about this starting point other than its a starting point. So it’s a something, but not a nothing.

 

[IWantGod]

No, you go to far here. You can’t be this targeted on the conclusion. You have to leave it as broad as possible since we have no way to determine anything else about this starting point other than its a starting point. So it’s a something, but not a nothing.

If a thing begins to exist, and If nothing cannot cause a being to exist (WHICH YOU AGREED), then the only other possibility is that the being’s existence is caused by another being; things are caused to exist by other things. There are no other possibilities, thus you cannot say that we cannot know…

Otherwise you are being dishonest…

 

[Damian]

You missed what I was disagreeing to. I was disagreeing with the word “Being”. Its too targeted since the religious use “Being” to mean a mind or an entity of a deity or something anthropromorphized. We have to stay as nebulous with our language of “first cause”, that’s why I disagree with the word “Being” because its too targeted instead of staying with the nebulous term, “Something” when we reference first-cause. That’s all I’m objecting to.

 

[Crocus]

We have to stay as nebulous with our language of “first cause”, that’s why I disagree with the word “Being” because its too targeted instead of staying with the nebulous term, “Something” when we reference first-cause. That’s all I’m objecting to.

Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

Behold, your God, by the name of “Something” for the time being, until on more intimate terms.

 

[Damian]

So god to you is just an unknown first cause? Well that’s progress of a sort. Now that we’ve got the religious to, again move the goal post of what a god is, from what the bible describes and the religious literature, to just an unknown first cause. All we have to do now is ditch the label of god and just go with unknown first cause since there’s no need for the apparently ever changing nebulous label of “god” to something clear and concise, “unknown first cause”.

 

[vz71]

You misinterpreted the scripture.
Was that deliberate?

 

[Damian]

Did I misinterpret or Crocus? Who are you asking? If its me, then, as a methodological naturalist and secular humanist, I don’t worship and I don’t have ‘gods’. Its not something I regard as a value that people practice. To worship, means to shelf your moral assessment of the object you are worshiping and become an instrument for that object to work through you. The worshiper will do whatever the worshiped desires them to do, regardless of any moral assessment or judgement of the action.

 

[Crocus]

So god to you is just an unknown first cause? Well that’s progress of a sort. Now that we’ve got the religious to, again move the goal post of what a god is, from what the bible describes and the religious literature, to just an unknown first cause. All we have to do now is ditch the label of god and just go with unknown first cause since there’s no need for the apparently ever changing nebulous label of “god” to something clear and concise, “unknown first cause”.

Sorry, that’s not what I said. Was simply affirming your chosen language (“first cause” and “Something” in post #433) as true progress in this discussion. That you can use even nebulous terms for a concept that others call by another name, that’s progress.

I don’t worship and I don’t have ‘gods’.

This point has been made very clear. Respect your choice in the matter, and I think most if not all others do too.

 

[Damian]

I see what we’re talking about here. Let me know if this sounds right. You are talking about the label of the first cause concept, but refer to it as a god and, I assume, that you apply all the additional baggage that goes along with that. I just acknowledge that it makes sense to conclude there was a first cause. But I don’t go any further than that. So it’s like we both acknowledge that before X happened, Y happened before X. But the religious are turning the concept of Y into something to worship with all the baggage that goes with that. But it’s still just Y to me, a place holder, nothing more.

 

[Crocus]

I just acknowledge that it makes sense to conclude there was a first cause.

I’m good with that.