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

[goout]

Here’s the problem with having me define what your god is. It will always be the wrong description of what you think a deity is. “That’s not my god” response. So it’s your deity, its your belief, you tell me what it is.

Define your wife(husband) for us. And I am not talking merely about her material stuff as perceived by you. Define her in the context of your relationship. Define and give evidence for the commitment you share, the joy you bring each other.

The Christian context for all of this is relationship . Dry definitions only go so far.
So faith for instance, is not merely an intellectual exercise defined by evidence. It is a participation . Faith is a response in relationship, not a thing . A car is a thing. Faith is not like a car.
If you want to understand what you are searching for here, you must start in this relationship context, or nothing else follows. Good faith discussion always leads a person to seriously consider things that are inimical to your own point of view. This is hard, and it is risky, because we become attached to our own beliefs.

So I would ask you, or challenge you, to ponder these items first in the context of relationship. And if that is difficult, think about those people you have trust in, those people you love, and how these terms work in this context. You might discover realities that are not reducible to the evidence you require of Christianity.
But, it’s hard to accomplish anything when we are speaking two entirely different languages.

 

[Damian]

I am human, with human abilities, and human understanding. So, by logic, this deity is forced to interact with us in a way that humans can understand. Otherwise, by your logic, if I was to be a deity to an ant colony, who are the ants to demand that I reveal myself to them in a way that ants can understand. How arrogant is it that ants should demand proper communication and understanding? I mean they should just work this out for themselves right? and if they get it wrong, I don’t need to clarify things, but I do need to destroy them under a magnifying glass for hurting my feelings that they don’t have the capacity to understand my needs and desires right?

Such as? James Randy has a $1,000,000.00 prize for anyone that can provide this.

Okay, then sit in a chair and choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. That amount of evidence is subjective as well right? You can lie to everyone else that you believe that you are not sitting in a chair, but you can not lie to yourself. Our beliefs/conclusions are not a choice we make. Its just the results from our logic and understanding of reality at that point. A + B = C. A and B are just facts we experience in reality. The + and = is our education about reality and applied logic. C is the belief/conclusion about that experience. Its not a choice you can make. You can choose to lie about your belief about the experience to others for social reward, but you can not lie to yourself about it.

 

[Arwing]

It is changing because deciding to make a universe is a change.

Why do you think at one point God “decided” to make a universe?

 

[Damian]

Whats your point in a nutshell

The first three posts are my point that Trent and I barely got to scratch the surface on. So I brought the argument here to flush it out and see where it goes. Its important to talk to people outside of your conclusions of understood reality to see the other side and vice versa for them as well. If theists really do want people to believe what they believe, then they need to understand why their proposals break down on the other side, from the people of that side instead of from their religious leaders.

 

[Damian]

Faith and belief are not the same thing, for example you have no faith but you have a lot of belief there is no God.

I agree faith and belief are different. That’s why I pointed out the difference and I don’t see how having faith is a virtue.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Nothing is the noun in that sentence. Any noun can be describe as unchanging. You can still be an unchanging state of not being.

Nothing is the state of not being. You cannot be unchanging if you do not exist.

Think about why you’re here. If you’re just here to argue, please let me know and I won’t waste my time.

 

[goout]

Roseeurekacross:

Faith and belief are not the same thing, for example you have no faith but you have a lot of belief there is no God.

I agree faith and belief are different. That’s why I pointed out the difference and I don’t see how having faith is a virtue.

Faith is a virtue because it leads to ever deepening relationship between the faithful, and that is good.
For example, my wife and I developed a relationship, and in that relationship we respond to each other (that’s what faith is), trusting the other’s whole person, the integrity of the person, the motives of the person, etc…Accepting the whole person, good and bad. That leads to fruitfullness whether by children or the unitive goods of having a relationship: peace, joy, etc…common purpose, giving sign to the world of forgiveness and harmony…

Perhaps you see virtue as merely a negative restriction on the passions of a person. Not so. Virtue is the practiced employ of the quality itself which leads to the good of all involved.
Faith is not an intellectual exercise or a word on a page, it is a living thing between persons.

 

[Damian]

Is God just an experiment to you? No phone call or text from God in your experiment = God does not exist. . I say you are not serious about letting God into your life, or even desiring God in your life.

Yes, same as if I said I met a new student today called Jenny. I tell you she’s really great and you two would get along. Well go “run the experiment” and look in the class room for Jenny. Oh it’s an empty room? Well you didn’t have the desire to meet or see Jenny then right. That’s your fault for experiencing an empty room. It’s not the fault of Jenny for not revealing herself to you in the empty room right?

certainly not scientific.

Any claim about reality is a scientific claim because that’s what science is. Its the application of our logic to explore justified conclusions made in reference to reality. So when you say that reality has a deity it in, we need to investigate that claim to see if reality demonstrates that. That is a scientific process. So I ran the prayer experiment and got white noise. So clearly that experiment failed. Got another one I can try because at this point your deity is playing the best game of Hide and Go Seek there is. It’s all an empty room still.

As to “keep praying” - sorry but once was enough. Also the man on the road to Damascus wasn’t praying and the deity revealed itself to him too. If I keep praying, all I’ll be doing is publicly performing your social religious customs so that everyone can see a religious display of relevancy of this culture. Well sorry, but your cultural traditions are not mine to advertise for. I’m not going to be your billboard recruiting tool.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

None of us are asking for you to pray in public, or where anybody can see you. You can’t find Jenny if you take a single glance in the room and then leave. All we’re asking is that you spend time to look and open yourself up to the possibility that Jenny really is there.

 

[goout]

Well sorry, but your cultural traditions are not mine to advertise for. I’m not going to be your billboard recruiting tool.

But the fact is, here you are discussing God with us. That is a welcome opportunity, not for recruiting as such, but to expose the fullest truth about human beings and the longing of human hearts.
It is good that you are here, and if none of this sticks to your wall, there are others who are searching also and reading this, and possibly thinking deeply and openly about it all.
Thank you, and don’t worry about advertising against your will (?), we can take care of the witness.

 

[Damian]

Reality does demonstrate the existence of God, in its order, in t’s very existence.

No it doesn’t. There is no evidence of a deity or the supernatural realm. Once that is established, then you need to demonstrate the causal link between creation and the deity instead of some other process that created reality.

You just also have to accept philosophy as a valid avenue for the discernment of evidence.

No argument here. Just your logical arguments are grounded in referencing reality for something that reality does not demonstrate is there. You can have internally logically consistent arguments but still fail to actually have an accurate model of reality. Comic book stories do this all the time. But that doesn’t make Thanos actually exist.

You do not, so you will never be able to understand this.

Yes I’ll never understand how you think you can logically define something into existence. Reality is the bar for what is true about reality. Logic is just a way to narrow down the search for that. It’s called testing your hypothesis.

The math supported Einstein’s notion, so it was completely valid to believe it to be true even before one had been observed.

Okay so you don’t understand that you can have a mathematical model that is correct but still not be accurate when it references reality. That’s the problem.

Most scientists believed in them, otherwise they wouldn’t have been searching for them.

No, they couldn’t prove it or disprove it against reality. So the mathematical model told them to look for it. But it wasn’t until we were actually able to find the gravity waves was there conclusive evidence to justify that mathematical conclusion about reality. Again that’s called a hypothesis. It tells you where to look in reality for your evidence of your logical conclusion.

They were theorized, and the math supported the theory, which was widely believed prior to actual observation. You are placing an unrealistic requirement on belief that is not shared by scientists

You really have never met a valid scientist then. They fail at their experiments all the time since reality continues to demonstrate that their logical hypothesis were broken somewhere since they didn’t have all the data to make an actual mathematically accurate model of what reality actually is.

Once again, physicality is not the only avenue for the discernment of truth and reality.

Correct since, for example magnetic fields are also not made up of physical matter. However, you do have to detect your claimed entity is part of reality in some way.

 

[Damian]

is itself a philosophical position that cannot be proven through physical evidence.

Correct when your philosophical position is not referencing reality. Just like how I can be philosophically correct that the force in starwars is stronger than Jane’s telekinesis ability in xmen. But if I am referencing reality, reality has to demonstrate that claim is there. What is it about the religious mind set that makes you not get the idea that you can be logically correct and still factually wrong about your conclusions about reality since, guess what, you don’t know everything about reality to know if your logical model is actually correct for matching what reality actually is? Reality has to demonstrate what it can and can not do, not your logical models.

The philosophical evidence for God’s existence is strong, and is supported by the coherent and organized construction of the universe which indicates underlying design.

No that’s evidence of universe creating pixies or Thanos with his infinity stones.

Until you are willing to do away with your faulty notion that physical evidence is the only evidence,

in reference to what is justified to conclude about reality. If you want to logically argue over fantasy ideas, that’s fine. But how do we tell the difference between fantasy and reality claims? Oh we use what reality demonstrates to be the case.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Reality cannot prove that the only way to analyze reality is through observation. That’s the point that @ProdglArchitect is making.

 

[Damian]

The Christian context for all of this is relationship .

I can have a relationship with ever character in the Avenger’s series as much as any other character that doesn’t manifest itself in my life like an actual person could.
I can have a better relationship with a pin pal in Australia over Thanos since my pin pal actually communicates back.
I can’t have a relationship with a deity that plays the best game of Hide and Go Seek ever played.

It is a participation . Faith is a response in relationship, not a thing .

Yes you have to keep faking it till you just accept the cultural traditions for tribal unity. That’s why you have to keep reciting these mantras every week. But if it was as real as anything in reality, then you don’t need mantras and participation. No one prays weekly about the idea of gravity and how its affecting their lives. You don’t see scientists gathering together to reaffirm their belief in the Germ Theory. You do see this with organizations that need to keep people in the mindset of belief about an idea that, if not culturally isolated and reinforced every week, would break down and become irrelevant as astrology and alchemy have.

Also to relationship, what kind of relationship. The texts describes your deity as a devil to me. But I can still have a relationship with my enemies as well. But at least my enemies are in the reality I occupy.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I can have a relationship with ever character in the Avenger’s series as much as any other character that doesn’t manifest itself in my life like an actual person could.

No, you can’t, because those characters can’t respond to you. It’s just you talking to thin air.

Yes you have to keep faking it till you just accept the cultural traditions for tribal unity.

So you’re saying that none of us are really believers in God, we just faked it and now we think we believe?

 

[Arwing]

Yes you have to keep faking it till you just accept the cultural traditions for tribal unity. That’s why you have to keep reciting these mantras every week.

Lol come on.

 

[Damian]

Why do you think at one point God “decided” to make a universe?

Based on the anthropomorphic characteristics that theists describe it as. Its a mind outside of space and time that wants a relationship with after first deciding to create reality with us as the result. Every abrahamic religion teaches this. Unless you have a different deity you are talking about. So could someone, anyone, please actually describe the deity they are talking about in positive terms so I don’t have to keep getting responses like, “oh that’s not my deity.”.

 

[Damian]

Guess we’re at an impasse. Noun = person, place, thing, or idea. Nothing is a noun. Nothing is an idea. Nothing can also be a state that is not changing. Because it would go from nothing to something.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

God is pure actuality. God is the state of being. God is love, hope, sacrifice, etc.

Guess we’re at an impasse. Noun = person, place, thing, or idea. Nothing is a noun. Nothing is an idea. Nothing can also be a state that is not changing. Because it would go from nothing to something.

Nothing, being the absence of something, cannot have the characteristics of a something. Your “gotcha” isn’t working.

 

[Arwing]

I don’t have a definition for you, but I was always taught that God is “pure act”, and not something that decides to do certain things at certain points. That is far too anthropomorphic imo. I don’t see why the fact that we see effects of God (e.g. creation) at successive points in time means that God himself had “acted” or “decided” differently at different points.

I have never heard a definition like the one you describe used in serious theology to represent the Abrahamic God (“after first deciding to create…” etc).