Why I am not a Christian

[atheist1]

On which basis do you say that the consequences of child abuse are “horrific”? You can say that they consist in a notable alteration of the psychological state of the victim, but you cannot judge that alteration as being “good” or “bad”, since you must consider it a psychological process ultimately rooted in matter, on which no morality can be elaborated.

You are kidding…I hope.

Of course I can judge that the consequences of child sexual abuse are damaging to the child.

I think you are being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Catholicc]

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a “Statistcal Immposibility”. For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a “Statistcal Immposibility”. Same goes for evolution out of nothing. That only leaves one possibility: God. There’s your proof, mathematically arrived at.

This is creatinist hucksterism at it’s best/worst.

If you are interested in a very brief rebuttal go to:
csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-one.html

Sure. When presented with a good argument, use insults to try to margianalize it. That right out of the Leftist playbook.

Moving on, we also have St Thomas Aquinas’ proofs from his “Summa Theologia”:

(QUOTE)
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
.

 

[atheist1]

Sure. When presented with a good argument, use insults to try to margianalize it. That right out of the Leftist playbook.

Moving on, we also have St Thomas Aquinas’ proofs from his “Summa Theologia”: .

Before I respond, did you bother to actually read the link?

 

[Deum_quaerens]

You are kidding…I hope.

Of course I can judge that the consequences of child sexual abuse are damaging to the child.

I think you are being purposefully obtuse.

Once again, you are refusing to come to terms with the logical implications of atheistic naturalism.

Simply put, what are the consequences of child abuse? A psychological process ultimately rooted in matter, or to put it more bluntly, a reorganization of matter. Now, how can you judge a reorganization of matter as being “good” or “bad”? That is absurd! The moment you make such a moral judgment in regard to a human being, then you are buying into the teleological argument, insofar as your judgment implies that human beings are not the purely accidental products of matter and chance, but that, on the contrary, matter came into being to form human beings destined to happiness, not to the misery of child abuse.

 

[BootCampJr]

Yet, you have a Biblical name, Peter

 

[Catholicc]

Before I respond, did you bother to actually read the link?

I read part of it. Then I jumped down to see the blurb on the author. All it said was “Jason Rosenhouse is the author of EvolutionBlog, providing commentary on developments in the endless dispute between evolution and creationism.” No books he’s written, no schools where he teaches, nothing. I was not impressed. The Pope has more University education in his pinky than this guy has ever had.

 

[atheist1]

Once again, you are refusing to come to terms with the logical implications of atheistic naturalism.

Simply put, what are the consequences of child abuse? A psychological process ultimately rooted in matter, or to put it more bluntly, a reorganization of matter. Now, how can you judge a reorganization of matter as being “good” or “bad”? That is absurd! The moment you make such a moral judgment in regard to a human being, then you are buying into the teleological argument, insofar as your judgment implies that human beings are not the purely accidental products of matter and chance, but that, on the contrary, matter came into being to form human beings destined to happiness, not to the misery of child abuse.

I don’t believe there is any design involved in our creation nor do I believe we are destined to happiness. You are a believer and seem to be convinced that the logical implication of atheism is that it’s impossible for an atheist to distinguish what’s right and wrong. I’m an atheist and just don’t see your point. Maybe I am just obtuse…not purposefullly mind you.

Obviously we are going to disagree on a number of issues, given that you are catholic and i am not, but yet we will have very similar view on many, many others.

How do you explain the moral behaviour of non-believers? It would seem to me that we should be quite a sorry lot if what you say is true.

 

[atheist1]

I read part of it. Then I jumped down to see the blurb on the author. All it said was “Jason Rosenhouse is the author of EvolutionBlog, providing commentary on developments in the endless dispute between evolution and creationism.” No books he’s written, no schools where he teaches, nothing. I was not impressed. The Pope has more University education in his pinky than this guy has ever had.

math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/CV2.html

 

[atheist1]

I read part of it. Then I jumped down to see the blurb on the author. All it said was “Jason Rosenhouse is the author of EvolutionBlog, providing commentary on developments in the endless dispute between evolution and creationism.” No books he’s written, no schools where he teaches, nothing. I was not impressed. The Pope has more University education in his pinky than this guy has ever had.

Okay, I posted Jason’s curriculum vitae for you. What do you think of his qualifications to speak on probability theory?

What did you think of his article in general? Do you now see how one has to be careful when assigning probability to evolution? To be fair, there are mathematicians and other scientists in both camps but do you see how the use of probability can be misleading?

Also, now that you have read over his credentials, does the pope still have more University education in his pinky than Jason? I don’t know what the Pope Benedict’s education background is so I am just curious as to what you think when you compare the two men based on their education.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

I don’t believe there is any design involved in our creation nor do I believe we are destined to happiness.

Then why do you think that the consequences of child abuse are “horrific”?

You are a believer and seem to be convinced that the logical implication of atheism is that it’s impossible for an atheist to distinguish what’s right and wrong.

That is the logical implication of atheism, yes. Nietzsche was the first atheist to say so forcefully, and it is generally agreed upon by theist and atheist philosophers alike.

I’m an atheist and just don’t see your point. Maybe I am just obtuse…not purposefullly mind you.

My point is that atheists, if they were honest to themselves, would follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion and abstain from making moral judgments.

Obviously we are going to disagree on a number of issues, given that you are catholic and i am not, but yet we will have very similar view on many, many others.

How do you explain the moral behaviour of non-believers? It would seem to me that we should be quite a sorry lot if what you say is true.

No, very precisely because the great majority of atheists do not follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion.

 

[PeterJ]

Then why do you think that the consequences of child abuse are “horrific”?

Because human nature tends towards empathy, and thus relative to human nature child abuse seems horrific.

That is the logical implication of atheism, yes. Nietzsche was the first atheist to say so forcefully, and it is generally agreed upon by theist and atheist philosophers alike.

What about Aristotle/Anscombe and virtue ethics.

 

[Clay_McAleer]

A small point but the OP has titled this thread “Why I am not a Christian” and then goes to great lengths to tell us about his issues with the Catholic church. As one situation does not necessiarily depend on the other, has the OP given up on both? (Christianity and Catholicism)

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Because human nature tends towards empathy, and thus relative to human nature child abuse seems horrific.

Exactly. The empathy felt towards a victim of child abuse is a biochemical response, which in an atheistic worldview does not and cannot imply an objective morality according to which child abuse is wrong.

What about Aristotle/Anscombe and virtue ethics.

What about them?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I read the OP for the first time, and my conclusion is that this is a classic example of someone who just wants to do whatever he feels like doing, and is too afraid to make the sarafices & changes in his life that God wants of us. Some people are strong, but some people are weak and cannot resist their fallen desires. So, rather than try to be strong and do the difficult thing, they intellectualize their way out of it in order to ease their own conscience. The fact that the poster felt the need to post all of this stuff is proof that his conscience is bothering him: He seeks validation for his wayward beliefs, or else he seeks someone to show him that he’s wrong: One or the other. If he were truly comfortable with his new position he would never have bothered to come to this forum in the first plasce.

This is exactly what I read into it as well.

 

[PeterJ]

Exactly. The empathy felt towards a victim of child abuse is a biochemical response, which in an atheistic worldview does not and cannot imply an objective morality according to which child abuse is wrong.

But these feelings are no less real because they are biological. If love were proven to be biological (nor a product of the soul) would you dismiss it?

A perfect human being would display empathy, because it is part of human nature to desire to be empathetic. Why does it matter that this desire is biological? No man says I desire knowledge (or love or food) - but this desire is just biological, so I shall ignore it. In the same way man cannot say I desire to be empathetic - but this is just biological - so I shall ignore it.

An animal does dismiss its nature, but acts on it. I believe this is the case with humans. Empathy happens to be part of our nature - so we act on it. There may not be an ‘objective morality’ in the broad sense but there is a subjective morality relative to a standard human nature.

What about them?

They are very plausible reductive analyses of morality.

 

[Catholicc]

…it is part of human nature to desire to be empathetic…

That is mere supposition on your part. You have no evidence to support that. Human history demonstrates that man is more likely to KILL his fellow man than to empathize with him.

…There may not be an ‘objective morality’ in the broad sense but there is a subjective morality relative to a standard human nature…

Non-sequitur. That is contradictory.
It cannot be “subjective” and a “standard” at the same time.

 

[PeterJ]

That is mere supposition on your part. You have no evidence to support that. Human history demonstrates that man is more likely to KILL his fellow man than to empathize with him.

What history? I wasn’t saying that man displays perfect empathy, but man does display some, this could be what drives morality. Not necessarily God. Even animals display empathy - is this due to God?

Non-sequitur. That is contradictory.
It cannot be “subjective” and a “standard” at the same time.

That’s not what I said. I said that morality was subjective (i.e not objective in the universal sense) relative to a standard [consistent/unchanging] human nature. How is this a contradiction?

 

[PeterJ]

But these feelings are no less real because they are biological. If love were proven to be biological (nor a product of the soul) would you dismiss it?

A perfect human being would display empathy, because it is part of human nature to desire to be empathetic. Why does it matter that this desire is biological? No man says I desire knowledge (or love or food) - but this desire is just biological, so I shall ignore it. In the same way man cannot say I desire to be empathetic - but this is just biological - so I shall ignore it.

An animal does dismiss its nature, but acts on it. I believe this is the case with humans. Empathy happens to be part of our nature - so we act on it. There may not be an ‘objective morality’ in the broad sense but there is a subjective morality relative to a standard human nature.

Sorry I Just realised that this post makes little sense, I mean to say this:

But these feelings are no less real because they are biological. If love were proven to be biological (not a product of the soul) would you dismiss it?

A perfect human being would display empathy, because it is part of human nature to desire to be empathetic. Why does it matter that this desire is biological? No man says I desire knowledge (or love or food) - but this desire is just biological, so I shall ignore it. In the same way man cannot say I desire to be empathetic - but this is just biological - so I shall ignore it. Man cannot deny his nature - biological or otherwise.

An animal does not dismiss its nature, but acts on it. I believe this is the case with humans. Empathy happens to be part of our nature - so we act on it. There may not be an ‘objective morality’ in the broad sense but there is a subjective morality relative to a standard human nature.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Sorry I Just realised that this post makes little sense, I mean to say this:

But these feelings are no less real because they are biological. If love were proven to be biological **(not a product of the soul) **would you dismiss it?

A perfect human being would display empathy, because it is part of human nature to desire to be empathetic. Why does it matter that this desire is biological? No man says I desire knowledge (or love or food) - but this desire is just biological, so I shall ignore it. In the same way man cannot say I desire to be empathetic - but this is just biological - so I shall ignore it. Man cannot deny his nature - biological or otherwise.

An animal does not dismiss its nature, but acts on it. I believe this is the case with humans. Empathy happens to be part of our nature - so we act on it. There may not be an ‘objective morality’ in the broad sense but there is a subjective morality relative to a standard human nature.

When we can prove anything about the soul let me know.

But as it stands we currently have no known method except spiritual to test things spiritual. This form of testing or discernment does not provide emperical data that unbelievers require so until we can measure this then questions regarding the soul seem pointless.

Also when I hear someone like you use the word LOVE I suspect they are using Webster’s or Merriman’s definition. If that is the case then I suggest you read 1 Corinthians 13 so we can discuss matters of LOVE with the same definition.

 

[Catholicc]

I would like to see how he proves that “Love” exists.