Any Athiests Wanna Come 2 Phatmass?

[Guest AthiestGuy45]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' post='32828' date='Sep 27 2003, 05:29 PM']
I joined this debate late also, but I did skim the previous posts, so here's my two cents worth.

First of all, we have to remember what an atheist believes. They believe there is no god, period. Not the Judeo-Christian God, not Allah, not Zeus, not the Sun God, not Vishnu (a Hindu goddess), nothing. So, we have to start at the very beginning. Which is what I'm going to do. As you all know, I'm certain, Aquinas has five logical proofs for the existence of God. I haven't studied them in great detail as of yet, so I'm only going to lay out two of them, which are the easiest to understand anyway IMO.

First, everything has a cause. You are here because your parents have sexual intercourse, unless you're a test tube baby or something, in which case, you are still "caused" by the scientist, but let's assume we are all created naturally. Your grandparents, therefore, had sexual intercourse to create your parents. Likewise, your great-grandparents to create your grandparents. Now, we can take this all the way back to the earliest human being. Whether that human was a direct descendant from an ape or Adam, matters little in this debate. But, we all can logically figure out that a person just doesn't "appear" out of thin air. Since you are an athiest , certainly you will agree with me on this point? Now, let's just for the sake of argument assume that the first person was descended from an ape. The same rule applies. Two other apes had to mate to creat that ape. This can go all the way back to the earliest life forms on earth. Now, we know as a scientific LAW that living cells can only come from living cells. So, that begs the question, what created the first living cell? As an athiest, you certainly will not maintain that the earth has been here for all eternity with life on it will you? Even if you do advocate such a postition, it still follows taht something had to start it all. I contend that that something is God.

The second argument is what is called the "order in creation" argument. Look around you. Everything you see that is not alive was created by human beings. Your computer was built by a human being. You certainly know that. Let's say though, that you didn't know that. Let's say you are from a tribal nation where they have never seen a compute and you look at one for the first time. Only a fool would say that that computer built itself. Yet that is what you claim is happening and happened to the world.

Now, examine the earth and the human person. Scientists can still not create human beings with as much perfection as nature can. The earth has the EXACT balance of chemicals in the atmosphere to survive on. The shear beauty of the ocean, mountains, and all other natural landscapes should cause you to acknowledge that there is a creator.

So, please tell me, how did the first cell come into existence? Remember, scientists have declared that a cell has NEVER come into existence without coming from another one. Also, how is it that it just happened that the world is so perfectly ordered? Saying that these are just coincidences is not sufficient as it violates many rules of philosophy. Good luck.
[/quote]


Here you go guys, finally after four years...an Atheist.

I quoted your specific post to some-what explain to you why some of us do not believe in a "higher power."

Your first argument is also known as the "First Cause Argument" is logically flawed. This the rule (everything has a cause) applies to everything based upon your argument. Being a rule then no exceptions apply. But according to this rule, a god would need a beginning or a cause. But the bible assumes that god always exists. This rule becomes ad hoc (or prejudicially applied) and cannot be used when theists say that god is outside the laws of nature. "But why is god outside the laws of nature?" an atheist might ask. If you reply with the "because he said so" response, you create a circular argument when you try to prove something exists assuming it exists from the beginning. If more evidence was presented other then an ancient contradicting text known as the Bible, I still might be a Catholic today.

Also in your first paragraph you mentioned what started the evolutionary process and the world, specifically the first cells. Now to explain the first cells first I would like to point out that simple logic dictates that you assume that complexity arises from simplicity, not the other way around. For example, God, a being of immensely and inconceivable complexity cannot be assumed to exist before a more simple system, life and the universe as we know it. To relate this back to cells and evolution, we must understand that evolution is mainly the science of complexity arising from simplicity. Evidence says the first cells were merely membranes and did not look anything like modern cells. They did not contain any of the nucleic acids or organelles we see today. The building blocks for the lacking structures that were eventually encased by membranes were shown by the Miller-Urey experiment at the University of Chicago in 1953. The demonstrated that these building blocks, or amino acids, could be created in conditions existing in prehistoric Earth. Evolution took it from there for a few billion years.

Next you state the "God of gaps" argument in saying that since everything is orderly and everything exists, there must be a god to make it exist. Again it violates the logical principle of simplicity from complexity argument but I'll elaborate on some other things that atheists have to say about this argument. First we can see that the world and universe is not filled with order. We do not live in a utopia. In fact we are constantly faced with dangers such as disease, hunger, volcanoes, poverty, hurricanes, asteroids, and the list goes on and on. Mathematics and physics provide us with Chaos theory, which proves that there is in fact little "order" to nature. The law of entropy is another prime example of the lack of order in nature. But going back to the god of gaps argument. I loved that you used the tribal people interpreting the computer example. To answer this, I ask are they right in assuming that a deity created this computer? I believe that we will both agree that they are not. Therefore, why should we assume a deity for everything that is hard to answer. Another ridiculous example, "What caused person A to have AIDs?"...."God did." When, if you asked, any respectable doctor would tell you contact with the HIV virus did. To reduce ourselves to dark age thinking is a large step backward in the progression of the human race.

Another misconception is that people assume that conditions in the universe are arranged for life as we know it to exist. It's a common mistake so let me explain. The mistake is due to ex post facto reasoning. This is a big fancy term for after the fact reasoning or backwards logic. For example let's look at the formation of an especially irregular ice block forming in a natural hole. Was the hole suited for the shape of the ice or did the ice take shape of the hole? This question should insult your intelligence when you see that the obvious answer is the water took shape of the hole and then made ice, not the hole took shape of the ice block that it was going to hold in the future. Many Intelligent Design theorists make similar logical mistakes when it comes to arguing their believes. The fact is that life grew to adapt to conditions not that the conditions were pre-made for life as we know it to emerge.

Enjoy.

[cmotherofpirl]

Welcome to phatmass. Let the games begin :

[SJP]

Welcome to Phatmass! :

I'll take on your first response and then it's off to bed for me, I'm sure others will pick up the slack.

AthiestGuy45 said:
"Your first argument is also known as the "First Cause Argument" is logically flawed. This the rule (everything has a cause) applies to everything based upon your argument. Being a rule then no exceptions apply. But according to this rule, a god would need a beginning or a cause. But the bible assumes that god always exists. This rule becomes ad hoc (or prejudicially applied) and cannot be used when theists say that god is outside the laws of nature. "But why is god outside the laws of nature?" an atheist might ask. If you reply with the "because he said so" response, you create a circular argument when you try to prove something exists assuming it exists from the beginning. If more evidence was presented other then an ancient contradicting text known as the Bible, I still might be a Catholic today."

I think that you may misunderstand the actual argument. The First Cause Argument does not contain the premise that "everything has a cause" for if it did, then you would be correct in stating that it is logically flawed, for what caused God?

However, as Peter Kreeft notes:

"The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is. Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason."

"Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. [b]But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God. [/b] "

"[i]Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here[/i]."

"If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible."

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm[/url]

So I guess this technically is not my response But like I said, it's late and Kreeft gave a better explanation than I would have been capable of.

Again, welcome to phatmass!

Edited January 16, 2007 by SJP

[Paddington]

[quote name='Jake Huether' post='33339' date='Sep 29 2003, 04:23 PM']
Oh yes we can! And Jesus specifically said we would do GREATER (whether in quantitiy or quality) things than he had!

If WE had faith the size of a musterd seed we could tell that mountain to get up and move and it would.
[/quote]

Jake,

I think that the guy who started WorldVision did more than Jesus did to feed the hungry. There are plenty of medical missionaries who have healed more people than Jesus did. Is that what you meant?
The "flashy" way of doing bigger miracles than Jesus is asking a bit much. I don't see people rising to the occasion for that one. It also makes me chuckle when I think about that and the "what would Jesus do?" bracelet at the same time.

Peace,
Paddington

[Paddington]

My 2 cents on the thread's original idea.

1. This thread was filled with some really immature stuff at first.
2. It isn't easy to debate Atheists. They have different assumptions. Protestants have very close to the same assumptions. Atheists should just be made familar with the basic shape of Christianity and why it is "rational but not logical." And why it is attractive and transcendent.
3. Agnostics are NOT cowards. Somebody said that. That is cruel. It is NORMAL for somebody to be Agnostic before converting to Christianity. Do you think C.S. jumped straight from Atheism to Christianity? Maybe he did, but that would be weird. Agnosticism has a very honest quality to it - even if it is wrong.


Peace,
Paddington

Edited January 16, 2007 by Paddington

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1166587' date='Jan 16 2007, 02:51 AM']
Jake,

I think that the guy who started WorldVision did more than Jesus did to feed the hungry. There are plenty of medical missionaries who have healed more people than Jesus did. Is that what you meant?
The "flashy" way of doing bigger miracles than Jesus is asking a bit much. I don't see people rising to the occasion for that one. It also makes me chuckle when I think about that and the "what would Jesus do?" bracelet at the same time.

Peace,
Paddington
[/quote]
Just so you know.... Jake doesn't stop by nearly often enough anymore.... Since you addressed him directly, I thought I'd give you the heads up....

(now watch... Jake will show up...)

[Guest AthiestGuy45]

[quote name='SJP' post='1166572' date='Jan 16 2007, 02:48 AM']
Welcome to Phatmass! :

I'll take on your first response and then it's off to bed for me, I'm sure others will pick up the slack.

AthiestGuy45 said:
"Your first argument is also known as the "First Cause Argument" is logically flawed. This the rule (everything has a cause) applies to everything based upon your argument. Being a rule then no exceptions apply. But according to this rule, a god would need a beginning or a cause. But the bible assumes that god always exists. This rule becomes ad hoc (or prejudicially applied) and cannot be used when theists say that god is outside the laws of nature. "But why is god outside the laws of nature?" an atheist might ask. If you reply with the "because he said so" response, you create a circular argument when you try to prove something exists assuming it exists from the beginning. If more evidence was presented other then an ancient contradicting text known as the Bible, I still might be a Catholic today."

I think that you may misunderstand the actual argument. The First Cause Argument does not contain the premise that "everything has a cause" for if it did, then you would be correct in stating that it is logically flawed, for what caused God?

However, as Peter Kreeft notes:

"The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is. Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason."

"Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. [b]But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God. [/b] "

"[i]Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here[/i]."

"If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible."

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm[/url]

So I guess this technically is not my response But like I said, it's late and Kreeft gave a better explanation than I would have been capable of.

Again, welcome to phatmass!
[/quote]


I think you are coming back to the god of gaps argument and you are still assuming complexity before simplicity. But one thing if the first cause argument is that everything has a cause. But immediately refutes itself by saying that god doesn't have a cause or has been there forever. Then, why can't the universe have been there forever? That would neglect the need for a deity to create it. Let me elaborate in the next paragraph.

First thing, most cosmologists today will tell you the universe could not have been created ex nihilo (or out of nothing). It violates the law of the conservation of mass energy. Specifically the part where mass/energy cannot be created/nor destroyed. But that brings us back to the question, how did everything get here in the first place? To answer that I give you and answer that may baffle your mind. It always existed and this may have not been the first big bang or universe that has been in existence. NASA's COBE satellite collects data supporting the Big Crunch Theory if you will, in that the universe will collapse on itself due to gravitational gathering and then create another big bang. One unanswered question in this argument is how did mass/energy itself come into existence. Well Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant atheist scientists since Einstein, has found that mass energy might have come from what seems to be the perfect vacuum of "empty" space. This natural occurring event is called "vacuum fluctuation." Scientists have found that even though a perfect vacuum in space may seem empty, there are actually randomly electromagnetic oscillations. This is called vacuum fluctuation energy and can be converted into the mass energy we see today.

Again, complexity rises from simplicity, not the other way around. A god more complex than the universe itself could not create the universe.

Also I go back to the god of gaps argument. You cannot just say god did it and then just pretend to understand. Science has shown time and time again that religion is false. We may not know everything but we do not have to just assume a deity for what we do not know. Leave that rational to our ancestors.

God cannot be proven nor can he be disproven...but neither can Zeus, fairies, unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster. It is highly improbable that there is any god. As Richard Dawkins has said eloquently many times, "All of us are atheists. Some of us just go one god further."

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]We dont have to prove God exists, they have to prove He doesnt.[/size]


[quote name='AthiestGuy45' post='1166696' date='Jan 16 2007, 10:27 AM']
Again, complexity rises from simplicity, not the other way around. A god more complex than the universe itself could not create the universe.

Science has shown time and time again that religion is false.
[/quote]
[size=1]God is Love. It is VERY simple.


Religion and science compliment eachother.
[/size]

Edited January 16, 2007 by CrossCuT

[Aloysius]

God is the very definition of existence. so to gain common ground, we ought to first talk of existence itself.

either everything exists, or there is oblivion. we ought to agree everything exists, and thus: existence exists. existence does not need a cause: it is the cause of everything.

therefore, "existence" is a probable first cause. it can be the first cause of time (and thus be outside of time, eternal) and the first cause of the entire universe. the very way we define it, as the thing which makes all things exist, puts it right there as the first cause.

most cosmologists will not say the universe is eternal because of the law of conservation of matter. the big bang theory actually proves to most cosmologists that there was a beginning to the universe (though some, with absolutely no grounds nor proof, try to make it as if the singularity from which the big bang came was just a crunch of a previous incarnation of the universe: some cosmology has become pure fiction writing). all matter was once condensed into the infinitely small... so infinitely small that at some point, when you reach the very beginning of time, it comes from nothingness.

now we can debate all you want whether "existence" is something personal, with a mind or a rationale; or whether it's just some impersonal force which is the first cause of everything.

anyway, effects must have a cause. existence (what we call God) is not an effect, which is why it does not need a cause.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I haven't read the whole thread yet but this paragraph caught my eye and inspired me to begin a preface to an actual response.
[quote name='AthiestGuy45' post='1166696' date='Jan 16 2007, 11:27 AM']
First thing, most cosmologists today will tell you the universe could not have been created ex nihilo (or out of nothing). It violates the law of the conservation of mass energy. Specifically the part where mass/energy cannot be created/nor destroyed. But that brings us back to the question, how did everything get here in the first place? To answer that I give you and answer that may baffle your mind. It always existed and this may have not been the first big bang or universe that has been in existence. NASA's COBE satellite collects data supporting the Big Crunch Theory if you will, in that the universe will collapse on itself due to gravitational gathering and then create another big bang. One unanswered question in this argument is how did mass/energy itself come into existence. Well Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant atheist scientists since Einstein, has found that mass energy might have come from what seems to be the perfect vacuum of "empty" space. This natural occurring event is called "vacuum fluctuation." Scientists have found that even though a perfect vacuum in space may seem empty, there are actually randomly electromagnetic oscillations. This is called vacuum fluctuation energy and can be converted into the mass energy we see today.[/quote]
Pretty much every sentence of this convoluted paragraph is problematic. I'll just make a couple wee comments real quick.
The doctrine of creation [i]ex nihilo[/i] is a revealed datum of faith and is not posed as a scientific assertion. The perspective of the doctrine is outside the scope of natural science so the supposed opinion of some imaginary physicists is irrelevant. Anyone who claims that the Christian doctrine of creation [i]ex nihilo[/i] can be proved scientifically is in need of some epistemological clarification. The flip side of this is that someone claiming that creation [i]ex nihilo[/i] can be scientifically disproved probably has some confusion as to the nature of scientific inquiry.
The reason you gave in support of your assertion would seem to amount to granting an empirical law [i]a priori[/i] status and turning it into a metaphysical assumption. I don't know quite how the methods and subject matter of physics might bestow on one such a broad perspective toward being as such. In other words you're haphazardly mixing science and philosophy such that the result can hardly be called science or philosophy.

The COBE mission stuff you mentioned supposedly in support of the big crunch theory was when? 1990 or so? There has been a lot of further cosmological speculation since then and the more recent WMAP mission in 2002/2003 which offered high resolution mapping of the cosmic microwave background is just one of the many reasons why most cosmologists today reject big crunch theory. I'm certainly no expert, but from what I've read inflationary theory would appear to afford the most plausible model of the universe given what we know right now; although I'm not very familiar with the intricacies of most theories, such as brane cosmology so my take on the subject is second hand and generalist.

But the fluctuating landscape of contemporary theoretical cosmology (or my particular grasp of it) is hardly central to the issues at hand. Understanding the universe in terms of cyclic brane cosmology hardly does away with the ultimate questions of being.
You seem to be carelessly asserting scientific theories (arguably quasi-scientific at times) mingled with shoddy philosophy and pretending that you have a real argument of some kind. My interpretation of your post is that you either want to give the appearance of having bagged the question of God by blurring the issues and problems surrounding it, or you simply have yet to reach actual clarity with respect to said issues and problems.


Maybe you just need time to clarify your point, but how is it that this comment constitutes an argument?
[quote]how did mass/energy itself come into existence....
vacuum fluctuation energy .. can be converted into the mass energy we see today.[/quote]
Besides the obvious fact that you're asserting an unproven speculation as a scientific fact (namely the applicability of vacuum energy fluctuations on the cosmological scale), you really aren't making a point. It sounds like you're just sharing some theoretical information.
You haven't provided anything which might indicate an etiology of energy as such. Vacuum energy is still a form of energy; virtual particles are still existents of some kind. If the bounds of theoretical physics represent the extent of your ability to conceive of being then the question of God is not entirely possible. I will admit that much.

[track2004]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1166702' date='Jan 16 2007, 11:38 AM']
[size=1]We dont have to prove God exists, they have to prove He doesnt.[/size]
[/quote]

But why? You say thousands of gods do not exist based on nothing. If you really think about it out of the thousands of gods people believe in around the world you believe in one and discount all the others. Athiests just also discount yours.

One could argue that many other religions decompartmentalize god's abilities into a variety of gods, but if "God is Love" then how are Mars and Pluto (Roman gods of war and death, respectively) in the euqation. More so, does anyone believe in Janus, the Roman god of doors?? You discount gods because they seem unreasonable, and so do athiests.

[Mr.Cat]

The “zero point energy” theory (vacuum energy) has not been proven and this still requires “existence” or a “reality” to function from, a reality that has to be some kind of fabric with rules and laws to govern it. Therefore, this theory does not sufficiently explain the emanation of energy or matter, thus to propose that the universe came from nothing to violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy, along with several laws of thermo dynamics. For the theory of the universe collapsing back onto it’s self it would be contradictory to recent findings that support that gravity both attracts and repels explaining why other galaxies are growing further apart. But regardless, physical sciences do propose that there was a “start”, which is more personified in Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum energy (vacuum energy) that you speak of could finally connect Einstein’s thoughts on gravity and conventional thought. Conventional thought proposes that gravity is a field that attracts other matter (and anti-matter) proportional to the mass and volume. Einstein’s thought that gravity is not caused by the actual matter itself but rather the matter “displaces” something on the fourth dimension unseen to the naked eye thus causing a gravimetric wake or field. Both theories although do not explain where this gravimetric energy originates, it could very well be this Quantum Energy.

Moreover, if an atheist was truly educated he would propose not this but rather speak of String Theory where the start of our universe is theorized to be the interaction of several other universes causing a spark, like two bubbles in the air touching each other creating a third. Thus explaining the energy and matter required for the “big bang(s)” to occur even though modern science is starting to reject the notion of one big bang but rather multiple occurrences of “bangs” but even here one has to explain where this “omniverse” originated. Regardless of how far you step back the end result is the same which you also cant ignore in Metaphysics, there is the need of a creating and maintaining force in our form of existence.

Going deeper we know that the physical sciences cannot prove or disprove anything, it would contradict the Theory of Knowledge that critically puts into question where all presumptions and assumptions originate putting them into question. Further, we know that our senses can be fooled and can be distorted. Therefore to make any assumption about our existence or anything else is a leap of faith that we take for granted (which will make sense in a moment). The limitations of physical science are thus, if we were sitting together outside and we were conversing on the laws of the universe watching the cars go down the road such as gravity, inertia, momentum, heat, friction, and the list can go on. We can discuss how we can measure speed, find the contexts of the road, or even measure the distance of the road. Suddenly a car flies by at rapid speeds to have a squad car pull the man over. I ask why was he pulled over, you answer he broke a law.

Can you prove to me law exists? I can’t see, hear, feel, smell, or taste law. So please prove to me that law exists without resorting to an assumption, but we can look at the road seeing symbols that make this truth evident. Likewise we know of God’s existence from what we can find in nature and from the supernatural. Further, can you prove to us that you even exist? Exist in the state that you claim to exist in, the state that we presume you to be in, the state that you have taken to be an atheist. All of theses are assumptions that cannot be taken from the senses for they are flawed and it is possible for us to be deceived. I can have all the facts laid on the table and still come to the wrong conclusion, why? A professor explained it well.

He was experimenting to find what causes hangovers using the scientific process in Empirical data (which can be reproduced to have the same results). He went out three nights drinking heavily. The first night he goes out drinking water and wine, the next morning he awakes with a hangover. The second night he goes out drinking again drinking water and rum, the next morning he awakes with a hang over. The third night he again goes out drinking water and whisky, again waking up with a hangover. His conclusion is that water causes hangovers for it is the only constant.

We can be fooled for we hardly ever have every single fact and every piece of evidence, and even if we do we can come to the wrong conclusions. So before we start to question the existence of God let us prove that you can prove something to be without any assumptions made, for this is what is asked, ill refutable evidence. You wish to impose such standards onto God therefore we shall impose the same standards to you.

Further, since all cultures and peoples believed in the Divine in some respect, held to some kind of religious values, and atheism consists about one percent of the global population you are under the obligation to prove the majority and forefathers wrong. Moreover being on a Catholic website you are attempting to say we are wrong, therefore you have the burden of proof according to edict.

[Socrates]

[quote name='AthiestGuy45' post='1166491' date='Jan 16 2007, 12:14 AM']
Here you go guys, finally after four years...an Atheist.

I quoted your specific post to some-what explain to you why some of us do not believe in a "higher power."[/quote]
Wow, that was an old thread you dug up there! (From before I was even a member)

Actually a number of atheists have came on here and debated over the past couple years, so you're not actually breaking new ground here. (A disappointment, I know, but welcome to Phatmass anyway! )

[quote]Your first argument is also known as the "First Cause Argument" is logically flawed. This the rule (everything has a cause) applies to everything based upon your argument. Being a rule then no exceptions apply. But according to this rule, a god would need a beginning or a cause. But the bible assumes that god always exists. This rule becomes ad hoc (or prejudicially applied) and cannot be used when theists say that god is outside the laws of nature. "But why is god outside the laws of nature?" an atheist might ask. If you reply with the "because he said so" response, you create a circular argument when you try to prove something exists assuming it exists from the beginning. If more evidence was presented other then an ancient contradicting text known as the Bible, I still might be a Catholic today.[/quote]
You have obviously not carefully studied up on the philosophical arguments for the existance of God.
God, by His very nature as the "Uncaused Cause" is the ultimate Source of all being - Being Himself, pure Esse (or "Act")
If God was part of nature or bound by the laws of nature, He would not by nature be God.
You can choose to deny the existance of God, but if you choose to define God as something which to a theist would not be God, your argument will have little effect.
This is a philosophical argument for God developed by the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, and does not in fact depend on the Bible or other divine revelation.

[quote]Also in your first paragraph you mentioned what started the evolutionary process and the world, specifically the first cells. Now to explain the first cells first I would like to point out that simple logic dictates that you assume that complexity arises from simplicity, not the other way around. [b]For example, God, a being of immensely and inconceivable complexity cannot be assumed to exist before a more simple system, life and the universe as we know it.[/b] To relate this back to cells and evolution, we must understand that evolution is mainly the science of complexity arising from simplicity. Evidence says the first cells were merely membranes and did not look anything like modern cells. They did not contain any of the nucleic acids or organelles we see today. The building blocks for the lacking structures that were eventually encased by membranes were shown by the Miller-Urey experiment at the University of Chicago in 1953. The demonstrated that these building blocks, or amino acids, could be created in conditions existing in prehistoric Earth. Evolution took it from there for a few billion years.[/quote]
Thought I'd start out by pointing out that the sentence I put in bold contradicts the Christian understanding of God.
God is [b]not[/b] defined as "a being of immensely and inconceivable complexity."
In fact, Catholic theology defines God as being the exact opposite - God is considered [b]perfectly simple[/b]. He has absolutely no "parts" of any kind whatsoever. He is Pure Esse. He has no dimensions, no top or bottom, etc.
Obviously, as an atheist, you do not believe in the existance of such a being, but, again, if you want to argue with "theists", you will not get far if you posit a definition of God which directly contradicts our understanding of the nature of God.

And understanding of biology has increased vastly since 1953. We now know even the simplest of single cells are vastly complex working machines exceeding anything built by human technology. They are not simple "blobs of protoplasm."

The existence of "building blocks of life" such as amino acids no more accounts for the creation of these amazingly complex living cells than the presence of metal in the earth accounts for the creation of automobiles and airplanes.

[quote]Next you state the "God of gaps" argument in saying that since everything is orderly and everything exists, there must be a god to make it exist. Again it violates the logical principle of simplicity from complexity argument but I'll elaborate on some other things that atheists have to say about this argument. First we can see that the world and universe is not filled with order. We do not live in a utopia. In fact we are constantly faced with dangers such as disease, hunger, volcanoes, poverty, hurricanes, asteroids, and the list goes on and on. Mathematics and physics provide us with Chaos theory, which proves that there is in fact little "order" to nature. The law of entropy is another prime example of the lack of order in nature. But going back to the god of gaps argument. I loved that you used the tribal people interpreting the computer example. To answer this, I ask are they right in assuming that a deity created this computer? I believe that we will both agree that they are not. Therefore, why should we assume a deity for everything that is hard to answer. Another ridiculous example, "What caused person A to have AIDs?"...."God did." When, if you asked, any respectable doctor would tell you contact with the HIV virus did. To reduce ourselves to dark age thinking is a large step backward in the progression of the human race.[/quote]
Again it seems you misunderstand the arguments. There is the whole "problem of evil" which is accounted for by free will and sin in Christian theology. But that is a whole other discussion in itself.
And it's not clear what you mean by "order", but if the universe did not have any order, there would not be any kind of universe in which rational beings could observe and argue about its existance.

As for the computer, only a fool (whether a modern "scientific" person or a "primitive" tribesman) would assume that the computer came into existance through pure random chance processes, without any intelligence behind it. Your argument defeats itself there.

[quote]Another misconception is that people assume that conditions in the universe are arranged for life as we know it to exist. It's a common mistake so let me explain. The mistake is due to ex post facto reasoning. This is a big fancy term for after the fact reasoning or backwards logic. For example let's look at the formation of an especially irregular ice block forming in a natural hole. Was the hole suited for the shape of the ice or did the ice take shape of the hole? This question should insult your intelligence when you see that the obvious answer is the water took shape of the hole and then made ice, not the hole took shape of the ice block that it was going to hold in the future. Many Intelligent Design theorists make similar logical mistakes when it comes to arguing their believes. The fact is that life grew to adapt to conditions not that the conditions were pre-made for life as we know it to emerge.[/quote]
I find the so-called "anthropic principle" to be quite compelling actually. Even non-religious persons have noted this.

If any number of factors in the universe and the earth were different, there would be no way for intelligent life to develop.

If the earth were even slightly closer or nearer to the sun, if the sun was a different type of star, if the solar system were closer to or farther from the center of the galaxy, if the chemical composition of the earth were difference, if we were in the path of other celestial bodies, if the laws of physics themselves were different . . . those are just a few of the many, many factors that if slightly different rational life would not be possible.

Of course, the atheist will ignore all this, just like a tribesman saying a computer must have thrown itself together by pure chance.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Socrates

[ardillacid]

How did life spring from non-living matter? And why has not this been replicated in the laboratory?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='track2004' post='1167183' date='Jan 16 2007, 05:20 PM']
But why? You say thousands of gods do not exist based on nothing. If you really think about it out of the thousands of gods people believe in around the world you believe in one and discount all the others. Athiests just also discount yours.

One could argue that many other religions decompartmentalize god's abilities into a variety of gods, but if "God is Love" then how are Mars and Pluto (Roman gods of war and death, respectively) in the euqation. More so, does anyone believe in Janus, the Roman god of doors?? You discount gods because they seem unreasonable, and so do athiests.
[/quote]

Yes but most often than not it is the Christian God who's denial that is the main focus of Atheists, they seem never to mention pagan gods, but always attack Christ, or His Father.

This reminds me of a story Fulton J. Sheen once told...

"Let me tell you the story of an atheist in London, England. I use to do considerable work in St. Patrick Parish, in that city. One Sunday morning, I came into the front of the church, to read mass and I found a young lady standing in front of the communion rail haranguing the congregation. She was saying to the congregation, "There is no God! There is too much evil in the world! Reason cannot transcend sense! It is impossible to conclude to His existence." She said "Every night I go out to Hyde Park, I talk against God. I circulate England, Scotland and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a believe in the existence of God."

And on and on she went. By that time I was up to the commuion rail, I said to her "Young lady I very happy to hear that you say you believe in the existence of God"

She said "You silly fool I don't!" I said "I understood you to say just the contrary. Suppose that I went out every night to Hide Park and talked against 20 footed ghosts, and ten centaurs. Suppose I circulated England, Scotland and Wales, denouncing a belief in these ghosts and in their centaurs. What would happen to me?"

She said "You would be crazy! They would lock you up!" Well I said "Do you not put God in the exactly the same category as these fantasies of the imagination namely ghosts and centaurs? Why then would I be crazy attacking ghost and centaurs and you are not crazy attacking God?"

She said "I dont know, why?" I said "Because when I attack these phantoms of the imagination I am attacking something that is unreal. When you attack God you are attacking something just as real as the thrust of a sword or an embrace! Do you think there would be any such thing in the world as prohibition unless there was something to prohibit? Could there every be anti-cigarette laws unless there were cigarettes? How can there be atheism unless there is something to atheate?!

She said "I hate you!" I said "Well now you've given the answer. Atheism is not a doctrine, it’s a cry of wrath.’”


The same would apply to pagan gods, atheist do not attack them, they attack God.