From Atheist To Catholic

[bonkers]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1811342' date='Mar 19 2009, 02:21 AM']What, you threw out Occam's Razor when science started to get tougher than religion?

I don't see why the dichotomy has to exist though. I'd say 99.5% or more of the Catholics that you'll meet, including this board, accept and believe everything science can prove. There's no reason to throw it out the window when you believe in God.

There seems to be some kind of fundemental disconnect between the way believers understand science and the way sceptics do. We've explained so many times, enough times that I think it's impossible for you to understand us the way we want you to.[/quote]

The difference is science is reliable and religion is not. Science is testable, measurable and observable, religion has no such controls. I think religion and science can co-exist to an extent, so long religion doesn't interferes with science in any capacity. It's not that science overules religion, it's just that religion doesn't make any sense.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811439' date='Mar 19 2009, 09:42 AM']Intellectual honesty for me has no room for god, at least not the christian kind.[/quote]

Perhaps; but I would challenge that. I assert that intellectual honesty demands in practicality that the existence of God be acknowledged as a necessary presumption. Cogito ergo sum is not an empirically verifiable proposition, yet its acceptance is an absolute necessity for practicality. God's existence may not be empirically verifiable (by definition, you cannot examine a spirit under a microscope; God is not a space alien) but the existence of God is a presumption so necessary that it is no less honest to refer to it as "fact" than it is to assert the same level of moral certainty in one's own existence. God's existence is a vital base of the scientific process - which is founded upon reason and the value of critical thinking (i.e., argumentation) - and is the only foundation upon which meaning / value may objectively rest. And as humans have been hard-wired toward these predispositions of meaning, value, and reason, it would seem that if indeed God did not exist, the nature of the evolutionary process would be to weed the atheists, who have peeked behind the curtain of evolution's grand deception (meaning), out of the larger population. If it is correct to say that I think therefore I am, then it is equally correct to say that I argue therefore God is. That is my own conclusion and it is what ultimately drove me out of my atheism. I am currently trying to get this argument published, so I can't really expound on it further without screwing my odds of getting it in print. However, I will PM you the full article.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811327' date='Mar 19 2009, 03:02 AM']My point is unexplainable doesn't mean god. For something to mean god it should be explainable by god and not exploit our ignorance.[/quote]

What about when what we observe scientifically contradicts what is proven by science?

Ever read "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811436' date='Mar 19 2009, 09:37 AM']Neither could I. [i]Something[/i] must have always existed, I don't know what, perhaps the universe has always existed on some form or another. The problem with inserting the word 'god' in there is it demands the exact same explanation, for example, where did god come from, why is god, who is god etc. There are no satisying answers to any of these questions other than that god just is, so I apply the same logic to the origins of the universe.. it just is..[/quote]

God has the power to always have existed. The universe does not.



[quote]God had a beginning?[/quote]

He doesn't need one. He has the power to. The universe does not.



[quote]If you were born in the middle east you would say the same about Islam.[/quote]

Not honestly I could. Yes culture has a lot of influence so you must be willing to investigate yourself outside the box.


----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/flipsyde/track/happy+birthday"]Flipsyde - Happy Birthday[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1811508' date='Mar 19 2009, 11:50 AM']Perhaps; but I would challenge that. I assert that intellectual honesty demands in practicality that the existence of God be acknowledged as a necessary presumption.[/quote]

Then everyone who rejects your God is intelectually dishonest?

[quote]Cogito ergo sum is not an empirically verifiable proposition, yet its acceptance is an absolute necessity for practicality.[/quote]

No it's not. It's been seriously contested since Hume's time and almost no serious philosophers or cognitive scientists accecpt it's conclusion. At least not like anything Descartes had in mind.


[quote]God's existence may not be empirically verifiable (by definition, you cannot examine a spirit under a microscope; God is not a space alien)[/quote]


That is not a priori true.

[quote]but the existence of God is a presumption so necessary that it is no less honest to refer to it as "fact" than it is to assert the same level of moral certainty in one's own existence. God's existence is a vital base of the scientific process - which is founded upon reason and the value of critical thinking (i.e., argumentation) - and is the only foundation upon which meaning / value may objectively rest.[/quote]

You need to give some support here

[quote]And as humans have been hard-wired toward these predispositions of meaning, value, and reason, it would seem that if indeed God did not exist, the nature of the evolutionary process would be to weed the atheists, who have peeked behind the curtain of evolution's grand deception (meaning), out of the larger population.[/quote]

Take away the teleological addition to natural selection and you may be to some extent correct. Simply because there is no rational reason to believe in God or an objectively meaningful life does in no way mean it is not evolutionairly beneficial to believe.

[quote]If it is correct to say that I think therefore I am, then it is equally correct to say that I argue therefore God is.[/quote]

Well the antecedent is highly contestable and almost certianly false, at least in terms of what Descartes believed the conclusion to be. I have seen no logical reason here to accecpt your antecedent, that there is a logically necessary movement from that antecedent to your consequent, or how the consequent on its own is even coherent

[quote]That is my own conclusion and it is what ultimately drove me out of my atheism. I am currently trying to get this argument published, so I can't really expound on it further without screwing my odds of getting it in print. However, I will PM you the full article.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure you can't PM him.

[Arpy]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1811702' date='Mar 19 2009, 11:42 AM']Then everyone who rejects your God is intelectually dishonest?[/quote]
Isn't it rather dishonest to restrict the available explanations to a problem to empirical data? Yes, accepting nonempirical data is not [i]scientifically[/i] honest, but intellectually speaking, I don't see why not.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Arpy' post='1811724' date='Mar 19 2009, 03:09 PM']Isn't it rather dishonest to restrict the available explanations to a problem to empirical data? Yes, accepting nonempirical data is not [i]scientifically[/i] honest, but intellectually speaking, I don't see why not.[/quote]

Could you clarify a bit?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1811702' date='Mar 19 2009, 02:42 PM']Then everyone who rejects your God is intelectually dishonest?

...No it's not. It's been seriously contested since Hume's time and almost no serious philosophers or cognitive scientists accecpt it's conclusion. At least not like anything Descartes had in mind...Well the antecedent is highly contestable and almost certianly false, at least in terms of what Descartes believed the conclusion to be. I have seen no logical reason here to accecpt your antecedent, that there is a logically necessary movement from that antecedent to your consequent, or how the consequent on its own is even coherent[/quote]

First of all, you should not be so hasty. Your initial question clearly implies that I have insisted upon my own religion when in fact I did not. Either quote my insistence on Catholicism in the post you are pointing to or apologize for your misrepresentation of my argument. Thanks.

The only objection to cogito ergo sum is a variation on the so-called Skeptical Hypothesis; yes, of course Descartes' assertion here is not provable to the extent of empirical certainty, which is exactly the point. A practical life is impossible - or at least extraordinarily difficult - to live with intellectual honesty when one considers oneself a mere BIV. Thus cogito ergo sum is a presumption treated necessarily as fact.

My syllogistic formatting of my argument:

I.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists independently of any consciousness in the universe
B. For that of the universe to exist independently of any consciousness in the universe is for that of the universe to exist “objectively”
C. Therefore, both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively

This first syllogism merely serves to offer a logical proof for the common definition of “objectivity”. Screwing around with the terms laid out for objectivity is utterly fruitless and immediately renders any subsequent critical thought process superfluous. That truth is defined by that which correlates with reality is an absolutely necessary presumption; an agreed upon given by every dictionary, to say nothing of commonsense.

II.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively
B. According to atheism, neither meaning nor value exist objectively
C. Therefore, according to atheism, there exists neither meaning nor value that is real or true.

This second syllogism presumes a necessary and universally accepted stance of atheism; that, since consciousness is required for things to be labeled “meaningful” or “valuable” and there is no eternal consciousness, then meaning and value are purely and strictly subjective – that is, although seeming to be “real” and “true”, the concepts of meaning and value are actually a convincing illusion of evolution and will cease to exist upon the inevitable and unavoidable death of the last consciousness.

III.
A. According to atheism, there exists neither meaning nor value that is real or true.
B. The appreciation of and desire for any and all things within the human experience is dependant on perceptions of meaning and value.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the appreciation of and desire for any and all things within the human experience is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.

The atheist should have already agreed with the major premise, as it was the conclusion of the second syllogism. Since the conclusion here necessarily follows from the minor premise, the atheist’s only avenue of objection could be the minor premise. But to object to the minor premise, the atheist would have to provide an example of something that could be appreciated or desired in which there is simultaneously no perceived value or meaning. This of course is an absurd contradiction. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the fourth syllogism:

IV.
A. According to atheism, the appreciation of and desire for any and all things within the human experience is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.
B. The basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is the appreciation of and desire for things within the human experience.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.

Again, the atheist can only attack the minor premise. But to attack the minor premise, the atheist must demonstrate that there could be some basis and motivation for inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness other than appreciation or desire for things within the human experience. This of course is an absurd contradiction, for every deliberate action – whether in thought or deed – stems from the appreciation of something or the desire for something. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the fifth syllogism:

V.
A. According to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.
B. That which is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

Once again (do you notice a pattern developing?) the atheist can only challenge the minor premise. Yet the atheist’s challenge could only come in the form of a demonstration that a concept or thought-process could owe its own validity to – that is, that its very existence as something real or true could be directly dependant upon – perceptions of that which is invalid. This is of course an absurd contradiction and the premise therefore stands. Moving on to the sixth syllogism:

VI.
A. According to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. That whish is based on and motivated by that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

As has been and will continue to be the case, the atheist can only challenge the minor premise, having been forced to concede to each prior conclusion. But to do so, the atheist would have to demonstrate that something which depends on something that is neither real nor true is in fact real and true. But if I owe my existence to the griffon and the griffon does not exist, then neither can I exist, for from nothing, nothing comes. Any challenge of the minor premise would once again be an absurd contradiction. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the seventh syllogism:

VII.
A. According to atheism, all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. The profession, explanation, or argumentation of a concept or belief is a system of and for inquiry, arbitration, progress, and / or happiness.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue a concept or belief is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

Cutting to the chase here, the minor premise can only be objected to if the atheist can demonstrate that professing, explaining, or arguing his points is not actually of or for inquiry, arbitration, progress and / or maybe even happiness. But if his points aren’t aimed at progress, then they aren’t actually points. And if he hasn’t used judgment (arbitration) to arrive at his points then he certainly cannot explain them. And how could his current points have originated without his own inquiry? Once again, the atheist’s attempts to refute the minor premise would represent absurdity. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the eighth syllogism:

VIII.
A. According to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue a concept or belief is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. Atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is a concept.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

Since the minor premise is self-evident, we will move along to the ninth syllogism:

IX.
A. According to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue Atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. That which is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the profession, explanation, or argument of atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

As the minor premise of this syllogism is obviously defended in the same way as the minor premise of the sixth syllogism, we will move along to the concluding syllogism:

X.
A. According to atheism, the profession, explanation, or argument of atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. That which it is superfluous, illusionary, and errant to profess, explain, or argue is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

The atheist’s last means of escape is to offer a challenge to this final syllogism’s minor premise. But how could something which it is superfluous, illusionary, and errant to profess, explain, or defend itself have any truth or reality in value? It cannot. And besides that, the second and third syllogisms already proved that there is no reality or truth to “value” in the atheist’s world-view to begin with. The premise therefore stands and thus, so too does the conclusion.

And there we have it. Atheism has been proven by itself to be errant in ten syllogisms. But perhaps we could summarize the argument into two syllogisms:

I.
A. According to atheism, objective (public) argument is based on an errant presumption (that meaning and value is objective).
B. It is intellectually dishonest to knowingly argue based on errant presumptions.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, it is intellectually dishonest to engage in objective argumentation.

II.
A. According to atheism, it is intellectually dishonest to engage in objective argumentation.
B. The critique and profession of all the sciences and the humanities is the engagement of objective argumentation
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the critique and profession of all the sciences and the humanities is intellectually dishonest

…or even further simplified in a single syllogism:

A. Critical inquiries and objective argumentation presume objective meaning/value when such analysis takes place in public (that is, on the objective level)
B. Objective meaning/value necessarily presumes an eternal, conscious Creator
C. Therefore, atheism is intellectually dishonest when critical inquiry or argumentative analysis takes place in public (that is, on the objective level)

[Deeds]

I read her blog - it's very good. [url="http://www.conversiondiary.com"]Conversion Diary[/url]

[Mary's Son]

I could post links to miracles that have been verified by independent secularists.

But, what is the point, my atheistic friends? Humans will dismiss what they want, and hold on to what they want...despite claims of "verifiability" and "scientific process."

Re-read the part of the article about humility. I too tried to reason my way into faith. It wasn't until I admitted that I couldn't that I was broke down enough to receive it.

[Ash Wednesday]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1811770' date='Mar 19 2009, 03:38 PM']First of all, you should not be so hasty. Your initial question clearly implies that I have insisted upon my own religion when in fact I did not. Either quote my insistence on Catholicism in the post you are pointing to or apologize for your misrepresentation of my argument. Thanks.[/quote]


Don't be a Drama Queen. Thanks.

You did not say "a God" but "God". When individuals speak of believing in God or any real reference to God who are they speaking of? Would your comment be even almost coherant applied to anything one could label as "God" if they so chose? If I decided that I believed in the God Chad, he does nothing but lay around watching Jerry Springer in another dimension and has absolutly no impact on this universe in any way would your comment make sense?

I assumed that when you said "God" you were refering to a general idea of a being, whom your worship, but applicable to a marginally larger conceptualizations of this being. If this was totally off the mark I will apologize, if not then I feel no need to apologize for misrepresenting your argument.


[quote]The only objection to cogito ergo sum is a variation on the so-called Skeptical Hypothesis; yes, of course Descartes' assertion here is not provable to the extent of empirical certainty, which is exactly the point. A practical life is impossible - or at least extraordinarily difficult - to live with intellectual honesty when one considers oneself a mere BIV. Thus cogito ergo sum is a presumption treated necessarily as fact.[/quote]

I don't know what the skeptical hypothesis is.

An individual could question the deductive validity of the argument (as there is none), that it is unabashedly question begging, that the "I" is a unity (as Hume points out), or even the fact that Descartes very notion of "I" is really no longer applicable (See Searle's criticism of Descartes "Immaterial" substance as no longer applicable) to think of only a few problems with it. It is a vague assertion and really nothing more.


[quote]My syllogistic formatting of my argument:

I.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists independently of any consciousness in the universe
B. For that of the universe to exist independently of any consciousness in the universe is for that of the universe to exist “objectively”
C. Therefore, both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively

This first syllogism merely serves to offer a logical proof for the common definition of “objectivity”. Screwing around with the terms laid out for objectivity is utterly fruitless and immediately renders any subsequent critical thought process superfluous. That truth is defined by that which correlates with reality is an absolutely necessary presumption; an agreed upon given by every dictionary, to say nothing of commonsense.[/quote]

what do you mean by "reality" and "truth" and how do you make distinctions between them. What do you mean by "of the Universe"


[quote]II.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively
B. According to atheism, neither meaning nor value exist objectively
C. Therefore, according to atheism, there exists neither meaning nor value that is real or true.


This second syllogism presumes a necessary and universally accepted stance of atheism; that, since consciousness is required for things to be labeled “meaningful” or “valuable” and there is no eternal consciousness, then meaning and value are purely and strictly subjective – that is, although seeming to be “real” and “true”, the concepts of meaning and value are actually a convincing illusion of evolution and will cease to exist upon the inevitable and unavoidable death of the last consciousness.[/quote]


Firstly there are no universally accecpted stances of atheism other than the most obvious.

What do you mean by "meaning" and "value" and how do they not exist in an atheistic world view?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1812670' date='Mar 20 2009, 09:59 PM']I assumed that when you said "God" you were refering to a general idea of a being, whom your worship, [b]but applicable to a marginally larger conceptualizations[/b] of this being. If this was totally off the mark I will apologize, if not then I feel no need to apologize for misrepresenting your argument.[/quote]

If you acknowledge that you knew that "God" was meant in the general sense rather than the specifically Catholic God, then you also admit you were deliberately misleading (dishonest) to imply that I was referring specifically to Catholicism in the argument.

[quote]I don't know what the skeptical hypothesis is.

An individual could question the deductive validity of the argument (as there is none), that it is unabashedly question begging, that the "I" is a unity (as Hume points out), or even the fact that Descartes very notion of "I" is really no longer applicable (See Searle's criticism of Descartes "Immaterial" substance as no longer applicable) to think of only a few problems with it. It is a vague assertion and really nothing more.[/quote]

[url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/[/url]

[quote]what do you mean by "reality" and "truth" and how do you make distinctions between them. What do you mean by "of the Universe"[/quote]

Although atheists inevitably are forced to come up with an abstract distinction between the two, I am not. Reality and truth are paired together (much like meaning and value) for that purpose. I go by commonsense, which every dictionary I have ever seen agrees with. Reality and truth correspond to one another to the extent that the terms are virtually synonymous. You've implicitly acknowledged that, which is very good.

[quote]Firstly there are no universally accecpted stances of atheism other than the most obvious.[/quote]

True. And the most obvious is exactly what is meant by the phrase "according to atheism" in every syllogism. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you may therefore substitute the phrase you find troubling for "lacking the belief in God".

[quote]What do you mean by "meaning" and "value" and how do they not exist in an atheistic world view?[/quote]

Please re-read the syllogisms. The argument focuses on the existence of [i]objective [/i]meaning and value. That is, that meaning and value are not merely subjective illusions caused by a particular state of a meaningless evolution.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1813203' date='Mar 21 2009, 08:30 AM']If you acknowledge that you knew that "God" was meant in the general sense rather than the specifically Catholic God, then you also admit you were deliberately misleading (dishonest) to imply that I was referring specifically to Catholicism in the argument.[/quote]

Alright



[quote][url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/[/url][/quote]

Descartes cogito was an attempted refutation of the skeptical hypothesis, I fail to see how that is an objection to it or the points I mentioned.



[quote]Although atheists inevitably are forced to come up with an abstract distinction between the two, I am not. Reality and truth are paired together (much like meaning and value) for that purpose. I go by commonsense, which every dictionary I have ever seen agrees with. Reality and truth correspond to one another to the extent that the terms are virtually synonymous. You've implicitly acknowledged that, which is very good.[/quote]


You made a distinction between the two I did no. I am asking what you mean by the terms and why you make a distinction between the two.



[quote]True. And the most obvious is exactly what is meant by the phrase "according to atheism" in every syllogism. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you may therefore substitute the phrase you find troubling for "lacking the belief in God".[/quote]


The most obvious I was refering to was an absence of theistic belief. Other than that there is no universalism


[quote]Please re-read the syllogisms. The argument focuses on the existence of [i]objective [/i]meaning and value. That is, that meaning and value are not merely subjective illusions caused by a particular state of a meaningless evolution.[/quote]

And I am asking what you mean by those terms.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1813540' date='Mar 21 2009, 08:44 PM']Alright[/quote]

If then you admit to deliberate deception, yet refuse to apologize, why should I spend my time on your posts?

[quote]Descartes cogito was an attempted refutation of the skeptical hypothesis, I fail to see how that is an objection to it or the points I mentioned.[/quote]

The link explained the skeptical hypothesis and the BIV-scenario. As I said, Descartes' idea cannot be proven, but is certainly presumed nevertheless. This should not be dragged out; questioning the validity of the existence of one's own thoughts is fruitless and absurd.

[quote]You made a distinction between the two I did no. I am asking what you mean by the terms and why you make a distinction between the two.
...
And I am asking what you mean by those terms [meaning and value].[/quote]

As I said (again), reality and truth are interchangeable terms, yet used in different ways by some (e.g., reality is what is, while truth is our perceptions of what is), and are thus listed together for that purpose, much like the terms "meaning" and "value". Something is valuable inasmuch as it is meaningful and vice versa. Meaning and value are [i]qualitative judgments [/i]made by a consciousness.

[quote]The most obvious I was refering to was an absence of theistic belief. Other than that there is no universalism[/quote]

And (yet again) I repeat that the absence of the belief in God is the very "universal" that I am referencing in each syllogism; hence, my previous recommendation that you replace the phrase you find troubling with the substitution "lacking the belief in God".