Atheists "Hijack" Nativity in Santa Monica

#376
#376
KiffinKiller said:
. Descartes' own reason for god's existence is the fact that he could picture a god in his mind (and what else could have inspired that than God himself?)

What Descartes forgets to mention is that he was catholic and was taught about the existence and fear of God during his childhood. Bias is bias.
Click to expand...

bamawriter said:
That's not exactly Descartes' theory.

He theorized that if God is the greatest thing we are capable of imagining, then God must exist, because something that exists is greater than something that does not.
Click to expand...

KiffinKiller said:
Not sure I'm following you're wording correctly. So he meant God must exist because he can imagine God? What about imagining something that you were taught exists proves existence?
Click to expand...

bamawriter said:
I'm not agreeing with the proposition.

However, the point isn't that God exists because we can imagine God. Even if no one ever thought up their own personal idea of God, God would still exist because God is the greatest thing that could possibly be imagined. Existence is greater than non-existence, so the greatest thing must exist whether or not it ever gets imagined.

I'm not really that great at clarifying philosophy.
Click to expand...

Descartes argument which you are referencing is in his third mediation. Known as his "Causal Argument" for the Existence of God. Similar in ways to St. Augustine.

Premise one: Something cannot come from nothing.
Premise two: Formal reality and objective reality are essentially equal. Therefore, causation of formal reality may be comparable to objective reality.

Argument: Humans are able to think of perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. This idea has infinite objective reality. However, humans are are finite and imperfect. Furthermore, they have limited formal reality (being finite vs infinite). The cause of such an idea could only come from a being with the same characteristics of the idea: infinite and perfect.

Same Argument (less philosophical language): Humans are able to think of perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Since there is nothing on Earth in which humans could possibly gain that idea via experience; such an idea must have come a priori. In essence, you must have been born with idea inherently planted in your mind. The only entity which capable of this feat is God.

Descartes gives another argument for the existence of God in Meditations V. Similar in ways to St. Anselm's "Ontological Argument."

The idea of the most perfect being (God) entails certain implied characteristics. Known characteristics of God: omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, infinite, perfect. The latter being the most important. Perfect implies that God lacks nothing. Therefore, God could not lack existence. Essentially, the essence of a perfect God entails existence. As Descartes said, "We can no more think of God without existence than we can think of a mountain without a valley."
 
#377
#377
bamawriter said:
I'm not agreeing with the proposition.

However, the point isn't that God exists because we can imagine God. Even if no one ever thought up their own personal idea of God, God would still exist because God is the greatest thing that could possibly be imagined. Existence is greater than non-existence, so the greatest thing must exist whether or not it ever gets imagined.

I'm not really that great at clarifying philosophy.
Click to expand...

to which god is he referring here?
 
#378
#378
PKT_VOL said:
False. Scientists stop at the point where there is no testable scientific theory or factual evidence to support their theory. It has nothing to do with the possibility of there being supernatural forces. This is not to say that theoretical physics and religious ideas are completely incompatible. They are actually converging in some areas rather than diverging. However, the process of getting there is not the same. They follow the evidence and see where it leads them instead of start with a preconceived notion and attempt to cherry pick various things to giver their preconceive notion scientific credence.
Click to expand...

I don't completely disagree with you. It was incorrect of me to suggest that scientific theory would cease simply because of the risk of delving into the supernatural.

What I mean is that something like the infinite mass theory doesn't hold up for me. There is no more evidence to suggest that all mass and energy always existed as there is to suggest that at some point nothing existed. The suggestion is that, at a specific point in time, the laws didn't apply, and then in the next instant they did.



Existence (outside of strict idealism) is based on empirical knowledge. The "why?" is an abstract notion within our minds. To conjure a supernatural force from pure existence just does not follow unless you have refined premises; from which you are basing your argument of "faith" upon. I do not have such (faulty IMO) refined premises.
Click to expand...

The "how" is a question of empirical knowledge. If the same laws truly govern the universe (and it is certainly possible that there are points outside of man's knowledge where they don't), then there has to be an explanation as to how all matter and all energy came into being.
 
#380
#380
If all men were born with some implanted idea of God - then why didn't I learn about him until sunday school at a christian church?
 
#381
#381
KiffinKiller said:
If all men were born with some implanted idea of God - then why didn't I learn about him until sunday school at a christian church?
Click to expand...

This raised a question in my mind? Was anybody on this board raised atheist? I wonder what kind of initial impressions they might've had about the notion of God?
 
#382
#382
MUR73 said:
Hmm...Is Laziness why you chose to do it?
Click to expand...

Chose to do what, exactly?

MUR73 said:
I have read many of your hollow post and see no answers only long winded assertations about how flawed Christianity is without a single coherent real alternative.
Click to expand...

Did you conduct the search?

I have laid out, more than once, how and why I am an agnostic. I conducted the search myself with the terms I suggested to you; it is there. You might have to read twenty-two posts to find the right one; but, like I said, it is there. If you are too lazy to do so, not my problem.

I also do not care what you think is a "coherent, real alternative"; right now you believe in a God who was born of a virgin.

MUR73 said:
btw...Your acknowledgement concerning mytime here not being your "problem" is a relief, so instead i will lean not on your words for comfort but upon the one you mock for that instead.
Click to expand...

Christ did not write the Gospels; many times the sayings of Christ contradict each other. These contradictions have led to plenty of terribly bloody wars between Christians who disagree on which of these statements hold supremacy over the others. But, hey, that is about as coherent as a virgin giving birth...
 
#384
#384
From the cogito ergo sum (or, better stated, the dubito ergo sum), Descartes realizes that he exists. He then posits that he did not create himself and, since he cannot trust that the physical world exists, he has to place his creation in something outside of the physical world: God. His fault is in automatically assigning this God benevolent characteristics; such a God would not deceive him, therefore, the physical world exists.

Descartes does play around with some ontological proofs for the existence of God but they are nowhere near as rigorous as those offered by Anselm and Scotus; Anselm and Scotus's proofs are not convincing, as they both rely on the 'innate' understanding of quality and therefore the 'innate' knowledge of the superlative. Yet, from the notion of quality arise both perfection and imperfection. Perfection and imperfection cannot coexist; therefore, the premise, quality, must be examined.

Do we have an innate notion of quality?

I say 'no'. Therefore, things are and there exists no actual value; value simply exists as a human/societal construct. This includes good and evil.
 
#385
#385
nbakerld said:
This raised a question in my mind? Was anybody on this board raised atheist? I wonder what kind of initial impressions they might've had about the notion of God?
Click to expand...

my parents were essentially atheists, they did let me go to Sunday school with a neighbor, but unlike a lot of my friends (especially after moving to small town Tennessee) Jesus wasn't beaten into my head from the moment I could feed myself.

My guess is that if God does exist, he doesn't care if you go to church, speak in tongues, and avoid meat on Fridays. He cares that you live a good life where you respect yourself and your neighbor without having to jump through all kinds of hoops laid out by some minister pushing his or her own agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#386
#386
bamawriter said:
There is no more evidence to suggest that all mass and energy always existed as there is to suggest that at some point nothing existed.
Click to expand...

Of course not. This is a limitation of science at the moment. However, it does not follow that a lack of solid scientific evidence at the present time acts as a genuine piece of evidence towards a supernatural force/being.

bamawriter said:
The suggestion is that, at a specific point in time, the laws didn't apply, and then in the next instant they did.
Click to expand...

Depends on what theory you go by. The theory I like best being that our universe was created from another universe, does not suffer that caveat. The theory which states that there was nothing before the big bang is intriguing. I don't find it practical, but I don't exclude it as a possibility. Especially in terms of biology and theology.

bamawriter said:
The "how" is a question of empirical knowledge. If the same laws truly govern the universe (and it is certainly possible that there are points outside of man's knowledge where they don't), then there has to be an explanation as to how all matter and all energy came into being.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all points. However, "how" and "why" are two different questions.
 
#387
#387
MUR73 said:
I have read many of your hollow post and see no answers only long winded assertations about how flawed Christianity is without a single coherent real alternative.
Click to expand...

Assuming you meant assertions, how is your norm (obviously Christianity) more "coherent" than any possible (or to you, improbable) alternative?

MUR73 said:
btw...Your acknowledgement concerning mytime here not being your "problem" is a relief, so instead i will lean not on your words for comfort but upon the one you mock for that instead.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, it is difficult to mock something when you don't actually acknowledge its very existence.

Blind faith, however, is very real.
 
#388
#388
PKT_VOL said:
Depends on what theory you go by. The theory I like best being that our universe was created from another universe, does not suffer that caveat. The theory which states that there was nothing before the big bang is intriguing. I don't find it practical, but I don't exclude it as a possibility. Especially in terms of biology and theology.
Click to expand...

1. Multiple Universe Theories: still lead to the infinite regression.

2. If nothing prior to the Big-Bang, you still have to answer the question of how something from nothing. This is a question that science will never be able to definitively answer; therefore, even with the greatest advances in science, one will still be left something that lies outside the laws of nature.

3. One could argue that either matter, mass, or energy (or all three) are, ultimately, infinite. Yet, the question of how these things were created still arises. Self-begetting, again, defies nature and can never be subjected to empiricism.

The term 'supernatural' simply refers to some 'thing' that does not conform to the laws of nature. Of course, the term 'laws of nature' is philosophically ambiguous. Some, in the Aristotelian mode, view it as empirical; others, of more Platonic leanings (myself included), view it more in terms of things that can possibly be conceived. Yet, the application of both notions still puts science at an infinite disadvantage as what is being discussed, as stated above, can never be subjected to empiricism.
 
#392
#392
therealUT said:
1. Multiple Universe Theories: still lead to the infinite regression.
Click to expand...

Only under two premises:
1) Other universes abide by the same natural laws as our universe
2) Our biological concept of cause and effect are the same in other universes

Neither premise is logically sound; both are unfounded assumptions.

therealUT said:
2. If nothing prior to the Big-Bang, you still have to answer the question of how something from nothing. This is a question that science will never be able to definitively answer; therefore, even with the greatest advances in science, one will still be left something that lies outside the laws of nature.
Click to expand...

I would not say never be able at answer. At the present time? No, we can't. Also, keep in mind, we have no idea how the other known "unknown" dimensions (shout-out to Rumsfeld) of our universe play a role in the universe itself; let alone the Big Bang. There is a lot we don't know. However, it does not follow that because we don't know certain aspects of our universe, there must be a supernatural force or being to explain our current unknown inquiries into the function of our universe.

Secondly, we don't necessarily have to answer such an inquiry if indeed we find evidence that there was truly nothing before the Big Bang. Our logic, our natural laws, our testable universe as it stands started at an infinitely small time after t=0. Before that time, there could be a different set of rules both for natural laws and logic which pervade the era before the Big Bang. This would not make them outside our natural laws; rather redefining the true natural laws of physical existence. Again, no need for a "supernatural" being or force.

therealUT said:
3. One could argue that either matter, mass, or energy (or all three) are, ultimately, infinite. Yet, the question of how these things were created still arises. Self-begetting, again, defies nature and can never be subjected to empiricism.
Click to expand...

If mass, matter, and energy are truly infinite, it debunks the theory of a creative supernatural force or being. I am not sure you thought that one through.

therealUT said:
The term 'supernatural' simply refers to some 'thing' that does not conform to the laws of nature. Of course, the term 'laws of nature' is philosophically ambiguous. Some, in the Aristotelian mode, view it as empirical; others, of more Platonic leanings (myself included), view it more in terms of things that can possibly be conceived. Yet, the application of both notions still puts science at an infinite disadvantage as what is being discussed, as stated above, can never be subjected to empiricism.
Click to expand...

We are constantly rewriting the natural laws of the universe based on empirical knowledge. If your definition of "supernatural" means that there is something, presently, which does not conform to our known physical laws, then we are really just talking past one another. I consider that information which we have yet to be able to tap into. In other words, a hundred and fifty years ago, quantum mechanics would have been considered "supernatural" but your definition if I understand you correctly. It did not (and still does not) conform to our other physical laws. I view that discrepancy as a secret of the universe which has yet to be solved.
 
#396
#396
THEREALUT STATEMENT:Did you conduct the search?

THEREALUT STATEMENT:I have laid out, more than once, how and why I am an agnostic. I conducted the search myself with the terms I suggested to you; it is there. You might have to read twenty-two posts to find the right one; but, like I said, it is there. If you are too lazy to do so, not my problem.

RESPONSE BY MUR73:Cant summarize, huh?

THEREALUT STATEMENT:I also do not care what you think is a "coherent, real alternative"; right now you believe in a God who was born of a virgin.

RESPONSE BY MUR73:And i can only assume, since you dont have the time or the sac to summarize your beliefs in a paragraph or two but have still make time to lay out post after bloviated posts of incoherent ramblings, and long winded meanderings, that you are a man that belives in Darwins evolution.

RESPONSE BY MUR73:If so, you know, not the far fetched Christian belief of a life being brought forth by a supreme being in the womb of a female but instead of the totally believable, scientific led theory that somehow a single cell organisms appeared out of thin air , thats David Copperfield $h*t there, and then turned into multicell organism and then growing fins, lungs, heart, and soo on, until it oozes out onto the beach and then..well we know where it goes from there, we all seen the movie and Stifler's "Ka-Kaw" call drawed that pterodacyl in like a charm...but anyways i digress. Just wanted to say Thanks for the indoctrination/education/Magic Show that your unproven believes also provide.

THEREALUT STATEMENT:Christ did not write the Gospels; many times the sayings of Christ contradict each other. These contradictions have led to plenty of terribly bloody wars between Christians who disagree on which of these statements hold supremacy over the others. But, hey, that is about as coherent as a virgin giving birth...

RESPONSE FROM MUR73: Yes, let's talk about these Contradictions and then later once you have estblished your point(s) we can discuss the bloodshed.
 
Last edited:
#397
#397
MG1968 said:
my parents were essentially atheists, they did let me go to Sunday school with a neighbor, but unlike a lot of my friends (especially after moving to small town Tennessee) Jesus wasn't beaten into my head from the moment I could feed myself.

My guess is that if God does exist, he doesn't care if you go to church, speak in tongues, and avoid meat on Fridays. He cares that you live a good life where you respect yourself and your neighbor without having to jump through all kinds of hoops laid out by some minister pushing his or her own agenda.
Click to expand...

This is our plan for our child. We won't discourage church if he wants to go but we are pushing anything on him. If he grows up to be a priest so be it, it will have been a choice he completely owned from the beginning. We probably will never set foot in a church but will support him if he wants to try.
 
#399
#399
MUR73 said:
Yes, let's talk about these Contradictions and then later once you have estblished your point(s) we can discuss the bloodshed.
Click to expand...

Don't quote me as saying things I did not say. Kindly take your statements and remove them from the quote box.
 
#400
#400
For those who believe in God, no explanation is neceserary. Those that don't believe in God, no explanation is possible. This seems to be what your argument comes down to.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top