ARHCIVE: The impossibility of atheism ...

[Hilston]

This thread is a continuation of a discussion that began in the "Grandstands" about Bob Enyart's apologetic method. As the so-called atheists began to join in, it became clear that the discussions about apologetic method might be muddied in the concurrrent attempts to answer the atheistic objections. For the preceding discussions to this new thread, please see "Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ..." (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7945&perpage=15&pagenumber=1).

Below I will begin (or resume) with posting the first installment of a reply to Aussie Thinker's post in the aforementioned discussion.

Cheers,
Jim

[Hilston]

Hi Aussie,

You wrote:... I found this response eventually. If I sometimes miss one I'll just happily assume I won and move on...lolGood one. I think I've made that happy assumption a time or two myself. :)

In the interest of making this thread less unwieldy, permit me to address what appear to be the most salient points of discussion and any direct questions you may have asked. If there are any points you'd like me to address that I happen to miss, please point them out to me and I will happily answer them.

I appreciate your taking the time to summarize your worldview. You'll see below that I ask similar questions for several of your statements below. I don't repeat the question to be annoying, but because I am genuinely interested in why you believe certain particulars in your worldview as you stated it. If you would like to answer each of my "whys", that's fine. If you want to take any single one of them, that's fine, too.

Aussie Thinker writes:My Worldview.

1. The natural universe always was.. admittedly this is very similar to God always was but it cuts out an extra (unnecessary)step of God always was and then created a Universe that "seems" to operate on Natural forces.On what do you base your view that the natural universe always was?

Aussie Thinker writes:2. Conditions in the Universe allowed for the formation of life.Upon what do you base your conclusion that conditions in the universe allowed for the formation of life? And why should the mere formation of life necessitate the eventuality of creatures who reason abstractly?

Aussie Thinker writes:Conditions were not really conducive ...[Emphasis added by Jim] On what do you base this conclusion?

Aussie Thinker writes:... but the formation of life was a possibility ...Why do you believe this?

Aussie Thinker writes:... and given time and millions of chemical reactions and iterations it actually became likely and hence it formed.Why do you believe this?

Aussie Thinker writes:4. Once Evolution took hold life would naturally keep pushing up more adaptable better suited forms. Eventually the best adaptation "Intelligence" was bound to come to the fore in evolution somewhere in the Universe.Why was it "bound to come"? Why do you believe this? And why would the ability to reason abstractly ever become a necessity, especially given the fact that the majority of life on this planet do not, and on your view, did not for eons prior to man's evolution?

Aussie Thinker writes:6. As soon as an intelligent creature becomes self aware it has what we call "consciousness". All this so far has come about Naturally and requires no need to justify itself happening.It does, because otherwise you can speciously claim "it happened because it did."

Aussie Thinker writes:It happened because it did.See? That's how we get money from the ATM. Money just comes out because it just comes out.

Aussie Thinker writes:7. All other terms and philosophies like truth, logic, God are man made to explain the world in which he finds himself.But didn't you state that the laws of logic existed prior to man existing? Why do you equivocate on this?

Aussie Thinker writes:Now I wonder where in that wordview do you find I am failing to account for logic, reason etc. ...You must see that merely "coming up with an explanation," regardless of how fancifully stimulating or prosaically mundane, is not sufficient. Anyone can come up with an explanation, but you must account for it, justify it, prove it.

Aussie Thinker writes:... and where they NEED to be justified?They NEED to be justified in order for you to account for them as more than just fantasy and imagination. Your conjecture about origins is blatant question-begging ("It happened because it did"), which I predict your answer to my questions above will even further demonstrate. If the universe conforms to logical laws, as you've affirmed, then it is perfectly consonant with such a universe to require a justification for your claims. You yourself admit that abstract reasoning is "successful adaptation." Let's see it work here. Justify your use of these logical laws by accounting for their existence in a way that doesn't beg the question (which would be a violation of logic).

Aussie Thinker writes:These are human creations of our advanced intelligence.Again, equivocation. You cannot have both the laws of logic being created by humans and the pre-existence of the laws of logic.

Aussie Thinker writes:If the answer to EVERYTHING so far has been a NATURAL one logic would dictate that the answers to everything unknown will also be NATURAL.Do you realize that you are begging the question by limiting "everything" and the so-called "answer to everything" to what you prejudicially deem as "natural"? If there were anything supra-natural, you would dismiss it, a priori, because of your arbitrarily stipulated criteria. How do you justify that stipulation?

Aussie Thinker writes:That is how our man made logic works. If it is wrong and God has a different set of rules then he sure wired us wrong !But the point is, God wired us correctly, and that justifies our use of logic and our reliance upon it. Thus, I can appeal to logic as an universal and reason as generally reliable because there is an absolute Authority back of them. You have no justifiable authority behind your claims. You tacitly assert your own autonomy, with no way to prove or justify it.

Aussie Thinker writes:We have evolved a way of thinking if this happens this is then likely. It is gleaned from experience and what we are taught. If I have a sequence of numbers that go 1,2,3.. it is logical that the next number would be 4. If I was a primitive caveman I would not have a clue what the next number would be but if I was shown how to count I would know.Did you just blithely skip over the obvious semiotic problem of the numbers themselves? It appears to me that you're so accustomed to just tossing out these fantastic theories without challenge that you've gotten sloppy. Either that, or you've so sufficiently blinded yourself to your own worldview that you do not see how sloppy these kinds of statements really are.

Aussie Thinker writes:The reason we have an orderly Universe is obvious to an atheist. The disorderly ones destroyed themselves or are not conducive to the formation of intelligent life.How do you know this?

Jim previously wrote: You didn't answer the question. By what method have you determined the reliability of logic, reason, likelihood, independent corroboration of scientific study? What meta-method establishes the veracity of these methods?

Aussie Thinker writes:We have to just assume our facilities are functioning properly or we might as well be 2 lunatics in an asylum.So, on your view, it's arbitrary and faith-based. You simply prefer to assume the reliability of our senses and reason, without proof or justification, because you don't like the alternative. That's hardly a cogent worldview.

Aussie Thinker writes:Otherwise you can go off in a million Matrix situations (do you get that analogy) and argument becomes pointless.The fact is, you cannot know, based on your worldview, that you're not in a Matrix situation. You have to blindly assume that you're not, with no way of proving otherwise. You've taken the blue pill, Aussie.

Jim previously wrote: As I indicated above, the tools I use to assess truth claims come from God Himself. Given God's existence, I have assurance that my faculties are generally reliable and that my assessments actually comport with reality. Where does your assurance come from, given your Godless view, materialist view?

Aussie Thinker writes:Your tools came from a natural evolution of intelligence.It's a nice story, Aussie, but you haven't proven it. And what is worse, you commit the most egregious logical fallacy by begging the very question: "It's just this way because it is this way." It's unacceptable to a thinking and rational person. I can account for and justify my worldview, as well as the existence and my use of the tools by which I understand reality. You haven't come close, except to describe a fantastic and fanciful story.

Aussie Thinker writes:You have created a God to explain the existence of these tools. I KNOW your tools are reliable as I know they are very similar to mine.How do you know?

Aussie Thinker writes:My assurance to their reliability is again something I can only reiterate stems from assumption that we are not in a Matrix world !Why do you assume that? Can a freethinker dismiss the possibility without undermining the very definition?

Jim previously wrote: We just accept it? But that's not a justification. And in a discussion between competing worldviews, that's not a sufficient answer.

Aussie Thinker writes:I think my earlier worldview definition explains my "accepting" it cover this.It happened because it happened?

Aussie Thinker writes: Because I think the Universe (and our subsequent evolution from it) just happened and you think a God just happened and he then set up a Naturalistic Universe what is the difference in acceptance. None in our world views. There is a lot in our assumptions though.. you are adding in a whole layer of complexity.It's not merely an added layer of complexity. God's existence back of creation and the laws of logic presents a complete and coherent worldview, free from contradictions, free from question-begging, free from the internally self-refuting tensions of the God-less conjectures you espouse.

Jim previously wrote: You just admitted to not only having faith, but a blind faith, in your own sanity and ability to reason in accordance with actual reality.

Aussie Thinker writes:Sorry Jim but your point here is getting annoying. If we don't have faith in our own ability to reason you are just back to the Matrix again.No, you are. My worldview justifies and affirms my use of logic. It's not arbitrary or "just because it is this way" on the Christian view. My faith is in God, who is behind logic. My faith is not the blind and arbitrary assumption of a logic that can neither be proven nor justified without begging the very question.

Aussie Thinker writes:You cannot equate us having faith in our ability to reason and faith in a supernatural deity.I don't presume to. Blind and unaccounted faith in your ability to reason is irrational. Faith in God is both rational and necessary to a cogent worldview.

Aussie Thinker writes:One MUST be assumed or we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I have given you CLEAR explanation for our existence without the assumption of a God.It's clear in that I understand what you're stating. It is unclear in that it is a fanciful story with no defensible justification in the real world. It violates basic laws of logic and science, and your rejection of certain standard theories of the scientific community (viz., regarding the origin of the universe and the rise of consciousness) smacks of a fiction devised for the primary purpose answering the standard arguments of Theistic apologists (which you will not get from me).

Jim wrote: Do you recognize that you then deliberately preclude even the possibility that there is more than the so-called natural in the universe? For someone who claims to be a freethinker, that seems a bit prejudiced, doesn't it?

Aussie Thinker writes:I probably wasn't accurate there. I don't have faith in a Natural answer.. that would mean I would be shattered if the answer was not a natural one. I wouldn't be.. I would be very surprised. I am open to there being a God, as when you get to the notion of infinity it probably gets easier to imagine some controlling intelligence.. if there was though he would not be anything like we poor humans have invented.Fascinating, Aussie. I must say, you surprised me with this statement. I wasn't expecting it. Let me ask you, if there were God, on your worldview, how would God differ from the Judeo-Christian conception?

Aussie Thinker writes:The VERY manlike Gods of the human pantheon are vindictive small minded and frankly if one of them is the real God of the Universe we are in trouble.Why do you think that?

Aussie Thinker writes:Don't you often think that the "real" god may be very disappointed in your arrogance for thrusting up these pathetic craven images and so so human gods before him ?Please elaborate.

Jim previously wrote: By limiting yourself to physical evidence, you are blindly precluding the possibility of any super-natural, or transcending so-called nature. You have committed the very thing you condemn, and that by stipulating a limit which you cannot justify.

Aussie Thinker writes:No I don't limit myself to physical evidence. What I do say is current physical evidence = NO God.. current physical evidence = no supernatural occurrences.. extrapolation.. God likely does not exist and supernatural occurrences likely do not happen. I may be wrong.. of course but at least I am coming up with a logical conclusion from available data.On the contrary, it's irrational because you have not yet accounted for the logic that you use. Every aspect of the physical universe screams His existence at you. Your claim to having no physical evidence for God is irrational, and tantamount to closing your eyes and plugging your ears and muttering, "You don't exist. You don't exist. You don't exist."

Jim previously wrote: That's exactly what you are doing by limiting what you will accept as evidence and blindly believing that only what is material is real. You believe that materialism is true and this therefore justifies everything else you believe. But you haven't given a cogent justification for why you limit reality to what is material, let alone your blind acceptance of immaterial laws such as logic.

Aussie Thinker writes:Well if we don't "blindly" believe what is material to be real we just head back to the Matrix againI am fascinated that this is the only answer you have to my critique of your blind assumptions. Somehow, you willingly and blindly trust, without proof or justification, in the existence of immaterial abstract entities called laws of logic. Why? Because you don't like the alternative. And all this while your truthful acknowledgement of God's existence (Who also happens to be an immaterial Entity, by the way) would solidify and justify everything you now blindly assume in your daily experience.

Aussie Thinker writes:... can we leave it out from now on ? I don't blindly accept logic.That's as fanciful a claim as the stories you've told above. Just to say it doesn't justify it. People are incredibly adept at self-deception. You would have us believe that the rise of consciousness has been figured out and de-mystified, contrary to the works and writings of scientists worldwide. Why should anyone believe you or find your claims compelling?

Aussie Thinker writes:I can justify my reliance on them as observation and human teaching and experience have shown them to work.That's question-begging. You can't justify them by using them, because you're assuming their verity in advance.

Aussie Thinker writes:Physical evidence is ALL we have.. What told you that? The non-physical laws of logic?

Aussie Thinker writes:... for what we don't have evidence for we must use our non-physical abilities to extrapolate.What, on your worldview, is a non-physical ability? Yet more immaterial abstract entities that you blindly believe in?

Aussie Thinker writes:... The physical and non physical abilities all came about naturally. No hypocrisy there ???Sure there is. What, in a materialist's worldview, is a non-physical ability? And how do you know it is reliable if you have no physical way of justifying it?

Jim previously asked: What determines what is "aberrant behaviour"? The majority?

Aussie Thinker writes:Generally.. Generally.. but in a Natural sense it is whatever is not conducive to survival."Nature" tells the new alpha male lion to supplant the previous alpha male and to kill all the offspring. What if a human being decided on that sort of behavior based on his observation of nature. He seduces another man's wife, and then murders the husband and all their children. On what grounds do you call that aberrant behavior, if you would? And how do you justify those grounds of assessment?

Jim previously wrote: There goes your blind faith again. You blindly assume this, with no means of proving or justifying it.

Aussie Thinker writes:No I can only say it again .. if we don't assume our intelligence is capable of having this discussion why are we bothering.I don't assume it. I know it. You assume it. You must. So your question only applies to you, and it's the question that the anti-theist cannot get around: Why do you bother? I know why I do, and I can justify it. On your worldview, if you're consistent, this discussion doesn't make any sense.

Aussie Thinker writes:... We either have intelligence or we don't.Really? Perhaps you're intelligent, but your senses have deceived you? Perhaps you've been dreaming and none of this is real? You can't merely dismiss these questions, not if you claim to be a freethinker.

Aussie Thinker writes:... To argue that my intelligence allows me to make certain judgment is completely different from saying what is written in this book is right because it says it is.First, no one has made that argument. Second, to stipulate the verity of your own intelligence is so obviously a conflict of interest, you wouldn't dare do it in a crowd without being laughed at, right? "I know I'm intelligent!"

Jim previously wrote: I'm glad you mentioned ["who created God"?] so we can disabuse you of it for future reference. It is pointless to try to argue infinite regresses where God is concerned if indeed the existence of the God of the Bible is true. You might view it as some point of logic, but it is certainly, by no means, a logical imperative.

Aussie Thinker writes:Neatly trying to remove the most annoying retort of the atheist.Not at all. What is annoying about it is how ill-informed and ill-conceived it is. You see, I use the very same argument with anti-Christians because only the Christian worldview uniquely answers the allegation.

Aussie Thinker writes:No matter how good an argument you give for God the argument will always be "well who made God?"Again, that works for the erroneous theistic conceptions, but not for Biblical theism.

Aussie Thinker writes:... You cannot brush it aside as even your own argument for consciousness having to be created implies that either your God does not have consciousness or he was also created.My argument for consciousness only pertains to things becoming their contradictions. Your simplistic response needed only to be exposed for the folly that it is. I don't argue that God "became conscious" as you claim non-living matter has.

Jim previously wrote: On your view, why does it matter? If morality is not absolute, then what justified complaint can you have?

Aussie Thinker writes:Theists ALWAYS have a problem with atheistic morals.I don't have a problem with them. I happen to know why you have them. I want to know how you justify them.

Aussie Thinker writes:I wonder that they think so poorly of themselves that they feel their morals had to be handed to them. Humans have natural empathy. When we became self aware we also became aware that other feel the same pain we do.. if it is bad for you it is bad for others.. hence natural morals.Again, nice story. But that doesn't even come close to accounting for them, let alone explaining how, in the atheist's world, you could justifiably condemn the behavior of Marquis de Sade.

Jim previously wrote: For the record, He commands worship, but He doesn't need it. In the Creator-creature relationship, worship is necessary for the well-being of the creature, namely man. It is not merely that God demands (He does, and justifiably so), but it is also what man was created to do, and man is only fulfilled and in proper relation to reality when properly ascribes worth to God.

Aussie Thinker writes:Then why don't the Bible texts say.. "You should worship me it will be good for you" ?It does. Repeatedly. Unequivocally.

Aussie Thinker writes:It seem petty even then to create a creature that only thrives if it worships its creator. I wouldn't do that !Of course not, that's because you do not acknowledge the biblical concept of man as created in God's image.

Jim previously wrote: More specifically, the Bible calls you a fool for using logic AND blindly assuming that these immaterial universal and invariant logical laws just sprung up out of chaos and the void into existence.

Aussie Thinker writes:Instead of thinking that a Supernatural being sprang up from chaos and the void into existence.. lets just cut out a layer of complexity.Again, it's not merely an added layer of complexity. God's existence is the keystone of coherency and intelligibility. Without God's existence, you can't prove or justify anything, and you've repeatedly demonstrated that for us in this dialogue.

Jim previously wrote: Do you forget that you admitted to "accepting" them without justification?

Aussie Thinker writes:Accepting them or refusing to argue about Matrix style worlds.. I said they NEED no justification.. they just happened.. That's freethinking? Sounds like blind and willful slavery to an irrational construct.

Jim previously wrote:He has given you more than enough, yet you still reject it. That is why the Bible calls you a fool. You blindly assume that the material universe disallows the existence of immaterial entities, yet you claim that logical laws (immaterial entities) are you standard for determining what is true and what is false. It's irrational, Aussie.

Aussie Thinker writes:Sorry Jim but has given me nothing.. you either for that matter. I don't "blindly" assume anything.If you can't justify it, if you cannot prove and verify it, it's blind, Aussie. You're saying, "no it's not" is not only a non-justification, you must assume logic in order to make the very statement.

Aussie Thinker writes:I assume that there are no immaterial entities ...Such as the laws of logic?

Aussie Thinker writes:... as it is a logical ...As in "the [immaterial] laws of logic"?

Aussie Thinker writes:... progression from only Natural explanation have EVER been found. "Logical Laws" are not immaterial entities they are evolved processes used by man.I'm not talking about their names, Aussie. The laws of logic were true before man named them. You admitted this when you said, "Oxygen existed before we called oxygen." So which is it? Did those laws exist, on your view, before man "evolved" those processes? And if so, aren't they immaterial abstract entities?

To be continued ...

Jim

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

We can go round and round like this forever.

But one simple flaw exists in your whole plan.

You persist with saying that I cannot say “it just happened” yet think you are quite justified in saying God just happened.

You can bluster around it all you want but ANY way you put it you have to have a God either always existing or popping into existence from nothing..

EXACTLY the same can be said of the universe. All your arguments (which are relatively inane anyway) against my not being able to justify logic by saying it just happened or it always was can be pointed at you for saying god just happened or always was.

The HUGE difference is I stop 1 step before you.. you progress into the realms of fantasy and create a ridiculous God being that then made a universe in which he seems to take no part.. my man made logic is working fine for me.. your God given logic is seriously letting you down.

As far as an acceptable God goes.. you wanted me to elaborate.

It could only a be a being we cannot fathom.. a being that may have created a myriad of universes in which all sorts of different laws may exist..

If you honestly think the man made God of the Bible could be the “real” god then I worry about your reasoning. This god has all the same attributes of every other Pagan God. It is a childish, brutish tyrant. It kills indiscriminately and exhorts its followers to do the same. It justifies slavery and the murder of children. It commands worship and condemns innocent people to hell for the sin of not knowing it.

You are right in one thing.. if that is the “real” god.. I don’t want to know about it.


BTW if you ever gleaned from anything I said that I believed that the man made concepts of logic and absolute truth are anything more than that then you either misunderstood or I stated it poorly.

This also puts paid to your “excuse” for a God. Our reasoning formed just the same as our ribcage did. A by product of evolution.

I would love you to explain in some coherent way why the existence of tools like logic means the necessity for a God when I explain they resulted from completely natural processes.

[Hilston]

This reply to Aussie is in response to his last post on the aforementioned thread (see my first post above). If you wish to read his entire post in situ in toto, please click on the above link.

Aussie writes:You have some ridiculous “idea” that our worldview is flawed and therefore anything we glean from it is wrong.Have I said that? For the number of times I've had to type that question, I'm concerned that you're either not reading very carefully or you're irrationally jumping to non sequitur conclusions. I never said anything you glean from your worldview is wrong. In fact, I've gone as far as saying the opposite, which is that I know science, logic and mathematics work, even for the anti-theist, because God is back of them and the anti-theist borrows this capital without warrant. As one apologist has said, "Atheists can count, but they cannot account for counting."

Aussie writes:Exactly the same way I know your view has a certain coherence. With my intelligence and man made logic and reason. Same way you do.Your certainty about your intelligence and reason is based upon your intelligence and reason? You call me ridiculous?

Jim previously wrote:You claim that only physical evidence is allowed to prove truth claims, yet you blindly assume the existence and verity of immaterial (non-physical) abstract entities such as the laws of logic without proof. You then deny the existence of God (also an immaterial entity) because you claim you have a lack of proof. You demand proof for an immaterial entity called God, but you do not demand proof for immaterial entities called logical laws. It's inconsistent. It's incoherent. It's blind faith.

Aussie writes:There you go again accusing me of blindly assuming ...If you cannot justify or prove the verity of your own intelligence and reasoning faculties, then you are blindly assuming them. If you can, go ahead and justify or prove their veracity, right here, right now, and I will stop calling it blind faith. Until you do so, you are caught on the horns of a grave epistemological dilemma, and your worldview is inconsistent and incoherent.

Aussie writes:Man uses certain tools which he has developed with which to make sense of the universe.Why do they work? Why are they universal and invariant? You said elsewhere that it doesn't matter to you. That doesn't seem consonant with the tenets of freethinking.

Aussie writes:Because these tools are immaterial you want to give them some supernatural life of their own.Not "life", but existence. These laws existed before man named them.

Aussie writes:We know they exist because we use them.How do you know you use them correctly?

Aussie writes:We don’t know God exists because we never use him, see him or have even an inkling of him.This is false. You "use" God with every breath, every thought, every action, every sentence. Without Him, nothing would make sense, which is what is being exposed here. Your worldview does not cohere. You stipulate arbitrary standards for me, and then you do not live according to them yourself.

Aussie writes:You are never clear on what God brings to the table in terms of our man created logic and concepts that allow us to understand the universe.I have explained this. God alone enables your experience and mine to be intelligible. Man is logical because his mind is analogous to that of the Creator. Man has personality, self-awareness and sentience because he is created in God's image. In a universe that springs out of chaos, intelligible human experience is a non-starter (as are humans themselves). A steady-state universe in which non-living matter becomes living consciousness is a fairy tale. To just say, "It happened because it happened," says nothing. Even if we grant your conjecture for the sake of the argument, it collapses under the weight of its on incredulity to account for the most fundamental and necessary processes in our experience.

Aussie writes:You seem to think adding him in answers questions when it just creates them.. the whole well who is Gods god etc.Without Him, you have no certain knowledge of anything. Consider this: What if it's true, Aussie? What if God exists and there is no "creator's creator"? It would be a rather lame and puerile objection, "I didn't believe in you because I couldn't get around the notion of you not having your own creator."

Aussie writes:Your analogy more fits the person who still thinking like a small child needs some father figure to help him find his way through the universe.I admit this. Apart from God, we are lost. You assert your own autonomy, yet you cannot account for the most fundamental tools of reason, except to say "It happened because it happened." Your autonomy is a joke. You do need help to find your way through the universe, and that help comes in the form of logic and reason, science and mathematics, morality and ethics, each of which comes from God and gets distorted and perverted by God-hating men.

Aussie writes:When you constantly saying we lie then it immediately makes further argument pointless. If you cannot understand that how can I make it clearer ?It's your problem, not mine. If I want to argue with liars and they're willing to argue with me, who are you to say anything about it? I have a point when I do it. You don't have to agree with it or like it. So your plaint about "pointlessness" is itself pointless. You don't have to dialogue with me. No one is obligating you.

Aussie previously wrote: But the whole debate is wether God exists and therefore wether the Bible is the word of God. You just jump ahead and say “Well it is” .. end of argument.
And ... “Just tell them they are wrong .. that is the only argument you need”
And ... Your circuitous argument is just ridiculous to us.. God exists because the book he inspired tell us he does.
And ... YOU just basically say “It is so”For each assertion, I asked, "Have I ever said that?"

Aussie writes:Yes you have. You say the Bible tells us that atheists do not exist.. therefore anyone declaring themselves an atheist is a liar.That's not the same as saying "just tell them they're wrong ... that is the only argument you need" or "God exists because the book he inspired tells us he does" or "It is so". I have never said any of those things.

Aussie writes:But the Bible itself is just a flawed creation of man.Frankly, Aussie, you have yet to prove that you're qualified to make that assessment.

Aussie writes:if that is not circuitous … what is ?What is? Your blind, unjustified, arbitrary assumption that what happens in your brain corresponds to reality. You can't prove it. You can't investigate it. You beg the very question to say a single word about it. You live on blind faith.

Aussie writes:You cannot seem to grasp how I see man made concepts like logic etc. I have not equivocated at all. You may confuse my agreement that things like gravity etc.. natural laws exist before man.. or that the concept of logic could have existed before man.. for example other sentient aliens may use it.. but that is just keeping an open mind.Which is it? Did man make logic? Or were logical laws true prior to man's existence? If sentient aliens may use it, that implies that they did not make it. Which is it? Be clear, Aussie. Were the logical laws true prior to man's use of them? Or did man invent the logical laws and somehow cause them to apply to the universe?

Aussie writes:The concept of logic and absolutes and truth etc are all man made tools for dealing with the universe.. if I EVER implied otherwise you mistook what I said or I was not clear enough.I'm not talking about the concept of logic. I am talking about the very existence of these logical relationships. Can a contradiction ever be true, even prior to man's existence? Was modus ponens true (a implies b, if a, then b) prior to man's application of that relation?

Aussie previously wrote: YOU just basically say “It is so”

To which Jim replied: Have I ever said that? No. But I wonder who said this: It happened because it happened. Don't be a hypocrite, Aussie. It's stanky.

And all Aussie has to say in response is: Now you imply that what I say about the universe is in any way comparable to what you say in an argument.So it's OK for you make unchallenged tautologies, but I'm not (not that I ever did)? It's yet another double standard, Aussie. You demand physical proof for God's existence. But you do not demand the same kind of prove for the verity of science and logic. You demand that I not speak in tautologies, but it's OK for you to do it. You betray the folly of your incoherent and inconsistent worldview.

Aussie writes:I say the Universe just happened but I don’t say I am right and you are a liar and therefore argument is pointless.Neither have I.

Jim previously wrote: The concept of universal invariant logical laws, on the atheist worldview, is a ridiculous one. You must blindly assume them and beg the very question every time you presume to employ the laws of logic to make a point.

Aussie writes:Why do you think that..Give some reason to think otherwise. You have yet to prove them or to even come close to justifying your use of logical laws.

Aussie writes:I sometimes wonder if you use the logic that humans have learnt to employ !You have yet to prove that you're qualified to say anything about logic or the use of it.

Aussie writes:The CONCEPT of universal laws of logic is exactly that. A man made concept. For some reason you think God made them and therefore you have the right to employ them… ridiculous.Look how you equivocate. You specify "CONCEPT" and confuse it with the fact that they existed prior to man's conceptualization of them.

Aussie writes:In fact the existence of any sort of order and our very sentience and the fact that we have developed a sense of logic .. that things fit and can be right .. DENIES the existence of a supernatural entity. If things happened that were not logical, that did not follow obvious natural paths then I would say “boy someone is mucking around with stuff.. that IMPLIES a God”. When everything continues to work naturally we say.. “Why a God “Why does the existence of God require His mucking around with stuff? Is that the excuse your going to offer? "God, I didn't believe in You because You didn't do enough mucking around with stuff to satisfy me." The fact that all things hold together, that the universe continues to be orderly, that universal invariants even exist show that God is continually, unceasingly "mucking arounnd with stuff." The Bible states "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. 1:16,17. The Greek word for "consist" is sunestEken, which means "cohere" or "hold together." So, it's not that God doesn't muck around with stuff. The fact is, He is never NOT mucking around with stuff. If He ever stopped mucking, everything except Himself would obliterate.

In sum, you have thus far failed to cogently account for the basic tools of debate: Logic and reason. You have exposed your own double standard of requiring physical proof for some things (God) and not for others (the laws of logic), without having justified your criterion in either case. You have asserted that tautologies are allowed in your own corner, but not in anyone else's. You have asserted your own autonomy, presuming to sit in judgment of other worldviews, without justifying the autonomy you presume to wield. You have chosen instead a worldview that curiously stands in direct opposition to specific standard arguments of the Christian theist worldview, even though certain of those particular views you claim to hold (such as the steady state universe) were largely dismissed years ago based on the latest astro-physical findings. It is truly a blind and fatuous faith you espouse and live by. I see a horrible incongruity in your claim to be a thinker yet having these things be true about you.

[Hilston]

Hi Aussie,

I want you to know that I am enjoying our dialogue.

Aussie writes:We can go round and round like this forever.Not really. Once I'm satisfied that I understand your position and can demonstrate the futility of it, I will stop (whether or not you're convinced that said futility has been demonstrated).

Aussie writes:But one simple flaw exists in your whole plan. You persist with saying that I cannot say “it just happened” yet think you are quite justified in saying God just happened.I don't claim that God "just happened." But since you raise the issue, are you saying that it should be an acceptable answer? Is that really an acceptable answer to a freethinker?

Aussie writes:You can bluster around it all you want but ANY way you put it you have to have a God either always existing or popping into existence from nothing..The Bible teaches the former, i.e., the eternality of God and the sempiternality of man.

Aussie writes:EXACTLY the same can be said of the universe.Of course it can be said. Proving it is another thing. Justifying the tools by which you even say a sentence about it is yet another.

Aussie writes:All your arguments (which are relatively inane anyway) against my not being able to justify logic by saying it just happened or it always was can be pointed at you for saying god just happened or always was.So what? Let's say I'm a moron and I have an idiotic belief system. You are still stuck with your blind and irrational faith in the verity of logical laws and of your own reasoning faculties. This reduces your worldview to an arbitrary preference, since you cannot cogently demonstrate its superiority or advantage over other faith-based worldviews.

Aussie writes:The HUGE difference is I stop 1 step before you..You're right. It is a huge difference. By stopping 1 step before I do, you embrace irrationality and logical contradictions. By taking that huge step of submission to the God you already know exists, the whole of your life experience would suddenly cohere and make rational sense.

Aussie writes:... you progress into the realms of fantasy and create a ridiculous God being that then made a universe in which he seems to take no part..See my above elaboration on deistic assumptions (i.e., not mucking around).

Aussie writes:... my man made logic is working fine for me..How do you know this? How have you verified this?

Aussie writes:As far as an acceptable God goes.. you wanted me to elaborate. It could only a be a being we cannot fathom.. Why?

Aussie writes:[An acceptable God could only be] a being that may have created a myriad of universes in which all sorts of different laws may exist..Why?

Aussie writes:If you honestly think the man made God of the Bible could be the “real” god then I worry about your reasoning.How does the Judeo-Christian God violate sound reasoning?

Aussie writes:This god has all the same attributes of every other Pagan God.You have it backwards again. Pagan gods are perversions of the true God and the angels.

Aussie writes:It is a childish, brutish tyrant.According to whom? Not to those who love Him. Only those who hate Him call him such names.

Aussie writes:It kills indiscriminately and exhorts its followers to do the same.Where have you heard this? It seems to me, as a freethinker who claims to have a legitimate plaint against the God of the Bible, you need to make sure you're critiquing the right God. At least so you don't look silly.

Aussie writes:It justifies slavery and the murder of children.Where?

Aussie writes:It commands worship and condemns innocent people to hell for the sin of not knowing it.Have you forgotten so soon? The Bible says no one has an excuse. There will not be a single innocent person in hell. There will not be a single person in hell who did not know sufficiently of God's existence and their obligation to serve and worship Him.

Aussie writes:You are right in one thing.. if that is the “real” god.. I don’t want to know about it.You already know the real God, and you've conveniently bought into these horrific and perverse caricatures to salve your guilty conscience. God is merciful, gracious, forgiving, loving, and patient. God is also a righteous and holy God who will not tolerate the sinfulness of rebellious man. Thus, God manifested His attributes in the Person of Christ whom the Father sent to die as a substitute for sinners who could not find favor with God on their own because of their sin and rebellion. So complete and sufficient was His sacrifice, that the believer is secured forever in the love and grace of God, and will live forevermore in the loving presence of the Lord.

Aussie writes:I would love you to explain in some coherent way why the existence of tools like logic means the necessity for a God when I explain they resulted from completely natural processes.You didn't explain. You just say "it happened because it happened." It's patently inadequate and unacceptable. In a nutshell, the laws of logic reflect the nature of God (the Logos). God did not create them, just as God did not create morality or justice. These all exist because God exists, and without Him, nothing could exist. I'll elaborate on the necessity of this in my next post.

Thanks for the discussion, Aussie.

Jim

[heusdens]

Hilston:

Atheism is not just one coherent system of thoughts, which oppose theism, but several.

In your attempt to provide grounds for your theistic view and grounds for why any atheist outlook can not be true, you do not realy reflect on that fact.

Neither as that we have been given any good information in how in fact a theistic outlook of the world can be constructed.
We know that the theistic outlook starts with a fundamental dogma, and from there on proceeds. But within that outlook, there is nowhere we can find evidence that this fundamental dogma in fact is true or not. The truth of that fundamental position itself, can never be tested for inside the doctrine of theism. It is therefore a closed belief system.
For that, one realy has to tear one's own mental construction, and start from the assumption that none of the things you know or think you know, not even the most trivial things, are to be assumed in first instance.

As a matter of excercise, I have gone through a total deconstruction of the world, and ask the most basic and fundamental question about the world itself and our cognition and vision upon the world.

I welcome anyone to debate and discuss these fundamental and basic question with me on this subform in the thread The Fundamental Question (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=265996#post265996)

[Aussie Thinker]

Hi Jim,

I want you to know that I am enjoying our dialogue.

Me too.

Not really. Once I'm satisfied that I understand your position and can demonstrate the futility of it, I will stop (whether or not you're convinced that said futility has been demonstrated).

I guess I am the same.. although I don’t see your position as futile.. more like redundant.

I don't claim that God "just happened." But since you raise the issue, are you saying that it should be an acceptable answer? Is that really an acceptable answer to a freethinker?The Bible teaches the former, i.e., the eternality of God and the sempiternality of man. Of course it can be said. Proving it is another thing. Justifying the tools by which you even say a sentence about it is yet another.
So what? Let's say I'm a moron and I have an idiotic belief system. You are still stuck with your blind and irrational faith in the verity of logical laws and of your own reasoning faculties. This reduces your worldview to an arbitrary preference, since you cannot cogently demonstrate its superiority or advantage over other faith-based worldviews.

To me you do claim “God just happened” regardless of how you word it.. always was.. just happened.. same thing !

I cant see how you can’t understand that the way I look at it the EXACT argument you use for this always existing laws stuff could be used to say God must have had a God too..

Have you got that yet ?? I don’t thing you have.. Every time I say it you hedge around it.

I can’t convince you that our concepts of logic etc require NO justification. Does a Mosquito require justification.

No one knows what physical laws function throughout this universe or any others or other dimensions. The laws that apply in any universe are specific to that universe.. hence everything in this universe makes sense to us because we are products of it. This is coherent as you can get.

You're right. It is a huge difference. By stopping 1 step before I do, you embrace irrationality and logical contradictions. By taking that huge step of submission to the God you already know exists, the whole of your life experience would suddenly cohere and make rational sense.

The step you make is the launch into irrationality and contradiction. Whereas you can stop at the physical natural universe.. where we KNOW everything operates naturally.. you launch into a fantasy of an illogical next step… a totally unnecessary one. It is you who KNOWS God does not exist .. that is why you have had to move away from physical and logical evidence to some hard to pin down philosophical immaterial evidence. It is a desperate attempt to justify that which your mind screams at you is inane. It’s a wonder the mental hoops you have to jump through don’t drive you crazy


See my above elaboration on deistic assumptions (i.e., not mucking around).

I don’t think you understood me. Surely if everything we know and see has a natural explanation this makes a God seem less likely.. if weird strange things happened that DEFIED (like deified)logic it would immediately imply there were supernatural forces.

How do you know this? How have you verified this?

How do you verify yours? Can’t you see how odd it sound to keep admonishing me for not being able to verify me for why I have reason and logic when your reason for it is it was produced by a fantasy creature.


You have it backwards again. Pagan gods are perversions of the true God and the angels.

And other theist who believe in other deities think the same of yours with exactly the same justification. Fortunately for me I can view them all as equally stupid.

According to whom? Not to those who love Him. Only those who hate Him call him such names.
Where have you heard this? It seems to me, as a freethinker who claims to have a legitimate plaint against the God of the Bible, you need to make sure you're critiquing the right God. At least so you don't look silly.

Do I really have to go into chapter and verse where God commands his people to kill ? Where he wipes out the entire planet.. including what had to be millions of innocent Children on a whim.


Have you forgotten so soon? The Bible says no one has an excuse. There will not be a single innocent person in hell. There will not be a single person in hell who did not know sufficiently of God's existence and their obligation to serve and worship Him.

So Sth American Indians will get to heaven ?

You already know the real God, and you've conveniently bought into these horrific and perverse caricatures to salve your guilty conscience. God is merciful, gracious, forgiving, loving, and patient. God is also a righteous and holy God who will not tolerate the sinfulness of rebellious man. Thus, God manifested His attributes in the Person of Christ whom the Father sent to die as a substitute for sinners who could not find favor with God on their own because of their sin and rebellion. So complete and sufficient was His sacrifice, that the believer is secured forever in the love and grace of God, and will live forevermore in the loving presence of the Lord.

I know of no God.. I do know of a creator though.. the great creator.. the creator of all God fantasies.. MAN. If the story of the God who sent his only son who was also God to die as a sacrifice (that wasn’t really because he knew he would rise again) and then ascend into heaven to be with his father who was also God .. and he was God to.. whew.. that takes some mind bending !

You didn't explain. You just say "it happened because it happened." It's patently inadequate and unacceptable. In a nutshell, the laws of logic reflect the nature of God (the Logos). God did not create them, just as God did not create morality or justice. These all exist because God exists, and without Him, nothing could exist. I'll elaborate on the necessity of this in my next post.

Simply put

The laws of logic are only a concept in the mind of man
They require NO justification
If they did require a justification then so would the existence of a God who also uses the laws

Thanks for the discussion, Aussie.

Thank you too Jim

[Mr. Ben]

Actually, the laws of logic are directly derivative of the physical aspects of reality. They are mechanisms by which models of reality can be stored and manipulated in order to predict the future.

The laws of logic would be different if reality were different. For example.. differences in how cause and effect work change the way associations work. Differences in how time works changes how logical arguments are ordered. Differences in numeracy and countability change the way generalizations and symbols work. You can't have numbers in a universe with only one thing, or where every single thing is entirely unique.

All of the rules of logic are directly derived from the laws of physics, and depend on them being such as they are to be meaningful and useful.

[Mr. Ben]

The fact that all things hold together, that the universe continues to be orderly, that universal invariants even exist show that God is continually, unceasingly "mucking arounnd with stuff." The Bible states "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. 1:16,17.

Why? I don't see God holding up airplanes, or pushing the earth around, or drawing the colors on my computer screen. Everything I see seems to happen on it's own.. without any interference from anything.

And quoting a biblical verse is just about as pointless as you can get. Who cares what the bible says about anything. It's just some book that some people made up.

[heusdens]

Hilston:

"On what do you base your view that the natural universe always was?"

This is the very first principle of knowledge, the basis for which you can arrive at by successively deconstruction ALL of your mental constructions, knowledge and thoughts about the world, even the most trivial ones, and reconstruct or recreate the knowledge about the world from there.

See an excercise here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8244)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
Why? I don't see God holding up airplanes, or pushing the earth around, or drawing the colors on my computer screen. Everything I see seems to happen on it's own.. without any interference from anything.

And quoting a biblical verse is just about as pointless as you can get. Who cares what the bible says about anything. It's just some book that some people made up.

Even more, God who is supposed to have been there eternally, is a spiritual component of the universe. We can state and proof that spiritual components can not form the essence, the primary substance, the reason for which the world is and not not is, of the world.

The world in first and primary instance is matter, which was neither created or destroyed, but was there eternally. Being an essence, the existence of matter itself is not dependend on something else, esp. not dependend on 'soul' , 'spirit' or 'God'.
'Soul', like 'spirit' or 'consciousness' or 'software' or 'information' are also themselves entities, which exist on themselves and apart from matter, but they can not exist without matter.

If I don't have a brain, I can not think, feel or reason. What we call thinking, feeling or reasoning are qualities of consciousness. Consciousness itself is not material itself, but would not exist either without matter.

Matter is the primary component of the world, since it existence is not dependend on anything else. Matter is it's own cause and consequence.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ben Writes

Why? I don't see God holding up airplanes, or pushing the earth around, or drawing the colors on my computer screen. Everything I see seems to happen on it's own.. without any interference from anything.

And quoting a biblical verse is just about as pointless as you can get. Who cares what the bible says about anything. It's just some book that some people made up.

Absolutely spot on Ben.

I don’t think Jim will be convinced though.. the true irony is that he would NEVER believe in anything else without even a hint of physical evidence like he believes in God.

I am always amazed that when most humans (with just a little research) KNOW everything that has EVER been explained has a natural cause they jump to a supernatural reason for the things that are still unexplained.

Isn’t it just common sense to extrapolate that the currently unexplained stuff will also be found to have natural causes ?

[billwald]

Athiesm is logically false because it attempts to prove a negative.

Second, the problem of first cause has no metaphysical or physical solution.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by billwald
Athiesm is logically false because it attempts to prove a negative.


Atheism is a collection of different viewpoint and philosphical viewpoints that share the fact that they are opposite to theism.

One of them, materialism, is a positive, cause it builts up on the concept of matter, which is in eternal motion, is the primary substance, and the cause and reason of itself.

Theism refutes that, and can therefore be called anti-materialism, or immaterialism, and therefore is a theory that is about proving a negative (that matter is not the primary substance of the world)

By your logic now, this means that theism therefore is false.

And besides theism failed to proof that their alledged substance and primary essence of the world, is necessary there.

It failed in both ways, since matter is the known substance of the world, and we never seen any real proof of Gods.


Second, the problem of first cause has no metaphysical or physical solution.

There is no problem of first cause, perhaps except in your mind.
Matter is the first cause in itself, since it was always there.

Read for example The Fundamental Question (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8244) which is about the issue what the world in first instance and in essence is, what caused and makes the world to be.

[Mr. Ben]

Isn’t it just common sense to extrapolate that the currently unexplained stuff will also be found to have natural causes ?

No, it is not. It is common sense to reserve judgement. But it is easy to be skeptical of claims that have so often been proven false before. That is the history of supernatural claims.

Atheism does not attempt to "prove a negative". It simply states that the "positive proof" for God is inadequate to justify belief in such an entity. Likewise, the positive proof for leprechauns, green unicorns, and the bogey monster are also inadequate. Shall we assume these entities exist because to do otherwise would be to "prove a negative"?

The problem of first cause is not solved by adding God into the equation either. If God exists.. he must be caused. If he does not need a cause.. then logic dictates neither must the universe itself.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
The problem of first cause is not solved by adding God into the equation either. If God exists.. he must be caused. If he does not need a cause.. then logic dictates neither must the universe itself.

Correct, but from that one could still entail that God could be the first principle of the world, or that what formed and shaped the world. It could be equal (qua position as being the essence of the world) to matter in that respect then.

So we would need to add that since God exists in spiritual form, this means that God could not be the primary essence of the world, cause even the spiritual or consciouss needs matter to exist, is therefore dependend on matter, and therefore can not be the primary substance of the world.

So that what the world in essence entails, can not be God, but is matter. It does not need perse that God (as a spiritual being)does not exist (who is to say that in the vastness of outer space and the universe), but that God is not the necessary being (that what in first instance needs there to be, in order for there to be a world) of the world. But since God is declared of being the primary essence of the world, but fails in that respect, this would in fact mean that God does not exist at all.

Read also The Fundamental Question (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8244) and An alternative for the system of God declared truths (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2813).

[jjjg]

Yes, the Universe needs a cause as it is contingent and potential of change.

No not everything needs matter to exist. Gravitational and magnetic forces do not.

God is uncaused and eternal not self-caused or caused by something else.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ben,

I agree with the rest of your post but is it really human nature to reserve judgment.

If I see 100 explanations for causes as natural and nil causes as supernatural it is only fair to assume the unexplained will have natural causes too.

[Aussie Thinker]

JJJG,

Please inform where and when and how gravitational and magnetic forces exist without matter ?

They are both dependant upon matter.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by jjjg
Yes, the Universe needs a cause as it is contingent and potential of change.

The world needs a cause? Why?

Read my excercise on The Fundamental Question (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8244)


No not everything needs matter to exist. Gravitational and magnetic forces do not.


I use the term matter as a philosophical term, and which means that what exists objectively independend and outside of consciousness. It's a philosophical category, you can not even touch matter or detect it.
The physical notion of matter however is something else, it is a specific form of matter, which exists alongside other forms, like energy and fields, and is related to that.
All forms of physical matter (particles, energy, waves, fields, etc) are brought together as the philosophical notion of matter, but not just that, cause that is just the physical stuff, apart from physical stuff there is chemical stuff, there is biological stuff, there is consciousness, there is society. All that is also material. You can not reduce society or consciousness to atoms and fields and energy. Each are seperate laysers of material reality.


God is uncaused and eternal not self-caused or caused by something else.

Matter is the primary essence and substance of the world, is indestructable and infinite, and independend of something else.

Your definition of God would indicate that God and matter would be the same. But as I understand it, God has attributed properties that make it something immaterial, it is a spiritual being. Hence, even if it does exist, it does not exist apart from and independend from matter.
At the very best, it goes alongside with matter. But never independend of it. So, God does not have independend existence, it is not the primary essence of the world, and is not the necessary being. Hence, there goes the very concept of God, because can not be something less then the necessary being.

My understanding of God is this. We can only reflect on God as a concept of thought, a fundamentel principle or absolute idea. God itself expresses the necessity of there being something, instead of nothing for all eternity. But that is just a notion, a concept we have about reality, and in fact the deepest, profoundest and most fundamental notion we can ever get to about reality.
This concept in itself however, has no real existence, it is a concept of the mind itself, and man has made that concept into something that incorporates all man's wishfull thoughts and idealizations on reality.
The idea of God contemplates the ideal world, the ideal life and the ideal society, and the idea of God has gathered in the course of time all kinds of attributes, like absolute moral standards, etc.

The fact that we live however in an unideal society and are imperfect beings, means that such ideals never become reality, although one can for certain and should strive for the best.
It is not to be argued one should not try to improve on things, wether that be one's own life or that of soceity as a whole, but we should understand that there is no way of making the ideal real. Living without any ideals is however rather a waste of time.
Towards that we should realize that we need a practical approach. We need to understand ourselves and society, and work on practical realizable goals. We should understand that our life is not in the hands of God, but that man makes his own society. It's in our hands, not that of God.

[jjjg]

No modern science says they are not Aussie-thinker. All of outer space is a gravitational field whether it's void of matter or not.

Huesens, if it is objective then we must detect it through our senses. The philisophical meaning of matter is something tangible that we sense.

No matter and energy are different hence the different terms to describe them. Energy is just the ability to do work and is independant from matter. As I said matter is just one way for energy to express itself.

I explained why the world needs a cause because it is contingent and potential.

Essence is the "what is". It is synonmous with the formal substance, species and nature of the objects. The way you are using the term is incorrect. There is matter and the forms that matter takes on. Essence and substance are separate terms that you are using as the same. Substance is an object being a human or a tree.

My view of God is existence not essence.

[flash]

Originally posted by billwald
Athiesm is logically false because it attempts to prove a negative.


1) Not all atheism attempts to prove a negative.

2) Proving a negative is neith impossible nor "logically false".

[flash]

WHen are we going to cover the impossibility of atheism? This issue has not been addressed.

[jjjg]

heusdens, if you're a materialist than there can only be apparent diversity. It is just the way the atoms arrange and interact with each other.

[heusdens]

jjjg:

That is not even close to what materialism is about.
Don't confuse materialism with physicalism or that sort of thing.

You can not reduce soceity, economy, psychology, etc. to how atoms interact. That is plain stupid.

[jjjg]

really, are you saying that there are forms separate from from the matter?

[jjjg]

Who are you kidding, heusdens? Materialism says everything is reducable to matter and can be explained by physical laws. The fact that you are using metaphysics disqualifies your argument as you are overstretching your boundaries.

[Hilston]

Hi Flash,

Originally posted by flash
When are we going to cover the impossibility of atheism? This issue has not been addressed. Please forgive the delay. I've been a bit busy, and trying to work on a long reply to another thread. I will post my thesis as soon as I can.

Thanks for your interest,
Jim

[Mr. Ben]

Yes, the Universe needs a cause as it is contingent and potential of change.

There is no proof that the universe is contingent.

And since Thomas defines God as immutable.. he cannot cause anything. To cause something is to change.

God is uncaused and eternal not self-caused or caused by something else.

How do you know the universe is not uncaused?

How do you know God is uncaused?

Why make things up and arbitrarily decide you're right without any evidence?

[Mr. Ben]

The fact that you are using metaphysics disqualifies your argument as you are overstretching your boundaries.

Metaphysics is a purely mechanical process. It only can occur in the material universe, and it only makes sense in the material universe. Logic, reason, and thought can not exist, and are meaningless, without matter. They are directly derivative of the material world, and are a direct product of it.

[jjjg]

I have already gone through this argument without a refuting from you. I'm not going to get suckered into the same argument over and over again for 100 posts like you've done with Marco.

"And since Thomas.."

Wheew!! Mr. Ben.

You've got Thomas on the ropes now! To think he would never consider this argument when he penned it a thousand years ago.

We have already seen your metaphysics expertise with "a duck quacks" comments.

I've covered these comments without you refuting. Won't get suckered into endless arguments.

[Mr. Ben]

Sheesh..

1. We don't know the universe hasn't existed forever.
2. We don't know that everything has a cause in this universe.
3. If the universe did have a first cause, there is no reason to think it was God.

Want to do it again?

[jjjg]

We already did with the results of you running in circles as you did with Marco.

[Mr. Ben]

We have already seen your metaphysics expertise with "a duck quacks" comments.

So you don't like verification, or falsification. Not suprising as you would prefer to simply make things up. Any statement which is not a logical statement true by defintinition, or is not supported by any sort of evidence which would indicate its truth or falsehood, is inherently meaningless. This includes statements positing imaginary third person omnicient viewpoints to make distinctions between perception and truth.

One successful aspect of the positivist movement is in proving that much of metaphysics is bullxxxx. Your arguments are perfect examples of the sort of nonsense they heaped well deserved criticism on.

[jjjg]

I already verified all this in our discussions in scientific contradictions and I'm not running around in circles playing your games as you did with Marco.

[Mr. Ben]

I already verified all this in our discussions in scientific contradictions and I'm not running around in circles playing your games as you did with Marco.

You certainly appear to be running around in circles, but it's not my fault.

[jjjg]

And here we go again.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by jjjg
Who are you kidding, heusdens? Materialism says everything is reducable to matter and can be explained by physical laws. The fact that you are using metaphysics disqualifies your argument as you are overstretching your boundaries.

My thoughts do not exist in the form of atoms, neither would my thought exist without atoms (in the form of a brain).

Your interpretation of materialism is perhaps only a specific school of materialism, but is not in accordance with what other materialists claim or think.

[flash]

Talk about a bait and switch.

I want to hear an "impossibility of atheism" argument!

:bannana: :devil: :bannana:

[Aussie Thinker]

Flash,

I would like to hear it too !

Mind you as we KNOW it exists it can hardly be impossibly.

Bottom line is Jim thinks atheism is impossible because we have consciousness and a set of absolute morals or standards.

These cannot exist according to Jim unless there is a God who directed them to exist.

Mind you this same God is not beholden to this same silly rule.

He refuses to accept that even though his God could always existed .. it is not possible for the Universe to have always existed. Further that our consciousness and own self made notions of absolutes etc. are just products of this Universe like a Star or a Nebula..

Most theists can’t bear the thought we are an accident !

Like all theist arguments they have to suspend any rules of evidence and science.. I can never fathom why they bother arguing at all.. why don’t they just say God did it all Yesterday and put everything (including memories) in place.

[Hilston]

Hi Folks,

[Note: I could not add the image I refer to in the text below. It is now a link to the image; it will pop up in a new window -- Jim, 9:55 EST, 07/16/03]

Please forgive the delay. While I did not want to give this a cursory treatment, I neither wanted to delay this any longer. I will offer this now (it may need some further tweaking to be clear), and offer more later.

The impossibility of atheism

(Not of its existence, but of its verity)

The atheistic worldview is impossible because is inherently self-refuting, it is internally incoherent, and it is unable to cogently account for reality and the intelligibility of human experience. Aussie Thinker has offered his explanation. I wish everyone could read it, and like me, recognize how fanciful, naive and utterly uncompelling it is. I do not wish to be insulting or condescending, but I am torn between wondering if Aussie Thinker really does know how inadequate his explanation is (but is unaccustomed to having it challenged), or if he really is that naive and unaware of what he is saying.

Why is atheism impossible? The atheist worldview presumes to operate on unwarranted assumptions, believing, with no rational basis, that there is order, connection, predictability or necessity in human experience and reality. But what are the bases of this assumption? Are one's contingent and particular experiences sufficient to justify these assumptions? Why is it that we, as humans, draw abstract universals out of concrete particulars? The atheist cannot answer the problems posed by the existence of universal laws and the orderliness (unity) that is communicated to us in our experience, especially given that our experience is particular (non-universal) and changing (diversity). Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem. Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).

On the atheist worldview, the "mind" is merely a phenomenon of this product of chance we call the brain, whose functions are as much constrained by the laws of chemistry, biology and physics as all other material objects in the universe. However, as merely another chance arrangement of physical molecules, how can the "thinking" of this physical organ know anything about abstract, non-physical, universal concepts such as induction, necessity, or causation? In a contingent realm of discrete, random facts and events, how does a brain, which is itself a product of random facts and events, warrant such concepts as universals (induction), causality or moral standards? The random and unconnected "facts" that man confronts in his daily experience do not themselves justify categorization, predictability, induction, causality, etc. The assumption that the laws of logic can be taken as objective, universal, unchanging [Parmenides], and applicable to the world of contingent material changing facts [Heraclitus] is unwarranted, especially given how different in character are the assumed laws from material facts.

It is a faith-based assumption that man's space-time experience can be described, let alone warranted, according any kind of unifying principles. To merely stipulate that order exists and that categories can be applied to discrete and contingent facts in the universe is either a naive or a disingenuous failure to adequately resolve whether the order in the physical world is due to the nature of the particles it comprises (atomism), or events occurring according to some pre-existent laws (stoicism), or due to some Hegelian logical necessity based on some assumed greater underlying dialectic reality (Sorry about the run-on sentence). Regardless of which theory is chosen (and it is ever arbitrary), they all blindly assume some kind of universal order that cannot be justified by the worldviews in which we find them.

Thus, the atheistic worldview is unable to bridge the chasm between order [Parmenides] and change [Heraclitus], unity and diversity, universals and particulars, the many and the one (see diagram linked here (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF99_chart.GIF)). Any attempt to bring the two realms together on non-theistic grounds results in making nonsense of both, which further renders intellectually self-defeating all arguments against God. The problem posed to the atheist is that of justifying how he (a) imposes unifying principles of his own mind upon an external realm not controlled by his mind, while at the same time (b) claiming to respect the individuality and uniqueness of every fact in the world, which mitigates against the notion of unifying principles. So on the one hand, the atheist imposes the universal principles of his worldview in advance, which undermines the so-called "science" of his position, and on the other hand, respecting the novelty and particularity of discrete facts and events in his experience undermines the intelligibility of those facts. This makes any attempt to rationally organize and interpret evidence utterly inane. Some atheists admit the inability to justifiably account for the uniformity of nature ("It happened because it happened"); some admit their inability to account for the laws of logic ("they're just there, like an armpit"). With these admissions, however, should also come the recognition that using logic and inference order to explain or understand things is baldly begging the very question, assuming the verity of a system in advance. Therefore, such a worldview comes down to an arbitrary preference, and not an intellectual necessity, and despite this, the atheist blindly assumes to attach meaning to his experience. Of course, I don't expect the atheist to readily acknowledge, but I will expose it nonetheless. Atheists ought not to be allowed to run roughshod over Christian Theism, asserting some claim of intellectual superiority, scientific validity, and rational fact-based/evidentiary conclusions. It's all lip-service, and when it is exposed for what it is, it is shown to be wholly arbitrary. blindly religious and faith-based. For these reasons, among many, the atheistic worldview is impossible and cannot be true. More later.

Jim

[flash]

Atheists do not need to prove anything to not believe in gods. They do not need to justify anything to not believe in gods. Rather, it is the theists who have to show that there is a god! Your argument is a god of the gaps argument. You can't justify induction or moving from the particular to the universal, so you make up something that will explain it. The problem is that your stopgap invention does not add anything to your predictive power.

Do you believe in the validity of moving from particulars to universals? If, after every time you heard the phrase "Look out Hilston!" you were struck with a blunt object, how long before you would cover your head upon hearing the phrase? How would you justify your action? By positing a God?!? Why would you even need to justify your action?

Even *if* it were necessary for atheists to justify universals, and even *if* there were no atheists who could justify universals, you still need to prove a god exists! Until then, atheism is a valid worldview, and you have not show the impossibility of it at all.

[cheeezywheeezy]

Mr. Ben,

You write:

1. We don't know the universe hasn't existed forever.

Since we know from the physical laws of nature that a fire cannot burn forever and that a rock (or matter) cannot come from nothing, we CAN know that the universe hasn't existed forever.

Using the PHYSICAL laws of nature we know that the PHYSICAL universe is materail and contains fires (stars) so physically and logically it could not have had a natural begining nor have existed forever.

I am pleased that you do believe however that it may have existed forever. The reason is, if you do...then it violates the most fundamental laws of nature...and the universe itself is therefore SUPERnatural. This shows that you are at least willing to admit that there exists a SUPERnatural explanation to some natural phenomena....a.k.a the existence of the physical universe.

Also, you state that:

"And since Thomas defines God as immutable.. "

Who cares? Just because Billy thinks God is green doesn't make God green! God is not immutable....God does indeed change.

How? Well for one...God BECAME a man in the person Jesus Christ. God was not always a man. He became a man. That was a MAJOR change.

Several times throughout the Bible God changes his mind when dealing with people. God reacts to persons communicating with Him. Several time, as a result of prayers, pleading, etc... God changed His mind.

So, in conclusion....since you do believe in the SUPERnatural...why not go ahead and take the next step and believe in the SUPERnatural God.

[flash]

cheeezywheeezy,

At best all you are doing is presenting yet another God of the Gaps Argument. They sure are popular on this board.

[Hilston]

Hi Aussie,

Aussie writes:These cannot exist according to Jim unless there is a God who directed them to exist.If that were simply all I've said, then maybe you would have a case. You believe atheism is a superior view, else you would not hold it. But you've admitted that atheism cannot account for the very things you use to function in your everyday life. You've admitted that my worldview, which can account for them whether you likeit or not, is coherent and consistent. Yet you prefer the blind, irrational, faith-based view instead of the cogent, rational faith-based view.

Aussie writes:Mind you this same God is not beholden to this same silly rule.I find this funny. When an athiest demands evidence, it's a perfectly valid "rule", on their view, yet they cannot account for the very standards they presume to impose as "rules". Then, when challenged to justify or to provide the necessary preconditions for these standards they impose, they call it "a silly rule."

Aussie writes:He refuses to accept that even though his God could always existed .. it is not possible for the Universe to have always existed.The eternal existence of God is rational. The eternal existence of a material, orderly, yet changing, universe is not. And not because "a rock cannot create itself" and "a fire cannot burn forever," but because of a more fundamental problem: Uniformity and contingency. The atheist universe is impotent to deal with these. This is not merely a god of the gaps argument. This is a fundamental dilemma for the atheist at the very foundation of reason. Nothing is "waiting to be discovered by science" to answer this.

Aussie writes:Further that our consciousness and own self made notions of absolutes etc. are just products of this Universe like a Star or a Nebula.. If you want to go around believing that things can become their contradictions, that's fine. But don't come here and pretend to be a rational freethinking "bright".

Aussie writes:Like all theist arguments they have to suspend any rules of evidence and science..Like the way you do when you say, "It just happened because it happened"? Apply your own rule of evidence and science and prove that your reasoning and observations actually and accurately correspond with reality. You can't? You mean you have to suspend your rules in this case -- and you just accept it because you don't like the alternative? Isnt there a name for this kind of behavior?

Aussie writes:I can never fathom why they bother arguing at all.. why don’t they just say God did it all Yesterday and put everything (including memories) in place.You should already know the answer to this, Aussie.

Jim

[Mr. Ben]

1. We don't know the universe hasn't existed forever.

Since we know from the physical laws of nature that a fire cannot burn forever and that a rock (or matter) cannot come from nothing, we CAN know that the universe hasn't existed forever.

Why can't something come from nothing? Be specific. You are not allowed to use the statement "I've never seen it happen before". The fact is that things seem to come from nothing all the time in QM.

Using the PHYSICAL laws of nature we know that the PHYSICAL universe is materail and contains fires (stars) so physically and logically it could not have had a natural begining nor have existed forever.

We believe that the universe's timeline originated with the Big Bang. We do not know wether there was anything prior to that.. but we don't know that there wasn't. We simply can't say.

I am pleased that you do believe however that it may have existed forever. The reason is, if you do...then it violates the most fundamental laws of nature...

Nonsense. It does no such thing. Theists are long on claims and superficial explanations.. but short on real evidence and argument.

and the universe itself is therefore SUPERnatural. This shows that you are at least willing to admit that there exists a SUPERnatural explanation to some natural phenomena....a.k.a the existence of the physical universe.

Supernatural phenomena could exist in this universe. We hear reports of supernatural phenomena all the time. However, were they to be repeatable and testable.. they would no longer be classified as supernatural.. but another part of nature. Unfortunately supernatural events exist typically only in the adled minds of those who report them.

As for the physical laws of the universe being such that they would permit time before the Big Bang.. this does not imply any sort of God, Angels, or magical hocus pocus.

"And since Thomas defines God as immutable.. "

Who cares? Just because Billy thinks God is green doesn't make God green! God is not immutable....God does indeed change.

Not according to jjjiggy. His proof of God is self contradictory.

Several times throughout the Bible God changes his mind when dealing with people. God reacts to persons communicating with Him. Several time, as a result of prayers, pleading, etc... God changed His mind.

Heh.. no kidding

So, in conclusion....since you do believe in the SUPERnatural...why not go ahead and take the next step and believe in the SUPERnatural God.

Uhh... right now I am busy believing in the spirit of Buddah, Allah, and the Mantis God of the Bantu Tribesmen. I'll eventually work my way around to Christianity.... maybe.








More cheese please!!!

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

Aussie Thinker has offered his explanation. I wish everyone could read it, and like me, recognize how fanciful, naive and utterly uncompelling it is. I do not wish to be insulting or condescending, but I am torn between wondering if Aussie Thinker really does know how inadequate his explanation is (but is unaccustomed to having it challenged), or if he really is that naive and unaware of what he is saying.

Others have read my explanation and find it completely coherent and compelling. It makes perfect sense and stops 1 step short of stepping into fancy like your explanation does. You find it incoherent as you are blinded by faith in a mythical inexplicable, illogical and patently ridiculous God. Your myopia does not allow you to comprehend a world view that does not include your strange deity !

Why is atheism impossible? The atheist worldview presumes to operate on unwarranted assumptions, believing, with no rational basis, that there is order, connection, predictability or necessity in human experience and reality.

Here is where you branch into inanity. The assumptions of our reality are completely warranted. Your mumbo jumbo about matrix type versions of reality are not SOLVED by adding a God into the mix. As I have stated 100 times before, you accept your reality as coming from a God (which just happened) I accept our reality as just happening (see the shortened step?)

But what are the bases of this assumption? Are one's contingent and particular experiences sufficient to justify these assumptions? Why is it that we, as humans, draw abstract universals out of concrete particulars? The atheist cannot answer the problems posed by the existence of universal laws and the orderliness (unity) that is communicated to us in our experience, especially given that our experience is particular (non-universal) and changing (diversity). Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem. Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).

It is obvious to an atheist that everything we see and all the laws we perceive are products of a natural universe. The FACT that everything makes sense implies NATURE.. if things did not make sense then THAT would point to supernatural occurrences and therefore imply a GOD ! That you KNOW everything has a natural origin and yet add some mystical supernatural layer in shows that your need for a God is overcoming your human born rationality.

On the atheist worldview, the "mind" is merely a phenomenon of this product of chance we call the brain, whose functions are as much constrained by the laws of chemistry, biology and physics as all other material objects in the universe. However, as merely another chance arrangement of physical molecules, how can the "thinking" of this physical organ know anything about abstract, non-physical, universal concepts such as induction, necessity, or causation? In a contingent realm of discrete, random facts and events, how does a brain, which is itself a product of random facts and events, warrant such concepts as universals (induction), causality or moral standards? The random and unconnected "facts" that man confronts in his daily experience do not themselves justify categorization, predictability, induction, causality, etc. The assumption that the laws of logic can be taken as objective, universal, unchanging [Parmenides], and applicable to the world of contingent material changing facts [Heraclitus] is unwarranted, especially given how different in character are the assumed laws from material facts.

All completely normal functions of a brain evolved from a Universe which is ordered. All the things you talk about are human invented concepts which man utilises to comprehend the Universe. You assumption that these laws etc. are universal and separate to man is only that.. your assumption.. born of the need to have a Supernatural Deity. The laws etc are mere constructs of man.. like God. If you think about it you have just constructed a God to account for the laws I just say the laws themselves are a construct (see again I save an illogical step)

It is a faith-based assumption that man's space-time experience can be described, let alone warranted, according any kind of unifying principles. To merely stipulate that order exists and that categories can be applied to discrete and contingent facts in the universe is either a naive or a disingenuous failure to adequately resolve whether the order in the physical world is due to the nature of the particles it comprises (atomism), or events occurring according to some pre-existent laws (stoicism), or due to some Hegelian logical necessity based on some assumed greater underlying dialectic reality (Sorry about the run-on sentence). Regardless of which theory is chosen (and it is ever arbitrary), they all blindly assume some kind of universal order that cannot be justified by the worldviews in which we find them.

I know that theists (as they are so into a faith based world) think everyone lives by faith but you just have to give up that notion. The fact that we see this Universe as ordered is simply because we are a product of it. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a universe to produce a creature that would not find it own universe ordered ! What astounds me is this is so OBVIOUS yet you have to invent a deity to explain the order ???... when DISORDER is actually what would imply something supernatural !

Thus, the atheistic worldview is unable to bridge the chasm between order [Parmenides] and change [Heraclitus], unity and diversity, universals and particulars, the many and the one (see diagram). Any attempt to bring the two realms together on non-theistic grounds results in making nonsense of both, which further renders intellectually self-defeating all arguments against God. The problem posed to the atheist is that of justifying how he (a) imposes unifying principles of his own mind upon an external realm not controlled by his mind, while at the same time

You are lost in a fantasy world of justification. The simple fact that we see an ordered universe is because we are product of it. Our concepts we create to deal with the universe require no justification except our own. We invent them as useful tools .. just like the wheel.

(b) claiming to respect the individuality and uniqueness of every fact in the world, which mitigates against the notion of unifying principles. So on the one hand, the atheist imposes the universal principles of his worldview in advance, which undermines the so-called "science" of his position, and on the other hand, respecting the novelty and particularity of discrete facts and events in his experience undermines the intelligibility of those facts. This makes any attempt to rationally organize and interpret evidence utterly inane.

Your ridiculous circuitous argument is basically saying.. God gave us reason so when you use it to say there is no God you are being inane. You completely ignore the simple fact that reason developed along with our large brain it was not “given” to us by a supernatural deity.

Some atheists admit the inability to justifiably account for the uniformity of nature ("It happened because it happened"); some admit their inability to account for the laws of logic ("they're just there, like an armpit").

At some stage BOTH of us end up with a “It just happened”.. me with the universe you with God.. difference is I have reduced the level of complexity and confusion. The “laws” you speak of are conceived by MAN.. we invent them as a concept. Do you understand that ?

With these admissions, however, should also come the recognition that using logic and inference order to explain or understand things is baldly begging the very question, assuming the verity of a system in advance. Therefore, such a worldview comes down to an arbitrary preference, and not an intellectual necessity, and despite this, the atheist blindly assumes to attach meaning to his experience.

There you go again assuming because YOU need meaning that the atheist does too. It is VERY clear to me that these constructs of logic etc that man uses are useful cerebral tools to make sense of the universe.. they are just the same as you inventing a God to make sense of your universe. Of course both out “inventions” are “preferences”… mine is just a logical sensible one.. yours’ steps off into the realms of fantasy.

Of course, I don't expect the atheist to readily acknowledge, but I will expose it nonetheless. Atheists ought not to be allowed to run roughshod over Christian Theism, asserting some claim of intellectual superiority, scientific validity, and rational fact-based/evidentiary conclusions. It's all lip-service, and when it is exposed for what it is, it is shown to be wholly arbitrary. blindly religious and faith-based. For these reasons, among many, the atheistic worldview is impossible and cannot be true. More later.

Atheism scares you doesn’t it Jim ? I can see that you are intelligent. It is obvious by the twists, turns and hoops you are putting your mind through to justify your God fantasy. But it is clear you are smart enough and have questioned you belief often enough to see how clear the atheist worldview really is. Your only defence against your own logic is this house of cards justification you have built up. Don’t feel to bad about giving up and coming over to the “dark side”. It’s not really dark.. in fact it is quite illuminated.

Steve

[Hilston]

Please note: I made reference to a diagram in my previous post. I was unable to get the image to show up within the text of the post, so I instead added only the link to my post. You will now find it there, or you can just click here (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF99_chart.GIF). But please refer to my discussion about it as well. It will make better sense with the accompanying text.

Jim

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hilston
The eternal existence of God is rational. The eternal existence of a material, orderly, yet changing, universe is not. And not because "a rock cannot create itself" and "a fire cannot burn forever," but because of a more fundamental problem: Uniformity and contingency. The atheist universe is impotent to deal with these. This is not merely a god of the gaps argument. This is a fundamental dilemma for the atheist at the very foundation of reason. Nothing is "waiting to be discovered by science" to answer this.


The eternal existence of God is not rational, because by your own argument and definition, God existed eternally in immaterial (consciousness; spiritual) form, before he created the material world.

However, there can not be consciousness when there is no objective, material world., because:
1. Consciousness does not exist independend of matter
2. Consciousness is subjective, but there can not be subjectiveness without there being an objective world, to which consciousness could relate in a subjective way.
[Same as that a program can not run and can not perform anything when thee is a) no hardware b) no peripherals to "communicate" with an outside world. A "solipsistic" program running without either input or output, is rather useless]
3. The existence of God in eternal form of subjective consciousness, without there being an objective world, makes the viewpoint of God that of a solipsist.
4. Solipsism is an incorrect worldview, and rejected by almost everybody.


If you want to go around believing that things can become their contradictions, that's fine. But don't come here and pretend to be a rational freethinking "bright".


It is quite clear that you don't haver any knowledge about dialectics.


Like the way you do when you say, "It just happened because it happened"? Apply your own rule of evidence and science and prove that your reasoning and observations actually and accurately correspond with reality. You can't? You mean you have to suspend your rules in this case -- and you just accept it because you don't like the alternative? Isnt there a name for this kind of behavior?


The creation of everything from nothing as a concept is same mysterious and indistinguishable with the concept of the creation of everything from God. They are the same.

It's a shame that some atheist confess to the one, and refute the other, since there is no difference whatsoever!

[heusdens]

/* Program name :
God

Hardware requirements / peripherals :
none (are created after program completed)
*/

void main ()
{
while (1) ; -- loop forever!
}

/* After completion the WORLD occurs! */

[Aussie Thinker]

Huesdens writes,

The creation of everything from nothing as a concept is same mysterious and indistinguishable with the concept of the creation of everything from God. They are the same.

It's a shame that some atheist confess to the one, and refute the other, since there is no difference whatsoever!

Any sensible atheist I know agrees.. however the creation from God adds an extra unnecessary step.

Atheist view..

Step 1 : Universe always was

Theist View

Step 1 : God always was
Step 2 : God created the Universe

Why the unnecessary extra step ???

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
Why can't something come from nothing? Be specific. You are not allowed to use the statement "I've never seen it happen before". The fact is that things seem to come from nothing all the time in QM.


Is that so? You mean in the new Quantum Magic explenation of reality?

Whatever your fancy is, there is no possible way in which the absolute inexistence of anything can lead to something, whatever infinitesimal minimal something.

It simply can't. No possible way.

(not even when you believe in God)



We believe that the universe's timeline originated with the Big Bang. We do not know wether there was anything prior to that.. but we don't know that there wasn't. We simply can't say.


However popular this new religion is, the timeline does not originate at the Big Bang. Neither is there any scientific theory that says so. If you can point to one that says so indesputable, I will eat my hat.

PS. I have no hat, but if you state is true, it will be no problem creating one from nothing.


Nonsense. It does no such thing. Theists are long on claims and superficial explanations.. but short on real evidence and argument.


And some atheist present their worldviews as atheistic, without there being any difference with a theistic worldview.




Supernatural phenomena could exist in this universe. We hear reports of supernatural phenomena all the time. However, were they to be repeatable and testable.. they would no longer be classified as supernatural.. but another part of nature. Unfortunately supernatural events exist typically only in the adled minds of those who report them.


The only thing that can not exist in the universe is inexistence.

(wether one calls that "nothingness", "begin of time" or "God" makes no difference!)


As for the physical laws of the universe being such that they would permit time before the Big Bang.. this does not imply any sort of God, Angels, or magical hocus pocus.


Wrong!

Physical laws imply that there is no conceivable begin to change and time. Physicists can not make physics from utterly nothing.

The Big Bang event just BEGS for there being physicall stuff before that time.

[Hilston]

heusdens writes:The eternal existence of God is not rational, because by your own argument and definition, God existed eternally in immaterial (consciousness; spiritual) form, before he created the material world.What is irrational about that?

heusdens writes:However, there can not be consciousness when there is no objective, material world., because:
1. Consciousness does not exist independend of matter ...Sure it does. God is conscious, and is non-material. The angels have consciousness, but they are non-material. The souls burning in hell are conscious, and they are non-material.
heusdens writes:2. Consciousness is subjective, but there can not be subjectiveness without there being an objective world, to which consciousness could relate in a subjective way.How is it, on your worldview, that there can be both subjectivity and objectivity? Is the universe uniform and objective? Or is it subjective and contingent? How can it be both?

heusdens writes:[Same as that a program can not run and can not perform anything when there is a) no hardware...When did you last encounter a conscious program? And what sort of tests did you perform to ascertain whether or not the conscious component of the program was hardware-dependent?

heusdens writes:... b) no peripherals to "communicate" with an outside world.Do you have such "peripherals"? Have you tested them to see if they work? How did you go about testing them?

heusdens writes:A "solipsistic" program running without either input or output, is rather useless]That's some pretty fancy question-begging. How do you know that you yourself are not a self-deceived solipsism, simply existing and informing yourself of things you already know but deliberately forgot in order to make your existence tolerable? That would be useful, wouldn't it?

heusdens writes:3. The existence of God in eternal form of subjective consciousness, without there being an objective world, makes the viewpoint of God that of a solipsist.That's a self-refuting statement, heusdens. If you yourself know (you do know don't you) that you have self-awareness, then at least you know that you exist. Thus, for you to posit a solipsistic god, assuming you, too, exist (you're the one proposing such a god), is a self-refuting statement.

heusdens writes:4. Solipsism is an incorrect worldview, and rejected by almost everybody.Duh. Of course, for the patently ineluctable reason I gave above.

Jim wrote: If you want to go around believing that things can become their contradictions, that's fine. But don't come here and pretend to be a rational freethinking "bright".

heusdens writes:It is quite clear that you don't have any knowledge about dialectics.What gives you that impression?

[heusdens]

Aussie Thinker:

Don't ask me, ask the theists about that.

Perhaps they are a bit affraid of the implications.
Anyway, theists have an upside down worldview, and have an incorrect vision of what is the primary stuff (matter or consciousness).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hilston
What is irrational about that?

Sure it does. God is conscious, and is non-material. The angels have consciousness, but they are non-material. The souls burning in hell are conscious, and they are non-material.


What is rational about that?


How is it, on your worldview, that there can be both subjectivity and objectivity? Is the universe uniform and objective? Or is it subjective and contingent? How can it be both?


Because there is consciousness that reflects on an objective world. Consciousness is not defined without there being an objective world, since then nothing would exist.

When did you last encounter a conscious program? And what sort of tests did you perform to ascertain whether or not the conscious component of the program was hardware-dependent?


Answers:
-I run one.
-Self-test (see below under 'verification')


heusdens writes:Do you have such "peripherals"? Have you tested them to see if they work? How did you go about testing them?


As a matter of fact I have! They are my eyes, ears, touch, smell, hands, feet, etc. (and also my mouth and stomach and penis and anus, for the energy supply and waiste).

I test them every day. I run self-tests every day. I compare resulsts with other programs, and I extend my peripherals with outside things, and I read knowledge, and compare that with own results.


heusdens writes:That's some pretty fancy question-begging. How do you know that you yourself are not a self-deceived solipsism, simply existing and informing yourself of things you already know but deliberately forgot in order to make your existence tolerable? That would be useful, wouldn't it?


I verified that solipsism is incorrect.
Wanna hear how I verified this?

It's here! (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8244)

And by the way also the mother program which had spawned me told me, and I know that is not a ly!


heusdens writes:That's a self-refuting statement, heusdens. If you yourself know (you do know don't you) that you have self-awareness, then at least you know that you exist. Thus, for you to posit a solipsistic god, assuming you, too, exist (you're the one proposing such a god), is a self-refuting statement.


I am not proposing this God, since there are others that propose such a God. I hold it that the only concept I can form in my mind, would be that of a solipsist worldview which I know is incorrect.
Therefore I refute that God.

[Aussie Thinker]

Heusdens,

The Q was purely rhetorical.. I KNOW you know the answer !

Theists,

Here is an analogy which shows the flaw in Jim’s thinking.

Like our concept of logic, fundamental laws and absolutes the Wheel is another invention of man.

Did the wheel always exist before man invented it.

Yes.. boulders and tree trunks could roll.. things that were round and given the right impetus became a wheel .. long before man existed.

But can man justify the wheel.

No.. but he can justify using it. It is a helpful device.

So as the wheel always existed and as it cannot be justified… it means God is a big wheel !

[Hilston]

Flash writes:Atheists do not need to prove anything to not believe in gods.Sure you do. You just can't come waltzing in here, claiming to have a defensible worldview and not be required to prove anything. If you want to just take your ball and bat and go home, no one's stopping you. But if you want to run with the big dogs, you have to get up off the porch.

Flash writes:They do not need to justify anything to not believe in gods.Wrong, Flash. You beg the very question in making the statement.

Flash writes:Rather, it is the theists who have to show that there is a god!You beg the question. The Bible says you already know He exists and that you're accountable to Him. For your view to be true, you've got to justify your assumption of some default tabula rasa, which you can't do. The Bible says your default condition is belief in God, and that you work aggressively to deny, distort and distance yourself from that truth. So now the burden is back on you.

Flash writes:Your argument is a god of the gaps argument.How so?

Flash writes:You can't justify induction or moving from the particular to the universal, so you make up something that will explain it.As I mentioned to Aussie, this is not a matter of waiting for science to come up with or discover the explanation for the bacterial flagellum or some other so-called "irreducible complexity" argument. This is on an epistemic level that does not come under the purview of the scientific method. Surely you must see this. Even if someone were to ludicrously posit some kind of "scientific proof" or "empirical justification" for induction, the question is massively begged, because science is itself an inductive process.

Flash writes:The problem is that your stopgap invention does not add anything to your predictive power.You've got it exactly backward. What you call a "stopgap invention" is the exclusive accounting for induction, and not only does the Christian worldview have predictive power, it alone can account for predictability. Period. That is to say, atheists must in fact borrow from the Christian worldview for even the simplest predication, let alone predictability and induction.

Flash writes:Do you believe in the validity of moving from particulars to universals?Of course I do. I never said otherwise. You and I both know it is valid. However, I can account for its validity, its universality and invariance both conceptually and in our experience. As a Christian, I can bridge the gap between the changing particulars of contingent experience and the universal invariant nature of the abstract laws we use to describe and understand it. The atheistic worldview cannot, and indeed borrows from the Christian worldview in order to even try to make sense of the particulars and the universals.

Flash writes:If, after every time you heard the phrase "Look out Hilston!" you were struck with a blunt object, how long before you would cover your head upon hearing the phrase? How would you justify your action? By positing a God?!? Why would you even need to justify your action?Again, its not a question of the validity of induction. We both know it works. What I'm talking about is the necessary precondition of induction and what accounts for its law-like character in the realm of contingent human experience.

Flash writes:Even *if* it were necessary for atheists to justify universals, and even *if* there were no atheists who could justify universals, you still need to prove a god exists!Not in this thread. Read the title. But I will be glad to oblige anyway. The proof of the Christian God is the fact that it is not possible for Him not to exist. That is what I've been describing.

Flash writes:Until then, atheism is a valid worldview, and you have not show the impossibility of it at all.Maybe you need to read a bit more carefully. Your worldview is irrational, Flash, and riddled with question-begging assumptions and hypocritical standards that your own view cannot accommodate. It is inconsistent and arbitrary, and wholly untenable on rational philosophical grounds.

Solipsists, unite!

Jim

[Mr. Ben]

But what are the bases of this assumption? Are one's contingent and particular experiences sufficient to justify these assumptions? Why is it that we, as humans, draw abstract universals out of concrete particulars? The atheist cannot answer the problems posed by the existence of universal laws and the orderliness (unity) that is communicated to us in our experience, especially given that our experience is particular (non-universal) and changing (diversity).

Why not?

Neural networks extract universals from particulars. That's what they do and how they work. You and I and everybody we know is equipped with a device that generalizes from particular perceptual input. It's called a brain.

Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem.

Sure they can.

Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).

Nonsense.

Metaphysics is not the proper realm to discuss such matters.. as it doesn't take into account what particulars and universals really ARE. There are concrete descriptions of these things which are based on the fundamentals of information theory and data processing.

Archaic metaphysical terms only cloud the issue. We can discuss these matters using these