Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Onesimus

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But my argument is equally valid to the god argument using that silly "infinite universe... infinite possiblities" nonsense.



I don't know how many, perhaps you should tell me? Anecdotes don't count, mind you. Also, including conditions that could have been recovered from naturally isn't a strong inclusion either.

You show me a case where God heals an amputee and I'll acknowledge the existence of miracles.[/QUOTE]

and you show me a case where science has healed someone with artristis in an instant in the name of science and I'll acknowledge yours.

Why limit God also to healing illnesses in an instant that scientific medicine can only do over a number of years? God excercises these healings in order to draw people like yourself to himself, but lo and behold the heart is stubborn.

with your request of an amputee you place conditions on Jesus just like the pharisees of old in the scriptures at the foot of the cross when they said something like ''if he is the son of God let him come down from the cross and save himself''

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Why would he do that ? It's not life threatening.

Ah, so he places conditions upon his use of miracles? A person has to be inflicted with a life threatening illness before he'll intervene?

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm not sure what would be next. Have you looked into the naturalistic explantions as to why the human brain has developed such a propensity?

Naturalism can only explain the how. It contributes little to the ultimate purpose of all things. Such seems to be more the task of philosophy.

One can say that love is merely the influence of oxytocin in the body.

One can also say that love is the profound attraction between two people, the longing of one person after another in such a way that they come to live as one.

Both are true. One explains the function of oxytocin in the body that is produced by the significance of the love discussed in a more philosophical sense.

I find that naturalistic explanations alone are inadequate. They must follow with some kind of sensible thinking. I don't believe that science can answer everything, and I'm pretty sure that most scientists don't either. I believe obviously that science has a huge application and indeed we've come a long way, but I also think that philosophy cannot be replaced by science precisely because it isn't science. Nor can theology in respect to the ultimate cause of all things as far as I would see it.

Although theology meant something quite different in the Ancient Greek world. It was used by Aristotle to search into the first principles behind all things. Naturally for Aquinas and other philosophers the Christian message was translatable in part into the Aristotelian message that had come before it. Many philosophers have since criticised Aristotle for looking into metaphysical entities because they cannot be verified, but that misunderstands the point of metaphysics, the point of metaphysics is to seek to find if there is anything.

I believe Christianity is entirely independent from Aristotelianism or other forms of pagan thinking because as a philosopher I can see a number of ways in which Christianity is incompatible with Aristotle's works in the same way that it can be. That said, it bears similarities in that Christianity is the pursuit to discover if there is more to this existence. Christians have found that the existence of God has become apparent to them through experience and through the realisation that Christianity is actually compatible with reality in a number of ways.

I was reading Jürgen Habermas' speech that he gave after receiving the Peace Prize at the German Literary Awards in 2001. He's an atheist, but he recognises that it is wholly inadequate for science to attempt to replace all forms of meaning because it is just bad philosophy particularly in forming pluralist societies.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

and you show me a case where science has healed someone with artristis in an instant in the name of science and I'll acknowledge yours.

Why limit God also to healing illnesses in an instant that scientific medicine can only do over a number of years? God excercises these healings in order to draw people like yourself to himself, but lo and behold the heart is stubborn.

with your request of an amputee you place conditions on Jesus just like the pharisees of old in the scriptures at the foot of the cross when they said something like ''if he is the son of God let him come down from the cross and save himself''

But then no distinction can be drawn been a miracle and a natural healing (by that I mean something which could have very well gone away all on its own).

The main difference between medicine and miracles is that medicine works.

I wish somebody could give me objective proof of a miracle. If it's such a compelling reason for belief then surely that exists?

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Point out how the two differ.

How's does creation by an infinite unicorns sneeze, have the same probability as creation by an infinite sprit ?

Good job you don't work for Paddy Power if you think both have the same odds of existance.

e.g. Which is more probable ?

(1) Alien life exists ?
(2) Alien space unicorns with the flu exist ? (ha ha tee hee etc.)

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ah, so he places conditions upon his use of miracles? A person has to be inflicted with a life threatening illness before he'll intervene?

Why were you thinking Christians believe he has no conditions for his cures, and cures everyone’s sneezes ?

Onesimus

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But then no distinction can be drawn been a miracle and a natural healing (by that I mean something which could have very well gone away all on its own).

The main difference between medicine and miracles is that medicine works.

I wish somebody could give me objective proof of a miracle. If it's such a compelling reason for belief then surely that exists?

And when has Arthritis/cancer ever been known to go away on its own without medicine? and when has it ever been known that someone was healed of this illness save that in the name of Jesus Christ?

You have not yet disproved the miracle therefore cannot claim it does not work.

Sr.Briege mc kenna is living proof of someone who was instantly healed of her life long arthristis in Newry when she was touched by the Blessed Sacrament, thousands saw it with their own eyes, many knew her, there was no deception and her doctors were baffled.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I wish somebody could give me objective proof of a miracle. If it's such a compelling reason for belief then surely that exists?

Define objective irrefutable proof ?

Quo Vadis

Philologos: I'll get to your post when I've a little more time.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How's does creation by an infinite unicorns sneeze, have the same probability as creation by an infinite sprit ?

Can you work out the probability for either? If you can't then trying to weigh up probabilities is pointless.

You're getting sidetracked, though. You use the argument that "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that a god exists?". My argument is that, using that very same logic, isn't it possible that a sneezing unicorn exists? If we're talking about infinite possiblities here then the relative probabilities of either (which are impossible to work out anyway) are meaningless.

Which is why my original conclusion (that "infinite possibilities" argument is nonsense) is valid.

Good job you don't work for Paddy Power if you think both have the same odds of existance.

I see no evidence for either. So, effectively, the probability for either's existence, as far as I'm concerned, might as well be 0.

Which is more probable ?

(1) Alien life exists ?
(2) Alien space unicorns exist ?

Using your argument of infinite possibilities then it doesn't matter which is more probable. But, doing what you're doing in equating alien life to god is fallacious as best and disingenuous at worst.

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Why were you thinking Christians believe he has no conditions for his cures, and cures everyone’s sneezes ?

Well, you said that he wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a fatal condition. So, drawing on from that, it'd appear he doesn't heal anything other than fatal conditions, no?

Onesimus wrote: »

And when has Arthritis/cancer ever been known to go away on its own without medicine? and when has it ever been known that someone was healed of this illness save that in the name of Jesus Christ?

I don't know if either have ever gone away on their own.

So when somebody is cured of cancer it's because of Jesus? Not because of medicine?

You have not yet disproved the miracle therefore cannot claim it does not work.

You're the person putting forward the concept of the miracle. The burden of proof lies with you and other believers, I'm afraid.

Sr.Briege mc kenna is living proof of someone who was instantly healed of her life long arthristis in Newry when she was touched by the Blessed Sacrament, thousands saw it with their own eyes, many knew her, there was no deception and her doctors were baffled.

And this has been objectively verified as a miracle? It's not just an anecdote, no?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Define objective irrefutable proof ?

Well, firstly, it'd have to have no naturalistic explanation. Secondly, it'd have to be capable of being objectively verified. Subjective evidence doesn't cut it.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Philologos: I'll get to your post when I've a little more time.

Can you work out the probability for either? If you can't then trying to weigh up probabilities is pointless.

You're getting sidetracked, though. You use the argument that "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that a god exists?". My argument is that, using that very same logic, isn't it possible that a sneezing unicorn exists? If we're talking about infinite possiblities here then the relative probabilities of either (which are impossible to work out anyway) are meaningless.

Which is why my original conclusion (that "infinite possibilities" argument is nonsense) is valid.

You were the one trying to equate them in your original claim. They are not equal propositions.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I see no evidence for either. So, effectively, the probability for either's existence, as far as I'm concerned, might as well be.

Evidence - define evidence, what type of evidence would you accept ?

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You were the one trying to equate them in your original claim. They are not equal propositions.

Can you not follow, though, that using that "infinite possibilities" nonsense then both claims are equally possible?

Evidence - define evidence, what type of evidence would you accept ?

Objective. Incapable of being explaned by naturalistic means.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, you said that he wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a fatal condition. So, drawing on from that, it'd appear he doesn't heal anything other than fatal conditions, no?

I don't know if either have ever gone away on their own.

So when somebody is cured of cancer it's because of Jesus? Not because of medicine?

You're the person putting forward the concept of the miracle. The burden of proof lies with you and other believers, I'm afraid.

And this has been objectively verified as a miracle? It's not just an anecdote, no?

Well, firstly, it'd have to have no naturalistic explanation. Secondly, it'd have to be capable of being objectively verified. Subjective evidence doesn't cut it.

I have made no claim about miracles, I’m challenging what you claim Christians believe about miracles.

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I have made no claim about miracles, I’m challenging what you claim Christians believe about miracles.

You said God wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a life threatening condition, did you not? This is where all of this argument has come from.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Can you not follow, though, that using that "infinite possibilities" nonsense then both claims are equally possible?

How ? They are not equivalent claims ?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Objective. Incapable of being explaned by naturalistic means.

I doubt that would be irrefutable proof. I'm sure if you research the miracles you'll find Doctors have already recorded that conclusion in some cases.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You said God wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a life threatening condition, did you not? This is where all of this argument has come from.

No, I asked why would he ? Any ideas yet ?

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

I will deal with the modern form. It is correct(-ish) to say the universe began to exist if we define "universe" as our spacetime manifold. It is incorrect to say it began to exist if we define the universe as all of natural existence. Much of the structure of the universe is atemporal. Time and space themselves are products of this atemporal structure. When you hear a scientist say the universe arose from nothing, it must be stressed that there is a difference between a scientist's "nothing" (which has a structure described with a Hilbert-space and definable creation and annihilation operators, and can produce universes), and a theologian's ex nihilo.

You might think the scientist's nothing is a silly notion. But remember that this notion is the bedrock of quantum field theory, and has been used extensively in superconductor physics.

Morbert, is this tied in with the many worlds / parallel universe or multiverse theory and the graviton boson? Sorry, I have a very lay understanding of theoretical physics, but I find it interesting - and was wondering are the creation and annhilation operators, mathematical operators for equations in the realms of that area of theoretical physics?

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How ? They are not equivalent claims ?

I know they're not equivilant claims. I'll try to clarify:

Using this argument: "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists", can you not admit that it's possible a sneezing unicorn capable of creating gods exists. If it's not possible he exists, then that's one possibility that doesn't exist under your conditions (infinite possibilities), meaning there aren't really infinite possibilities. So, with that, your whole argument falls apart.

Now, can you see why it's a silly argument? It's a nice argument to use when it appears it's backing up your claim. But, when it backs up a counter claim it suddenly gets very inconvenient.

I doubt that would be irrefutable proof. I'm sure if you research the miracles you'll find Doctors have already recorded that conclusion in some cases.

No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense.

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

No, I asked why would he ? Any ideas yet ?

Why wouldn't he heal an amputee yet he would heal somebody of some other minor ailment?

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Why wouldn't he heal an amputee yet he would heal somebody of some other minor ailment?

What minor ailments has he healed people from ?

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

What minor ailments has he healed people from ?

Well, firstly, I don't believe he has healed anybody of anything. And, secondly, you can get part of an answer for this from the other post: "No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense."

Any miracle that I've heard about has been some ailment which, given time or chance, could have healed itself naturally.

philologos

The amputee argument is one of the poorest objections I've ever heard to Christianity. You're much better than that argument JammyDodger. It is riddled with assumptions for a start.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I know they're not equivilant claims.

Good. Bad idea to allude that they might be so.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Using this argument: "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists", can you not admit that it's possible a sneezing unicorn capable of creating gods exists. If it's not possible he exists, then that's one possibility that doesn't exist under your conditions (infinite possibilities), meaning there aren't really infinite possibilities. So, with that, your whole argument falls apart.

Now, can you see why it's a silly argument? It's a nice argument to use when it appears it's backing up your claim. But, when it backs up a counter claim it suddenly gets very inconvenient.

I'm interested in the one that is more possible, not less possible, and I have very little interest in unicorns with the flu.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense.

I've read about lots of cases where Doctors could not explain the cure naturally. You should do your own research.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

The amputee argument is one of the poorest objections I've ever heard to Christianity. You're much better than that argument JammyDodger. It is riddled with assumptions for a start.

The argument itself isn't great, I know. But the main point behind it is a very good one, I think:

I've not been made aware of any miracle which claims to have cured a condition that is definitely incurable. Not a condition which we're currently unable to cure or prevent; a condition that, by it's very nature, is incurable inside of the natural world. Amputees are just the most obvious example of such a condition.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I'm interested in the one that is more possible, not less possible, and I have very little interest in unicorns with the flu.

A few points on this:

How can you assess which one is more probable (you seem to be interchanging the words possible and probable: they're not synonymous)? You have no way to, I'm afraid. So your first assertion is meaningless.

Now, to deal with the argument we're talking about. You said that "in an infinte universe of infinite possibility isn't it possible that God exists". I just need one counter example which you deem to not be possible (not probable) to nullify the whole argument. Such a counter example is, for example, a unicorn which, upon sneezing, created your God. If you say that this isn't possible, then your original argument is invalid, as infinite possibilites then don't exist. If you admit that it is possible, then you remove the whole purpose of your argument.

And before somebody says "but God is outside of the universe", that wasn't included as a premise in the argument being used.

I just wish you could see how pointless and meaningless an argument it is.

I've read about lots of cases where Doctors could not explain the cure naturally. You should do your own research.

Read the reply I gave to philologos above.

Onesimus

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, you said that he wouldn't heal an amputee because it's not a fatal condition. So, drawing on from that, it'd appear he doesn't heal anything other than fatal conditions, no?



I don't know if either have ever gone away on their own.

So when somebody is cured of cancer it's because of Jesus? Not because of medicine?



You're the person putting forward the concept of the miracle. The burden of proof lies with you and other believers, I'm afraid.



And this has been objectively verified as a miracle? It's not just an anecdote, no?



Well, firstly, it'd have to have no naturalistic explanation. Secondly, it'd have to be capable of being objectively verified. Subjective evidence doesn't cut it.

Yes Sister brieges occurance has been verified as a miracle.

Jesus works in the ordinary and extroadinary form. so when I have a headache Jesus comes to me in the form of Panadol. He therefore works through mens hearts believers and non-believers and finds medicine. He also works in the extroadinary form in which he can heal someone instantly beyond the confines of the human mind. So yes all healings are done by Jesus. But the extroadinary that go beyond the confines of scientific explanation when done in the name of Jesus Christ and calling upon his mercy directly, is a ''miracle''.

Google sr.briege and listen to her story.

her story is not an anencdote. as I've already explained all who knew her including her doctors were baffled, as were those thousands who witnessed it with their own eyes.

Onesimus now exiting the debate.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, firstly, I don't believe he has healed anybody of anything. And, secondly, you can get part of an answer for this from the other post: "No miracle that I've ever read about or heard of healed a person of a condition which, naturally, is incapable of being healed. So, from that, to me, miracles just seem like nonsense."

Any miracle that I've heard about has been some ailment which, given time or chance, could have healed itself naturally.

To qualify as a miracle, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the recovery must be sudden, complete and permanent - as well as signed off as inexplicable by medical doctors. You can read the reports yourself, and I'm sure you can always find an excuse to disagree with them.

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

To qualify as a miracle, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the recovery must be sudden, complete and permanent - as well as signed off as inexplicable by medical doctors. You can read the reports yourself, and I'm sure you can always find an excuse to disagree with them.

I have one problem with this kind of thinking. It's introducing a false dichotomy; it's fallacious bifurcation.

The only options aren't: a) explanable by medicine, and b) unexplainable by medicine, there for a miracle. There are plenty of other options; it's not an either or scenario.

If something could (however remote that possibility is. You have to remember we've a very large sample size with almost 7 billion people) have naturally healed itself then I neither feel nor see the need to introduce the idea of divine intervention. I can't see how it makes sense to complicate the matter any more than it need be; "don't multiply entities beyond necessity", and all that.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How can you assess which one is more probable (you seem to be interchanging the words possible and probable: they're not synonymous)? You have no way to, I'm afraid. So your first assertion is meaningless.

Now, to deal with the argument we're talking about. You said that "in an infinte universe of infinite possibility isn't it possible that God exists". I just need one counter example which you deem to not be possible (not probable) to nullify the whole argument. Such a counter example is, for example, a unicorn which, upon sneezing, created your God. If you say that this isn't possible, then your original argument is invalid, as infinite possibilites then don't exist. If you admit that it is possible, then you remove the whole purpose of your argument.

And before somebody says "but God is outside of the universe", that wasn't included as a premise in the argument being used.

I just wish you could see how pointless and meaningless an argument it is.

Read the reply I gave to philologos above.

They are your examples, where you attempted a straw man fallacy of making them equivalent arguments, and now your wrapping yourself in knots trying to defend it.

You’re still attempting to equate the two arguments as equivalent in the hope we don't notice or forget about your origional straw man error. Top Tip : when you're in a hole, stop digging.

How is the claim that an infinite sprit created the universe, equivalent to your claim that it is equally possible a unicorns sneeze created a God that created the universe ?

Prove for us that they are equally probable and equal claims, or drop the straw man, and we can disuss the infinate spirt claim.

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

They are your examples, where you attempted a straw man fallacy of making them equivalent arguments, and now your wrapping yourself in knots trying to defend it.

You’re still attempting to equate the two arguments as equivalent in the hope we don't notice or forget about your origional straw man error. Top Tip : when you're in a hole, stop digging.

How is the claim that an infinite sprit created the universe, equivalent to a unicorns sneeze created a God that created the universe ?

Ok, you're obviously either incapable of or unwilling to understand my argument.

Under your argument "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists" it's equally possible (not equally probable, equally possible) that a sneezing unicorn capable of creating your God exists. If it's not possible for this unicorn to exist, then an infinite number of possibilities (a premise in your argument) do not exist. That's the flaw, right there.

I'm not equating anything. I'm not assessing probabilities. I'm simply pointing out the major error with that argument. That you're incapable of seeing that fatal error isn't my problem.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I have one problem with this kind of thinking. It's introducing a false dichotomy; it's fallacious bifurcation.

The only options aren't: a) explanable by medicine, and b) unexplainable by medicine, there for a miracle. There are plenty of other options; it's not an either or scenario.

If something could (however remote that possibility is. You have to remember we've a very large sample size with almost 7 billion people) have naturally healed itself then I neither feel nor see the need to introduce the idea of divine intervention. I can't see how it makes sense to complicate the matter any more than it need be; "don't multiply entities beyond necessity", and all that.

You see the problem is you're pretending that Catholics believe it is irrefutable poof for non Catholics, when they make no such claim. It's more evidence (not proof) for Catholics for their own spiritual beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.