Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

-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.

-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 ?

-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.)

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?

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.

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?

-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''

ShooterSF

Onesimus wrote: »

If there were no God, then there would be no atheists.

Then everyone would be wrong

or do you mean if there was no god there would be no theists and therefore no atheists? A better short version would be if there were no theists there would be no atheists.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

He can reveal himself to anyone he chooses to. Doubting Thomas and Saul being counter examples. He then went on to test them in other ways, so no they didn't have it "easier".

Then we're back to the whole free will thing though. He has basically made them believe by proving himself to them. That makes any subsequent tests easier. Ask any atheist if god exists would they prefer not to know and be tested or know and be tested. Easy choice.

I would not presume that at all, who can say what other experiences you have in life and how they will shape your thinking before your death.

Experiences don't shape my thinking generally. I am wary of any of the many ways the human brain can skew facts or reality (again that's how I am (made)) Reason and logic are what I look to. I will even question whether I am just rationalising my emotions rather than really thinking about something (someone recently posted a great hypothetical incest story on A&A on this subject). As you have said before if god appeared to me (unless he told me in minute detail how my next week turns out) I will look at it as a hallucination. As I am I will most likely never believe. The type of evidence my brain requires neither exists nor does your god seemingly intend to make it available. C'est la vie!

Can atheists go to heaven ? Who knows, if in all good conscience they did not believe in God but they led a very moral life, perhaps. Judgement will be very different for a person that has never heard God's message, than for one that was given every opportunity to hear it.

Fair enough, I'm not gonna argue the tenets of Christianity on this point with you as I assume what you are saying you have researched much more than I! I will say that "very moral life" would have to be more subjective than the Christian one as I break many of it's commandments.

EDIT-

BTW "Atheism/theism are statements of belief. Agnosticism/gnosticism are statements of knowledge. For example I'm an agnostic atheist. Atheism itself is correctly defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods." Is true. While we're sharing info

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

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

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

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Strawman analogy.

How so?

An infinite creational sprit is what is being claimed by theists. Try to be a bit logical

But using your argument "in an infinite universe of infinite possiblities" isn't it equally as valid that your god is the product of a unicorn's sneeze?

Point out how the two differ.

Onesimus wrote: »

So you admit its true then? when would like to be baptised? I can arrange something for you :P

What?

your anology of the grass doesnt disprove my tautology, because atheists and people have vivid proof of grass.

Tautology doesn't need to be disproved!

Atheism is a belief that there is no God, what your talking about is ''agnosticism'' a borderline atheist.

No, I'm afraid you don't understand the meaning of the terms.

Atheism/theism are statements of belief. Agnosticism/gnosticism are statements of knowledge. For example I'm an agnostic atheist. Atheism itself is correctly defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Onesimus wrote: »

as is your argument a silly argument to make.

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

But how many people have been instantly and miracously healed in the Catholic Church - baffling science and all intellectuals in this sphere - in the name of the unicorn or in the name of ( according to atheists ) ''nobody at all''?

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.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Tautology is saying that without God atheists wouldn't exist; it's a statement that is necessarily true. If it wasn't true we'd have a problem.

It's like saying if the colour green didn't exist then no people would exist who did not like that colour. See how pointless that is?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god.

You lack belief in an infinite number of things. You don't believe that they don't exist; you lack belief that they exist. There's a huge difference between the two.

So you admit its true then? when would like to be baptised? I can arrange something for you :P

your anology of the grass doesnt disprove my tautology, because atheists and people have vivid proof of grass.

Atheism is a belief that there is no God, what your talking about is ''agnosticism'' a borderline atheist.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, using your argument, you'll agree it's equally likely that the universe's creation was the product of the sneeze of a unicorn?

Strawman analogy.

An infinite creational sprit is what is being claimed by theists. Try to be a bit logical

-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?

I can't see the argument going too far: there's nothing to counter the claim that it's a way for God to draw us to Him.

So, using your argument, you'll agree it's equally likely that the universe's creation was the product of the sneeze of a unicorn?

It's a silly, meaningless argument to make.

as is your argument a silly argument to make. But how many people have been instantly and miracously healed in the Catholic Church - baffling science and all intellectuals in this sphere - in the name of the unicorn or in the name of ( according to atheists ) ''nobody at all''?

Onesimus wrote: »

Please explain what tautology is?

Tautology is saying that without God atheists wouldn't exist; it's a statement that is necessarily true. If it wasn't true we'd have a problem.

It's like saying if the colour green didn't exist then no people would exist who did not like that colour. See how pointless that is?

the point according to you that makes no sense makes the point that: because atheists can not disprove the existence of God the mere belief that God does not exist is one conjured up by themselves. Thus they formed their own system of belief that God does not exist.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god.

You lack belief in an infinite number of things. You don't believe that they don't exist; you lack belief that they exist. There's a huge difference between the two.

philologos wrote: »

You could call it taking a teleological approach. I'm asking what purpose does it serve. We have identified that this exists on an existential level so what next?

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?

I can't see the argument going too far: there's nothing to counter the claim that it's a way for God to draw us to Him.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I've always found the counter argument even more illogical.

Onesimus wrote: »

And I've always found that to be a silly argument: ''In an infinite universe of infinite possibility isn't it infinitely possible that a God does NOT exist?'' or some such nonsense.

So, using your argument, you'll agree it's equally likely that the universe's creation was the product of the sneeze of a unicorn?

It's a silly, meaningless argument to make.

HUNK

Rofl these threads alway get trolled to bits.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It wasn't meant to.

Tautology.

Yet more tautology.

A point that makes no sense.

Were you trying to make a point?

Please explain what tautology is?

the point according to you that makes no sense makes the point that: because atheists can not disprove the existence of God the mere belief that God does not exist is one conjured up by themselves. Thus they formed their own system of belief that God does not exist.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That would make for an interesting argument, I guess.

It seems like circular reasoning, though, doesn't it? Using a natural disposition as a kind of evidence for God, implying that God put that natural disposition there in the first place.

Unfortunately the universe and reality don't owe us an ultimate cause or a sense of purpose. Trying to read one into the world just seems very anthropocentric to me.

I've always found that to be a silly argument; "in an infinite universe of infinite possiblity isn't it infinitely possible that a god exists", or some such nonsense.

And I've always found that to be a silly argument: ''In an infinite universe of infinite possibility isn't it infinitely possible that a God does NOT exist?'' or some such nonsense.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've always found that to be a silly argument; "in an infinite universe of infinite possiblity isn't it infinitely possible that a god exists", or some such nonsense.

Only If you have the childish notion that he's a beardy man in the sky sitting on a cloud.

If you believe that God is an infinite sprit, it's perfectly possible and logical in an infinity.

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That would make for an interesting argument, I guess.

It seems like circular reasoning, though, doesn't it? Using a natural disposition as a kind of evidence for God, implying that God put that natural disposition there in the first place.

You could call it taking a teleological approach. I'm asking what purpose does it serve. We have identified that this exists on an existential level so what next?

Onesimus wrote: »

but such a reply/point does not disprove the existence of God.

It wasn't meant to.

Look at it again, if there were no God there would be no atheists.

Tautology.

Until atheists can prove that there is no creator then we will always have atheists.

Yet more tautology.

and the point I'm trying to make is ''atheists made atheists''

A point that makes no sense.

Were you trying to make a point?

philologos wrote: »

I wonder could this sense to understand everything in a framework be simply God's way of drawing us to him. A way that we often resist. There is a lot of speculation to make about this.

That would make for an interesting argument, I guess.

It seems like circular reasoning, though, doesn't it? Using a natural disposition as a kind of evidence for God, implying that God put that natural disposition there in the first place.

Ultimately, I don't think atheism provides any better a solution. Reality without an ultimate cause or purpose makes less sense to me than dabbling in the paranormal to be honest with you.

Unfortunately the universe and reality don't owe us an ultimate cause or a sense of purpose. Trying to read one into the world just seems very anthropocentric to me.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I knew that is what you meant, but I think you may have missed the point, trying to limit what exists to what man has created is not possible.

I've always found that to be a silly argument; "in an infinite universe of infinite possiblity isn't it infinitely possible that a god exists", or some such nonsense.

I think you both may have missed my point. Instead of "And God made Man", my point was hinting at "And then Man made God."

but such a reply/point does not disprove the existence of God. Look at it again, if there were no God there would be no atheists. Until atheists can prove that there is no creator then we will always have atheists.

and the point I'm trying to make is ''atheists made atheists''

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I think you both may have missed my point. Instead of "And God made Man", my point was hinting at "And then Man made God."

I knew that is what you meant, but I think you may have missed the point, trying to limit what exists to what man has created or knows about is not possible.

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I think you both may have missed my point. Instead of "And God made Man", my point was hinting at "And then Man made God."

I understood that much.

I wonder could this sense to understand everything in a framework be simply God's way of drawing us to him. A way that we often resist. There is a lot of speculation to make about this.

Ultimately, I don't think atheism provides any better a solution. Reality without an ultimate cause or purpose makes less sense to me than dabbling in the paranormal to be honest with you.

N.B - I'm not trying to be derogatory in saying that.

philologos wrote: »

In fairness to you. It seems to be human nature to believe in some form of metanarrative for the explanation of everything that its around it. If it wasn't in the form of traditional theism it would be in something else. It explains that as many societies have secularised that more and more people are interested in the paranormal. That seems unsurprising to me.

It's interesting to try to understand how and why such beliefs arise (temporarily ignoring your own beliefs while doing so), trying to factor in why we've developed a propensity to belief in the supernatural, metaphysical and paranormal from an evolutionary perspective.

This however doesn't of necessity mean that Christianity is false.

Of course not. It's not really an argument against a particular religion. Its (an inclination towards such beliefs) natural tendency to arise in humans is a good argument as to where the idea of a god came from, though.

Onesimus wrote: »

exactly but there are people, and the proof of that is evident :-)

Quo Vadis wrote:

How's that ? Infinity is big place, with infinite possibilities.

I think you both may have missed my point. Instead of "And God made Man", my point was hinting at "And then Man made God."

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How's that ? Infinity is big place, with infinite possibilities.

Yes I see what you are saying. Limiting God to the creation of just humans seems a bit dumb.

Soul Winner

Only God (if He exists) can prove that He exists. Nobody can prove that He doesn't exist. The Christian faith proclaims that God has proven that He exists already. Jesus calimed to speak in the place of God for which he was eventually murdered. Now there are three possibilities. He was nuts, or a liar or He was telling the truth.

There are no good reasons to think that His words contain the kind of language that suggest that He was not functioning like a normal human being.
There is nothing in His words that could make anyone think that He was liar.
Therefore He must have being telling the truth. Therefore He was speaking in the place of God and hence God exists. Simple really.

Now if anybody wants to object to the first two premises then it is incumbant on you to show, or give us good reasons to believe that He was actually a nut or a liar. It is not incumbent on the believer to prove that He wasn't, to the believer that is obvious. The burden of proof is on the objector. When Jesus went around making the claims that He made He paid for it with His life. But His claims were vindicated when God raised Him from the dead. This is attested to by many witnesses who also gave their lives for that testimony. So unless you can show that this type of behavior is normal human behavior then we must assume that the reason they were willing to suffer death for this testimony was because they truly believed that it was true.

If you have reasons to believe that these men did not truly believe this testimony but had other motives and agendas then again it is incumbent on you to provide evidence of same. So for now at least, in the absence of any such evidence we shall proceed on the basis that they did truly believe in what they died proclaiming, that Jesus was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead.

So how do you get people to believe that after someone has died that they were raised from the dead? And not only that but that the person that was raised was actually the Son of God? How do you get people to believe this and not only that but to also die for that belief?

The explanation that Christians believe is the true explanation is the explanation that these men themselves gave as the explanation. That He actually did rise from the dead because they seen Him for many days afterwards alive and well.

What other explanations are there?

They were lying.
They were halucinating.

If they were hallucinating then bringing them to the tomb were Jesus' body lay would have convinced them that He was not raised from the dead let alone the Son of God in to the bargain.

If they were lying then they weren't true believers in what they preached because they knew it was a lie, which means that they died for a lie that they knew was a lie.

So they must have been hallucinating, again show them the body. Oh, there was no body in the tomb? Where was the body? Did someone take it? Who?

Three possibilities.

The Disciples. If they stole it then they were liars, dealt with above.
The Jewish leaders. If they took it then they would have produced it in order to shut up the disciples from preaching that a guy whom they convicted and proclaimed a blasphemer was risen from the dead, from a death that they brought about.
The Romans authorities. If they took it then they too would have had to produce it. If the Jewish leaders were able to prevail upon the Roman authorities to have Him crucified and His tomb sealed, then they would have been able to prevail upon them to have them produce the body, had the Romans actually taken the body.

So what best explains the empty tomb? The postmortem appearances, and the fact that the disciples came to truly believe that He was risen from the dead and to die for such a belief? The only single explanation that explains all of these facts together is that He actually did rise from the dead.

Hence He was whom He claimed to be, Hence He was God, hence God exists.