The Folly of Atheism

[Catholicus]

↑


Still waiting for a reasonable rational response.



True



Huh? Not meaningful in a response to anything I have posted.



Meaningless anti-science soap box rhetoric.

No - not anti-science, but anti-Scientism.

Scientism being the idolatrous worship of Science as a false god that has all the answers.

And can be vainly appealed to in attempts to disprove traditional Christian beliefs.

 

[Catholicus]

But even then, I have no choice but to utilize my own perceptive resources to first perceive of and then evaluate the more "generic concept" of "god" or "no god." And if my perceptive resources inform me that, due to the very nature of this purported "god", I can make no determination either way? That I can sit in neither the camp "god" nor the camp "no god?" What then? Do I rely on OTHER'S perceptions, and distrust my own, when my own perceptions have proven to have a very high success rate when compared with others reports of what is actually being perceived? This seems entirely counter-intuitive and unnecessary. God's existence or lack thereof seems to have absolutely no bearing on my ability to mete out my own life and existence.

But as it affects your beliefs on issues such as abortion, that is not strictly the case.

And of course, whether one believes in God must affect one's behaviour.

 

[Catholicus]

If God cannot be explicitly demonstrated, then he doesn't exist.
Also, if God is "beyond existence" then he doesn't exist.

God's existence is explicitly demonstrated by that of the universe.

 

[Catholicus]

Ah, then the existence of meta-God is self-evident from the existence of God. And the existence of meta-meta-God is self-evident from the existence of meta-God, and …. help, there's no way to stop!

You are wilfully confusing the universe with a phantasm called "meta-God."

 

[Catholicus]

Well, if that is the case, we must assume that God also isn't interested in whether people believe in him or not. If he's not interested, why are you?

In which case, what is it you think should persuade those left "wondering" to believe? If God isn't interested in them, why should they be interested in God?

This denies your point 2, because it seems to apply to all. But in that case, since God is waiting in utter silence, how comes it that there's such a big noise about him, all based on what he's supposed to have inspired in various scriptures?

I presume you mean something has blinded the awareness of SOME humans. But isn't it just as possible, or perhaps even more possible, that something is causing SOME humans to imagine what isn't there? And given the fact delusional thinking is rife within our species, I lean to the "very likely" rather than even more possible side.
Well, at least this has the benefit of fitting well within Occam's Razor. It's the simplest answer to the obvious question, so might well be the best answer, too.

Delusional thinking ? The worst example being Atheism.

 

[Catholicus]

Let me correct that for you...yet AGAIN. NO EVIDENCE? NO LOGICAL REASON TO BELIEVE!

Or disbelieve, if that were so.

 

[Catholicus]

No, not whatever. You're brushing off a critical distinction. There is a difference between saying "there is no evidence for x, therefore x doesn't exist," and saying, "there is no evidence for x, therefore we have no rational reason to believe x exists, even if it turns out it does."

So what will happen to you and other atheists if God DOES exist ?

 

[Catholicus]

Straw Man-- which appears to be your main strategy.


Sure! This "god" is simply evil. Or indifferent. Or? Grossly inept.

Or? "God" is still shagged out from fabricating the Universe, and is still taking a Long Nap.

One thing we know for SURE? If god is real? God cannot possibly be GOOD.



Grossly Unfair. Sure! Back to my earlier point: God is Evil, or Grossly incompetent, or Asleep, or uncaring or dumb, or any number of other FAILS. But not GOOD-- certainly not GOOD. #2 precludes good.



So we are back to Gross Incompetence, or simply powerlessness-- god is so full of itself, it is incapable of Dialing It Back.

And GOOD remains impossible.


Once more: Gross Incompetence. NOT GOOD.


The ONLY choice where EVIL is not included in the outcome.

Evil is the work of Satan and the other angels who tried to depose God, but failed.

God = Goodness (and Goodness = God, God being the only source of Goodness).

The moment that God "took a nap" would be the moment the universe instantly disappeared, like a soap bubble.

 

[Catholicus]

Gotta love these contrived issues that are completely, 100% the problem of the all-powerful being who allegedly put us in such an absurd situation.

Who gave us the gift of life ?

Is life an "absurd situation" ?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Or disbelieve, if that were so.

Is that really how your brain works? You believe in everything for which there is no evidence?

 

[Catholicus]

Humans created the word "Evil". Humans therefore? Get to define what it means.

The fact that you have no clue, without the context of a Cosmic North Korean Dictator?

Says much about you-- none of it positive.

Evil is the absence of goodness, whether (largely) in, say, Auschwitz and the Gulag and the souls of those who built them or (wholly) in Hell.

There is a difference between the infinite kindness and mercy of God and the absence of such qualities in a dictator.

BTW those in Hell are there because they hate God (and all He stands for) not because God hates them - He doesn't; and by His very nature can't ("God is love", 1 John).

 

[Catholicus]

Since I don't know what real being or thing the word 'God' is intended to denote, I have to read your basic question as 'Imaginary God or no imaginary God?' And the answer is, either or neither or both, whatever you prefer to imagine.

God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (or multiverse) and all that is in it.

And, in addition, God is Goodness.

 

[blü 2]

Most Atheists are VERY assertive when claiming - or implying ! - that God doesn't exist.

The burden of proof of that statement is on them, of course.

That would be true in certain situations. The correct approach for a nonbeliever ─ I'm a nonbeliever but not technically an atheist ─ is to say, What real being or thing do you intend to denote when you say "God"? ─ 'real' in the sense of having objective existence, existing in the world external to the self, not being imaginary. Since no one has answered that for me, I tend to assume I'm not the only one who doesn't know, but be that as it may, I don't know what a real god might be.

The existence of a real God is all around you (namely in the fact that the universe and everything in it exists) - but you refuse to see.

A wise person once said that with science seeing is believing, with faith believing is seeing. I don't refuse to see anything real; reality is what our senses (the classical five, anyway) inform us about. And they don't show us a real god, or God, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Not only that, but the absence of a definition appropriate for a real god, such that we could tell one if we found one, means that we don't even have the concept of a real god. For instance, what is the real quality 'godness' that a real god would have but a real superscientist would lack?

God alone is Real.

If that's correct then it follows that you can give me ─ give everyone ─ a satisfactory demonstration of [his] existence. So let's start with that. For instance, a photo would be a good entry point to the topic.

 

[Catholicus]

Wait... what? So the bible was... **wrong**?

Well.... who knew? (apart from 3/4 of the planet, that is...)

Epicurus chose to overlook reality - that God has delegated freewill to His angelic and human creations, thus (temporarily) surrendering part of His omnipotence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No - not anti-science, but anti-Scientism.

Scientism being the idolatrous worship of Science as a false god that has all the answers.

And can be vainly appealed to in attempts to disprove traditional Christian beliefs.

Who are these mythical followers of 'scientism' of whom you speak? I've yet to encounter one of these elusive creatures, though some theist have foolishly attempted to slap the label on me, simply because I recognize that the scientific method has by far been the most effective method humans have found thus far for accurately explaining how the universe works.

Who are these people who supposedly worship science as a god and claim that it has ALL the answers?

 

[Catholicus]

Argument from incredulity logical fallacy.

No - because a committee has divided opinions and wills, thus can't create (let alone maintain) anything.

 

[Catholicus]

Citation needed. Claim made without even one item of fact.

"Not even one item of fact"

The universe isn't a fact, then ?

 

[Left Coast]

So what will happen to you and other atheists if God DOES exist ?

Depends on the God.

 

[Catholicus]

That would be true in certain situations. The correct approach for a nonbeliever ─ I'm a nonbeliever but not technically an atheist ─ is to say, What real being or thing do you intend to denote when you say "God"? ─ 'real' in the sense of having objective existence, existing in the world external to the self, not being imaginary. Since no one has answered that for me, I tend to assume I'm not the only one who doesn't know, but be that as it may, I don't know what a real god might be.
A wise person once said that with science seeing is believing, with faith believing is seeing. I don't refuse to see anything real; reality is what our senses (the classical five, anyway) inform us about. And they don't show us a real god, or God, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Not only that, but the absence of a definition appropriate for a real god, such that we could tell one if we found one, means that we don't even have the concept of a real god. For instance, what is the real quality 'godness' that a real god would have but a real superscientist would lack?
If that's correct then it follows that you can give me ─ give everyone ─ a satisfactory demonstration of [his] existence. So let's start with that.

Well, I can - the universe; proof of God's existence except to those who are wilfully blind.

You seem to be worshipping our five senses (as enhanced by scientific instruments) - which is an idolatrous worship of the human brain.

Please don't say: if we and science can't perceive something, it doesn't exist. That IS stupid - and arrogant.

Super-scientists (like scientists) can't create anything, let alone hold it in continued being.

Nor do they possess kindness or goodness. God does. Which is well for us.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why ? The foetus is as much a human being as she is.

Merely less powerful.

You argument is only permissible in the (rare) cases of life versus life, where NOT aborting the foetus would DIRECTLY cause the mother's death.

No one, of course, has the right to kill another person in order to maintain their own "wellbeing."

Sorry, but that's simply not true. You seem to be confusing a fetus's POTENTIAL TO BECOME a viable individual human being with it actually BEING a viable individual human being. What your saying is like claiming that an acorn is as much an oak tree as an actual oak tree is. It simply is not. An acorn may have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME an oak tree, given enough time and the proper conditions, but unless that time passes and those conditions occur, the acorn will never be an ACTUAL oak tree. The exact same thing can be said about a human fetus with potential. It may have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME a viable individual human being, but that time passes and the proper conditions are met, it will never become an actual viable human being.