I don't believe in atheists

I suggest a collective "ignore". I think it best for everyone especially those with an unhealthy desire for negative attention.
Thoughts?
 
romishpopishorganist said:
But the universe ISN'T necessary. That is the point. The universe exhibits CHANGE. That means the universe, by definition, is contingent; that is, is not self existent. It requires an explanation.
God does not require an explanation becasue God is not contingent; that is, God is unchanging. God's very nature precludes an explanation. The nature of the universe REQUIRES one.

See the point? We are talking of the very NATURE of things. That is what makes them different. God is UNCREATED. In your image of God, you are assuming that God is PART of the created sphere, in which case, God requires an explanation, like everything else in creation.
You are assuming that God isn't set apart from His creation, something fundamentally different in kind from creation. You assume in your image of God, that God is "out there" and that Christians should be able tp "produce" Him like any other created thing. That maybe if we had a powerful enough telescope we could "see" where God is, where heaven is. That is just the point: they ARE NOT here. They are OUTSIDE of the universe.
Click to expand...
Again, you are off the mark. I didn’t say anything about the universe being necessary. But the source of the universe is. What the nature of that source is the contingent mystery.
romishpopishorganist said:
How so?
Click to expand...
The story goes that your god abandoned the world and left us to our result of sin and will set up a new kingdom where he will truly reign for starters. That does not describe a loving or powerful god. It describes an excuse as to why the world is as it is even though a perfect being made it.
romishpopishorganist said:
Why is it that scientists look at the evidence differently? One scientist--will, as a result of their studies become a Christian, or some kind of theist. Other scientists will look at the exact same evidence and either remain atheist, or leave theism. Evidence is evidence. Data is data. Why do different scientists come to such different conclusions?
Click to expand...
Because some people naturally adhere to a Platonic dualism.
romishpopishorganist said:
There are competing scientific claims as well. Does this disprove the validity to the scientific method? Does this disprove that there are scientific laws that can be known and understood?
Click to expand...
That's why I introduced to the discussion the concept, used in science, of provisionality.
romishpopishorganist said:
Competing religious traditions and viewpoints no more disprove the existence of God than competing scientific claims disprove "The Science."
Click to expand...
What it leads one to believe is that there is not an objective monotheistic god influencing his creation or those in it supposedly made in his image.
romishpopishorganist said:
The apostles or their scribes wrote the NT. The apostles all witnessed the appearances of Jesus. All of the Gospels were written within the lifetime of the apostles--even IF you go with the liberal dating of the Gospels and books of the NT.
Click to expand...
I think you have your timelines a bit confused. The gospels, including Acts weren’t even begun until 30 or more years (depending on the book) after the crucifixion, and Acts has the main characters martyred pretty soon after ascension, including Paul.
romishpopishorganist said:
You just asserted previously that there were no direct eye witnesses to the Resurrection, which calls into question its credibility. Now you complain that non-eyewitnesses never mentioned it, thus calling into question its credibility?
Click to expand...
Yes. It shows that outside of the bias of the internal religious tradition, no signs of these incredible events were ever publicly noted, such as the graves opening up in Jerusalem spilling out their saints or a record in the court of Herod where 3 wise men come in and declare the messiah that the entire Jewish race was waiting for has arrived. It would be news that wouldn't to slip Josephuses’s pen.
romishpopishorganist said:
You given me an impossible burden of proof! I produce eyewitnesses in the form of the apostles who saw Jesus, and then wrote about it in the NT. You tell me--"Well, shucks, you know? I mean gosh. How can we possibly trust those accounts?" Then you turn around and claim that "Well, shucks, you know? I mean gosh. If the Resurrection happened, we should expect to see non-eyewitnesses writing about it."

See my point? The secular historians you mentioned didn't witness the Resurrection. they did not witness Christ. Why would we expect them to write about it? The fact that they aren't eyewitnesses would tend to invalidate their credibility by your own standard of proof. You mean to tell me that if the DID write about it, you would go "Well, shucks! You got me! I guess the resurrection really happened!" Of course you wouldn't. You would invalidate their testimony since they weren't eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...
No. I don’t see your point at all. I’ll just reiterate that religious traditions of the day were competitive, and as I outlined above, your potential witnesses were dead by the time the gospels and Acts were written leaving these illiterate superstitious traditions time to bubble and boil and build as they passed around early church enclaves as oral traditions like they are won’t to do.

And yes... If any of the historians I mentioned recorded these events as being relayed by large groups of disinterested witnesses not in the religious tradition, I would be more inclined to believe them. Roman historian Tacitus in The Histories, and Suetonius in The Lives of the Twelve Caesars wrote of miracles Vespasian performed in the temple of Serapisin Alexandria Egypt. We know this to be political hyperbole though because there was no one at the time other than these political entities saying so.
romishpopishorganist said:
The question is: WHY should we not treat the Gospels as historical documents? One need not suppose they are Scripture in order to examine them as historical documents.
Click to expand...
Because of the religious nature of the writings and our experience with the fabrications of that genre.
romishpopishorganist said:
Here you go. This is the quintessential example of modern, Western arrogance. "We are so smart, enlightened. and scientific. No one before us knew anything, they were stupid. They were predisposed to believe anything becasue they didn't have 'The Science' like we do today. Thus, it would make perfect sense for them to believe it when someone said 'Hey guys, I was dead but I came back to life.'"

You might want to try reading the Gospels some time. Jesus disciples were NOT AT ALL predisposed to believe in anything he said. They are presented as bumbling idiots who do not believe what he says, don't understand it, and then when he needed them the most, ran out on him. When they heard initial reports of the Resurrection, they discounted them, believing instead that someone stole the body. Even AFTER they encounter Him in His resurrected body, they still do not believe. It isn't until he ascends to heaven and the Spirit comes on the Church that they believe, understand, and boldly preach.
Click to expand...
You need to relax. What I am relaying to you is a commonly understood and non controversial sociological truth regarding the hyperbole of supernatural literature from EVERY corner of the earth in EVERY culture. Why is this so controversial to you? Because it targets you as well as everybody else? You want special pleading for your special supernatural scriptures.
romishpopishorganist said:
Actually.....the works continue in the person of the Church He founded. The Church continues to cast out demons, preach the Good News, and there are even miracles from time to time. But of course, even when "The Science" cannot explain this, the atheist still maintains that--well-it just has to be false, you know? Just becasue "The Science" doesn't have the answers now, it will eventually get them. And then your superstition will be disproven. Quite frankly, some of the explanations atheists come up with for Near Death Experiences, the Shroud of Turin, Eucharistic miracles, expulsion of demons, etc, require more Faith, than simply believing in the miraculous.
Click to expand...
An objective and involved god that wants us to know him and that we can all relate to would not leave such “works” to the dark closet of personal anecdote. It would actually be an undeniable fabric of everybody’s life.
romishpopishorganist said:
I will have to look in to that more. Ed Feser, a professor of philosophy wrote a book about the mind where he addresses some of these assertions and explains why they don't prove what the scientists think they prove-this--if I understand what you are referring to correctly. I started reading it, but it was over my head.
Click to expand...
No. This is a claim about direct science, not philosophy. Alter the brain, alter the mind. There is no mind/brain duality.
I think you misunderstand. We have natural patterns that are real, such as loving and providing parents. These patterns can be projected into grander things like gods when one looks at the world and wonders about it. It doesn’t mean gods exist.
romishpopishorganist said:
God is that which is purely actual. Everything in the universe is a combination of potentiality and actuality.
Click to expand...
So is nature... and it could just possibly be non-contingent
 
TeabagSalad said:
Not a good plan. Having posted here for 20+ years such action just make them think they've won, and they become even more resistant to learning and education.
Click to expand...
Does what they think matter? Let the think they've "won" -they already think that. Is there any hope for education?Is there hope for a mature reasonable, thoughtful non-trolling post? I don't think so.
I post here with the hope to be educated myself but with no such expectation for others. I post in order to put my ideas into words, to articulate clearly and precisely.
Attention is what the troll seeks; any engagement is the "win" for the troll -just as a child seeks negative attention over no attention.
 
Last edited:
romishpopishorganist said:
Why is it that scientists look at the evidence differently? One scientist--will, as a result of their studies become a Christian, or some kind of theist. Other scientists will look at the exact same evidence and either remain atheist, or leave theism. Evidence is evidence. Data is data. Why do different scientists come to such different conclusions?

There are competing scientific claims as well. Does this disprove the validity to the scientific method? Does this disprove that there are scientific laws that can be known and understood?

Competing religious traditions and viewpoints no more disprove the existence of God than competing scientific claims disprove "The Science."
Click to expand...
The difference is that science eventually comes to a resolution of those differences. In contrast, there are religions that are thousands of years old and which can't all be true, and yet they continue on and on.

I'm not saying that the failure of world religions to congeal into a single religion means that they are all false. But the reason science eventually resolves its differences is because it has a rigorous method that exists above any specific theory or conclusion and so can be used - maybe slowly, haltingly, and imperfectly - to resolve conflicts. I know of no such method beyond particular religions that they use to resolve conflicts between religions. So the differences between religions just continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top