Questions and my introduction

zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Questions and my introduction

Hey my name is Zach and I'm sorry for this long post. I have been a self-proclaimed atheist for a little less then a year. Although I think i really was one for a long time.

Ok I don't want to get much into me. My main question is I had a nice discussion with my parents on my birthday (1-20). It was about their beliefs. My mom believes in god basically because of miracles. I answered with the idea that it is just a matter of probability. That these things are going to happen no matter what, by chance. She said that she could not understand that these "miracles" are just by chance. I didn't know how to answer. So I though I'd ask you guys.

Now for what my dad's argument for why he believes in a god,which he just started doing(he has called himself an atheist in the past to the family,go figure). He told me a story about Pascal. The same one that came up with Pascal's wager. He told me that after Pascal died they found a letter stitched in his coat. This letter retold a time in Pascal's life where he had a "real" conversation with god. According to the letter it was like the way God spoke to Moses in the bible about the Ten Commandments. This story my father says is too big of a coincidence that it must have been real. My father said that for a guy so smart in so many fields as Pascal to have this experience and then to sew it in his pocket was very convincing to him. Hey said "why would he do that if it wasn't a very special event to him and why would he lie about this and keep a lie inside his pocket." I tried to explain to him that hallucinations can be very convincing. to this he repeated the above quotation over and over. I didn't know what else to say. So what do you guys think i should say to him about this story? Just curious.

On another note, my fundamentalist sister has told my father to tell me to bring on the arguments against the existence of god and that she would love to debate me on it. I want to but i want to get better at debating so what do you guys suggest for debating these type of people. What should i study? How can i practice things like this.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Every time a miracle

Every time a miracle doesn't happen, nobody hears about it. Every time a miracle happens, everybody hears about it. By report, you'd think miracles were happening left and right. Get her to consider all the times miracles didn't happen. She can't even concieve of how many nonmiracles there have been where there could have been.

There are other great people than Pascal in history. Why'd he pick Pascal specifically and not someone else?

As for debating, just hang around, pay attention when atheists attempt to rebut theists and vice versa. Read any recommended books about it. When disproving one specific religion, some of the arguements of deists can be used also, although they're theists. 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Every time a

Zhwazi wrote:

Every time a miracle doesn't happen, nobody hears about it. Every time a miracle happens, everybody hears about it. By report, you'd think miracles were happening left and right. Get her to consider all the times miracles didn't happen. She can't even concieve of how many nonmiracles there have been where there could have been.

That is so much more eloquently put then what i was trying to say. I guess thats my biggest problem I have a hard time articulating myself. 

 

Zhwazi wrote:
There are other great people than Pascal in history. Why'd he pick Pascal specifically and not someone else?

I guess he just thinks the story i told is just so unique. According to his rationale he thinks that the uniqueness of the story plus the intellegence of the man makes it special and to him helps prove god to him.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I would be curious as to

I would be curious as to why in particular how you came to atheism.

I also would not discount your parents' belief, though they might be unable to enunciate it correctly.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Well my road to atheism is

Well my road to atheism is marked by many epiphanies. What first set me on it was the realization that santa was not real. Then the next thing was when i was in church what they where talking about didn't make any since what so ever. It was empty to me.   So then i tried to look around for more logical religions. I ended up trying wicca. I went with that for about a year then i finally came to the conclusion through studying things and with the help of my already atheistic girlfriend i , that there is no god.

Now i mentioned that i probably was an atheist for a while i just didn't relize it. When i was a wiccan, i understood the god and the goddess of that religion to be just parts of a whole. That whole was nature. So to talk about the god and goddess was basically just trying to explain parts of nature. So in reality i was probably more of a pantheist at the time then wiccan. I just hadn't heard of the term at the time.

I don't discount them, but i do believe that they are logicly defieciant.  So i would like to try to explain to them why they are being irrational. in the hopes that they won't be irrational. I don't specficaly care if they become an atheist (which as i think i stated my dad was at one time). I just want to to be rational about things. Which from discussions with them they aren't very rational. I think that by just making them a little more rational i can help in making this world a more rational place.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Well my road to atheism is

[MOD EDIT - duplicate post deleted]


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I see no reason why

I see no reason why religion itself is "logically deficient." While a particular religion or authority is lacking in thought, that does not disprove religion in general. You just need to investigate religious history more to explore religious thought to see that religion is not intellectually bankrupt.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
What i said was there reason

What i said was there reason for believing is logicaly deficiant. I wasn't generalizing it to all of religion. I didn't want to go down that road at least for now.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote:

zntneo wrote:
On another note, my fundamentalist sister has told my father to tell me to bring on the arguments against the existence of god and that she would love to debate me on it. I want to but i want to get better at debating so what do you guys suggest for debating these type of people. What should i study? How can i practice things like this.

She's the one claiming a god exists. It's her job to prove it. If someone told you that unicorns are real, it isn't your job to disprove them, it's their job to prove their claim. Ask her to definie God and go from there.

One of the more obvious issues with most people's definition of god is in saying that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving. With omnipotence and omniscience, comes "omni-responsibility", so given the suffering that occurs in the world, god is either unable to stop it (in which case he isn't omnipotent) or unwilling (in which case, he's not particularly all-loving.) They might retort that "man brought sin into the world", but it still holds that if god set everything up knowing exactly what would happen, he is responsible.

EDIT: Also, Pascal's Wager assumes that only one god exists, but there are many religions, and many more that could be made up, so how does one know how to choose? What if someone spent their whole time following Christianity only to find themselves before a very upset Baal when they are dead? 

-Triften


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Pascal's Wager was not

Pascal's Wager was not meant as a general reason to endorse Catholic Christianity over other forms of religion; it was meant in context to refer to those who would choose between Catholicism and atheism. But, I suppose it clearly would apply in a general application to endorse the notion that religious observance itself is worthwhile as opposed to adamant atheism; if there is a deity, you ought to do something about it, because your lack of observance wins nothing, whereas an observance of a religion will. Whatever religion you choose is a different manner, but it would at least endorse that religion over irreligion is a better alternative.

 I would point out that an omnipotent and omniscient God is not also all responsible. This would only apply if He created the world in such a way that all things were predetermined by Him. However, of course this is not the case with Christianity and Judaism, where it clearly is the case that they believe that God gave us free will. Free will is not subsumed in some "all-responsible" God merely because He created everything, because God gave up perfect responsibility, by definition, in creating rational beings that share in His ability to freely choose. Proof of this is the fact that God would command certain observances and reward certain parties while punishing others. If there was no free will and He was "perfectly responsible" in the way you mean, then such a dictate would be purely nonsensical. Also, I would point out that even if God created the world in a deterministic sense, this does not prove that He doesn't exist or that He is not all good. It merely means that your will is predetermined (which is a contradiction in terms, but let's just ignore that).

What is happiness in a world where nothing has will or volition or intelligence? If nothing has a mind that can determine its own ends, there can be no such thing as happiness or good. There could never be enjoyment of the happiness in the end. 

Suffering in the world is explained in view of God's Providence. He allows an evil to exist (He does not cause it) for the greater good. Evil in terms of death and suffering was a result of the Fall and a loss of the original state of happiness that God created man in (not willing suffering). But He allowed the Fall to happen so that our redemption and incorporation into the life of God might occur as a result of Christ's Passion. It was a greater good in view of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ so that we could be truly "sons of God."

 Further, it seems clear to maintain that He is all-loving at least from the fact that He wills the good of existence to all existing things; and what is to love something other than to will the good of another? 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Pascal's

StMichael wrote:

Pascal's Wager was not meant as a general reason to endorse Catholic Christianity over other forms of religion; it was meant in context to refer to those who would choose between Catholicism and atheism. But, I suppose it clearly would apply in a general application to endorse the notion that religious observance itself is worthwhile as opposed to adamant atheism; if there is a deity, you ought to do something about it, because your lack of observance wins nothing, whereas an observance of a religion will. Whatever religion you choose is a different manner, but it would at least endorse that religion over irreligion is a better alternative.

I would point out that an omnipotent and omniscient God is not also all responsible. This would only apply if He created the world in such a way that all things were predetermined by Him. However, of course this is not the case with Christianity and Judaism, where it clearly is the case that they believe that God gave us free will. Free will is not subsumed in some "all-responsible" God merely because He created everything, because God gave up perfect responsibility, by definition, in creating rational beings that share in His ability to freely choose. Proof of this is the fact that God would command certain observances and reward certain parties while punishing others. If there was no free will and He was "perfectly responsible" in the way you mean, then such a dictate would be purely nonsensical. Also, I would point out that even if God created the world in a deterministic sense, this does not prove that He doesn't exist or that He is not all good. It merely means that your will is predetermined (which is a contradiction in terms, but let's just ignore that).

What is happiness in a world where nothing has will or volition or intelligence? If nothing has a mind that can determine its own ends, there can be no such thing as happiness or good. There could never be enjoyment of the happiness in the end.

Suffering in the world is explained in view of God's Providence. He allows an evil to exist (He does not cause it) for the greater good. Evil in terms of death and suffering was a result of the Fall and a loss of the original state of happiness that God created man in (not willing suffering). But He allowed the Fall to happen so that our redemption and incorporation into the life of God might occur as a result of Christ's Passion. It was a greater good in view of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ so that we could be truly "sons of God."

Further, it seems clear to maintain that He is all-loving at least from the fact that He wills the good of existence to all existing things; and what is to love something other than to will the good of another?

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

The cat is already out of the bag, you cant pull that bait and switch on us, we are too smart for that.

"All means all"

You're boss, with all these "all" atributes never seems to poney up to taking blame for anything bad. Why? Not because he is real. But because you dont want that fictional character to be put in a bad light.

Dont sit there and sell us this crap about God being all powerfull, can do whatever he wants, but cant be held up to any accountability. That is the kind of crap that people in all religions use to justify horrible attrocities to their fellow human.

Either your boss can do everything "all" or he cant. This ambigous dodge and weave crap dont play here. 

People who survive any type of trama survive because the situation lead up to that, not because of Suprman vs Kriptonite.

God allows evil to exist? REALLY?

I think child rape and murder is the most sick disqusting thing on the face of the planet! 

You dont want an explination from your boss as to why? When supposidly can stop that sick shit beforehand? What kind of quality controll is that for a boss?

I'll save some, let some be rapped and murdered?

This you dont need an explination for? That is sick? You just buy that on faith? God knows what he is dong when he watches, KNOWING HE COULD PREVENT IT?

I call what you have delusional and dangerous stupidity! 

I'll take a profiler or psychologist over any Mosque, Synogouge, or Church anyday. You want to catch child killers? You dont do it by praying to a fictional being, you do it by stuying the habits of the criminals themselves.

Your claim of God allowing evil makes me respect the claim less. "All" my ass! You just want an invisable fictional friend to justify preaching to the chior. You are no different than any other Cheerleader be they Muslim, Jew or Christian.

"I love my god even when I cant prove it" You might as well claim to be Napolean 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Pascal's

StMichael wrote:

Pascal's Wager was not meant as a general reason to endorse Catholic Christianity over other forms of religion; it was meant in context to refer to those who would choose between Catholicism and atheism. But, I suppose it clearly would apply in a general application to endorse the notion that religious observance itself is worthwhile as opposed to adamant atheism; if there is a deity, you ought to do something about it, because your lack of observance wins nothing, whereas an observance of a religion will. Whatever religion you choose is a different manner, but it would at least endorse that religion over irreligion is a better alternative.

It wouldn't, since you still have to choose a religion, and many deities punish horribly for "false" worship (ask Yahweh about that). So, for example, if you choose to worship the Great Sea Hamsters, that would be mutually exclusive of worshiping as the Glorious Sky Squirrels wish you to. Then, when you die, the Sky Squirrels send you to the Glade of Eternal Winter instead of the Field of Infinite Acorns. In this case, your observance has caused a loss.

If there are an infinity of possible methods of worship (and there are, since they could be described through language and language can construct descriptive statements of inifinite length), your chances of choosing the right one approaches zero.

Expected value is (Gain) * (probability of gain) and in this case:

1 soul * 1/x (as x->infinity) = 0

-Triften


Krehlic
Krehlic's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-29
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: StMichael

triften wrote:
StMichael wrote:

Pascal's Wager was not meant as a general reason to endorse Catholic Christianity over other forms of religion; it was meant in context to refer to those who would choose between Catholicism and atheism. But, I suppose it clearly would apply in a general application to endorse the notion that religious observance itself is worthwhile as opposed to adamant atheism; if there is a deity, you ought to do something about it, because your lack of observance wins nothing, whereas an observance of a religion will. Whatever religion you choose is a different manner, but it would at least endorse that religion over irreligion is a better alternative.

 

It wouldn't, since you still have to choose a religion, and many deities punish horribly for "false" worship (ask Yahweh about that). So, for example, if you choose to worship the Great Sea Hamsters, that would be mutually exclusive of worshiping as the Glorious Sky Squirrels wish you to. Then, when you die, the Sky Squirrels send you to the Glade of Eternal Winter instead of the Field of Infinite Acorns. In this case, your observance has caused a loss.

If there are an infinity of possible methods of worship (and there are, since they could be described through language and language can construct descriptive statements of inifinite length), your chances of choosing the right one approaches zero.

Expected value is (Gain) * (probability of gain) and in this case:

1 soul * 1/x (as x->infinity) = 0

-Triften

Um... pwned? 

Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: "All means

Quote:

"All means all"

God can do whatever He wills, as He is all-powerful. But being able to do whatever is absolutely possible does not translate into always determining every action. In fact, the entire way in which a thing could be free is because God wills it to be such. He causes free things to exist. He "gives up" His ability to determine your actions. He could, but He does not.

Quote:
 

 Either your boss can do everything "all" or he cant. This ambigous dodge and weave crap dont play here. 

He can, but He doesn't. It's that simple.

Quote:
 

You dont want an explination from your boss as to why? When supposidly can stop that sick shit beforehand? What kind of quality controll is that for a boss?

I think these things have been adequately explained. God does not delight in evil, nor did He cause it. He tolerates it in this life, but punishes such action in the end, according to His justice. He tolerates evil in general so that a greater good can come of it. The evil of child rape is a great evil, but it results from human decisions to do that, not God's. Which is why God became man in Christ and died for us and rose again. All suffering was assumed by God in the Cross. He drew us to Himself and wants us all to be happy with Him forever. Human choice chooses evil, not God.  

Quote:
 


I'll take a profiler or psychologist over any Mosque, Synogouge, or Church anyday. You want to catch child killers? You dont do it by praying to a fictional being, you do it by stuying the habits of the criminals themselves.

I would not just pray to apprehend a child killer. It would be against right reason to not pursue the child killer with the ordinary means God has given us. But prayer would most certainly help in this and any other endeavor.

 


It would always be more beneficial to believe than not, because atheism would always be an automatic zero. Even if some belief was wrong, it had a greater chance of being right.

Further, God does not punish for wrong belief, just because it is wrong belief. It depends on the circumstances and intention. The answer is wrong, but some are closer than others.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Sybarite
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: God can

StMichael wrote:

God can do whatever He wills, as He is all-powerful. But being able to do whatever is absolutely possible does not translate into always determining every action. In fact, the entire way in which a thing could be free is because God wills it to be such. He causes free things to exist. He "gives up" His ability to determine your actions. He could, but He does not.

God knows everything, including his future decisions. Since he knows 100% on every one of his future decisions, he has no free will.

You claim that you know what God's choices are. How arrogant. 


StMichael wrote:
I think these things have been adequately explained. God does not delight in evil, nor did He cause it. He tolerates it in this life, but punishes such action in the end, according to His justice. He tolerates evil in general so that a greater good can come of it. The evil of child rape is a great evil, but it results from human decisions to do that, not God's. Which is why God became man in Christ and died for us and rose again. All suffering was assumed by God in the Cross. He drew us to Himself and wants us all to be happy with Him forever. Human choice chooses evil, not God.

Ahem: Isaiah 45:7 says "I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things"

See. 

 

StMichael wrote:
I would not just pray to apprehend a child killer. It would be against right reason to not pursue the child killer with the ordinary means God has given us. But prayer would most certainly help in this and any other endeavor.

Prayer, it has been  established, has no real effect. 


StMichael wrote:
It would always be more beneficial to believe than not, because atheism would always be an automatic zero. Even if some belief was wrong, it had a greater chance of being right.

If a belief is wrong, it has no chance of being right.

Why is atheism an automatic zero? 

StMichael wrote:
Further, God does not punish for wrong belief, just because it is wrong belief. It depends on the circumstances and intention. The answer is wrong, but some are closer than others.

How do you know why God punishes people? Did he tell you? 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God knows

Quote:

God knows everything, including his future decisions. Since he knows 100% on every one of his future decisions, he has no free will.

Except that there is no "future" or "past" in God - only an eternal present willing.

Quote:
 

You claim that you know what God's choices are. How arrogant.

I don't see how arrogance has anything to do with it.

 

Quote:
 

 

Ahem: Isaiah 45:7 says "I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things"

See.

And read the rest of the context. What does Isaiah mean when He contrasts peace and "evil?" Evil is not the same as moral evil here. It means peace and war/strife, light and darkness. Not moral evil.

Quote:
 

 Prayer, it has been  established, has no real effect.

How so?  I have seen no reason to discount prayer.

Quote:
 

If a belief is wrong, it has no chance of being right.

I was just showing that I believed Pascal's Wager did apply, in a general way. In which case, atheism will never profit one if there is a hereafter. If there is, the safer "bet" is always to go with religion. You may not get it right, but it is better than an automatic "zero."

 

Quote:

How do you know why God punishes people? Did he tell you?

Yes, He revealed it in Sacred Scripture and in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. 

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It would

StMichael wrote:

It would always be more beneficial to believe than not, because atheism would always be an automatic zero. Even if some belief was wrong, it had a greater chance of being right.

See my above post regarding the probability that a particular mode of worship is the "correct" one. The limit as x approaches infinity of 1/x is 0. No chance. Nada.

Further more, atheism is not an automatic zero because those who choose not to jump through hoops for the afterlife will have more energy to spare on doing good things here on this Earth, in this life. (In particular, trying to avert some insane, self-fulfilling prophecy of Judgement Day.) 

Imagine if someone told you that, when your car breaks, you'll get a new one free of charge. If you believed them, would you bother with an oil change? Maintanence?

Imagine if someone told you that, when the world ends, you'll be taken into heaven to live with god. If you believed them, would you bother taking care of the world around you?

-Triften 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Your calculation is wrong.

Your calculation is wrong. Even if there is only one correct mode of worship in a multitude of possible worships, the probability of selecting the right one is always possible, however infinitesimal (assuming your premises). In atheism, no such possibility even exists. It would be a true zero.

However, I think it clear that we can easily narrow down the correct modes of worship and so forth, so that it is quite a bit more than ~0. Working from natural knowledge, for example, of God's existence, His attributes, and the nature of the human soul, it seems to me that we can narrow that down to a handful of religious choices.

 Lastly, I think you misunderstand what Judgement day is. Judgement day is never an excuse to omit action now, because we know neither the "day nor the hour." We might pray for Christ to come again in glory, but our own work now is to better the world and await His coming. Your interpretation of events has not been accepted by the Catholic Church. Maybe in the past fourty years by some Protestants, but not the Catholic Church.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Your

StMichael wrote:

Your calculation is wrong. Even if there is only one correct mode of worship in a multitude of possible worships, the probability of selecting the right one is always possible, however infinitesimal (assuming your premises). In atheism, no such possibility even exists. It would be a true zero.

Actually, not believing in him could be exactly what he wants, so it is just as likely as the others.

Here's where the limit issue comes in: Even if each person who ever lived worshipped in a different way, we could enumerate enough modes of worship to drive the probability that one of us was correct and going to heaven as low as we liked. What probability are you comfortable with? Because we can drive it lower.

StMichael wrote:

However, I think it clear that we can easily narrow down the correct modes of worship and so forth, so that it is quite a bit more than ~0. Working from natural knowledge, for example, of God's existence, His attributes, and the nature of the human soul, it seems to me that we can narrow that down to a handful of religious choices.

 And that includes eating bread that magically transforms into flesh?

No. No, it's not clear.

StMichael wrote:

Lastly, I think you misunderstand what Judgement day is. Judgement day is never an excuse to omit action now, because we know neither the "day nor the hour." We might pray for Christ to come again in glory, but our own work now is to better the world and await His coming. Your interpretation of events has not been accepted by the Catholic Church. Maybe in the past fourty years by some Protestants, but not the Catholic Church.

I understand the Catholic Church's stance on that. I should have specified that it was leveled at fundametalist Christian sects. You know, the people that are happy when the Middle East plunges deeper into war and chaos.

It would be an unwise business decision on the part of the Catholic Church to behave as if the end times are always upon us. 

-Triften 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Regardless of whatever

Regardless of whatever probability you want, it doesn't really matter. I was just pointing out that the Wager can be applied anyway. We could choose one particular mode of belief that is correct, and atheism could never "win."

 However, I do think it is clear that we can move from the premise that one set of beliefs about whether God exists or not is true, to discover what is the true religion. It seems apparent that the statement, "God exists" is either true or false, and that only one answer can be thus applied. It makes a great deal of sense to investigate the claims of religion seriously. I would argue that we could move from what we know naturally, by way of our reason operating without revelation, to a revealed religion. There is a certain amount of religion that can be known naturally. For example, we can know that God would exist, because of the Prime Mover argument (and other arguments for God's existence), and, following this, we know that God is One, because His mode of existence as the Prime Mover demands that He is utterly simple and without composition. We could also discover that He is a living being, because His nature of first cause is the exemplary mode of "self-movement" proper to living things. And that He would have to be all perfect, as this follows from being purely in "act." And so forth. We could then move to revealed religion from the premise that happiness for the human person lies in union with God, which cannot be accomplished without Him revealing Himself to us and giving us His grace. Thus, it becomes a matter of looking at claims made by revealed religions to discover a harmony with these things we know by natural reason and to look for miracles which confirm their divine source. In the end, I think we can arrive at the notion that the Catholic religion is the religion revealed by God to bring all men to salvation.

Also, transubstantiation in the Eucharist is not "magic." It is a miracle, but there is a clear distinction between that and magic. Almighty God allows us to share in His nature by means of the Sacrament.

 

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Regardless of whatever probability you want, it doesn't really matter. I was just pointing out that the Wager can be applied anyway. We could choose one particular mode of belief that is correct, and atheism could never "win."

StMichael, you missed my point entirely.  Atheism isn't an automatic zero because god might want us to disbelieve.

Pascal's wager is trying to say that there may be a certain way to get to Heaven. We can build a list of rules that may or may not apply to decide if someone gets into Heaven.

Here's a short list:

1. Believe in god.

2. Partake of ritual consumption of bread and wine.

3. It's okay to work on Saturday.

4. It's okay to work on Sunday.

5. Do charity work. 

...

Again, we can list an infinite number of items.

Next to each of these, we can give each one a +1 (needed to get into heaven), a 0 (doesn't matter), or a -1 (will keep you out of heaven) so this list of 5 items give 3^5 possibilities with some mutually exclusive to others.

"Believe in God" is just as likely to be one of the things on the list. Atheism has just as much of a shot as the rest. For every countable infinity of things that require belief, we can construct an equally large infinity of lists that require non-belief or don't matter.

-Triften


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
There's even the possibility

There's even the possibility of a god that is OK with you not believing in him/her/it as long as you don't believe in any other god(s)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
It might be the case,

It might be the case, speaking purely hypothetically, that a god would be pleased with unbelief. However, my point still applies that only one such position is accurate.  It does one well to search into the claims of religions. Likewise, I would point out that such a god's position would be a contradiction, as any such observance of such a god's dictates would be a denial of observing them. In other words, such a god cannot exist. In other words, atheism still loses.

Again, I point to natural philosophy as establishing the primary foundation for knowledge of God and the way in which we can determine the true revealed religion. 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It might

StMichael wrote:

It might be the case, speaking purely hypothetically, that a god would be pleased with unbelief. However, my point still applies that only one such position is accurate. It does one well to search into the claims of religions. Likewise, I would point out that such a god's position would be a contradiction, as any such observance of such a god's dictates would be a denial of observing them. In other words, such a god cannot exist. In other words, atheism still loses.

I don't see the contradiction in a god that prefers his creation to be skeptical.

In addition to the possibilities of there being no god and a god who wants belief, there is also the distinct possiblity that god does not care whether one believes in him or not. Pascal's Wager still fails. Those who match the criteria for heaven and don't believe in god may have done so accidentally.

Again, an infinite number of possiblities exist for behaviors that get you into heaven and behaviors that get you sent to hell. Your chance of selecting the right set is infintesimal, effectively 0.

StMichael wrote:

Again, I point to natural philosophy as establishing the primary foundation for knowledge of God and the way in which we can determine the true revealed religion.

Are you referring exclusively to the realm of Plato and Descartes or are you considering modern science a subset of natural philosophy?

 

As a side note, does god reward arrogance?

-Triften 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Even if the chance of

Even if the chance of selecting the right religion is infinitesimal, a possibility exists. If a right religious observance exists, it is imperative that we search it out.

And the movement of natural reason allows us to narrow down the possibility so that the chance of selecting the correct religion is considerably more than infinitesimal.

By natural reason, I refer to Plato and Descartes. Modern science only comes into the picture incidentally.

And, lastly, no, I do not believe that God rewards arrogance.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
St.

St. Michael,

                How do we judge what religion's are better then other religions? What about said religion would make it better then another?

 

 To everyone else,

        Just got done having a nice little debate with my parents again. I love these debates they are so fun. Reading this site has really increased my debating skills i think.  I do have to say I don't think i could ever be as good as you guys.

 

On another note,

        Have any of you guys heard of and/or met Tom Short? Just curious.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, the most obvious

Well, the most obvious answer as to why a religion is better than another is because it is true. Only one can really be true, because all make conflicting and mutually exclusive claims.

How do we pick such a religion? Well, two basic methods, and their convergence. We can look at what we know naturally, showing for example that God must exist, must be one, must be all-knowing, ect, and that man must have a soul which is subsistent, and that heaven and hell are real possibilities. Then, we can compare these to known religions. We can likewise use natural reason to investigate the internal logic of religions, but this particular method can of course lead into error if we do not clearly and distinctly know what a religion teaches.

The second main way is to move from miracles and external signs of the authoritative character of a religion to prove that its author is in fact God. Thus, we look at whether first a religion uses such miracles to authenticate its claims. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a bare fideism and a cult. Then, we can move to evalutate, of the religions which pass muster on natural reason, the miracles and evidences of particular religions. At that point, I would think the choice rather easy, with not very many religions thus applicable.

 This is the dime-store version, but I think it summarizes the movement well enough.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


hellfiend666
Rational VIP!
hellfiend666's picture
Posts: 192
Joined: 2007-01-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael, you seem to be

StMichael, you seem to be using your particular religions own claims to authenticity as well as it's particular vernacular to justify, perhaps sub-consciously, or suggest that yours is THE only true path. It seems to me that there are many paths to the same goal. There is more than one road to Detroit. By taking one that is different from yours am I not going to get me there? Given my directions are sound. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Plainly stated, if the values of a non-christian religions teachings are pure, will the followers go to hell purely over a case of semantics? I think it is abhorrently arrogant to believe that. What if said religion doesn't believe in hell? What if kharma and reincarnation are it's teachings? Right or wrong, the message is the same, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, rape, theft and murder are not cool, look both ways before crossing the street, yadda yadda...

I am a pretty strong atheist, mind you, I just see no point in getting my undies in a knot over what someone else believes as long as that belief doesn't include the kinds of things that are generally frowned upon by all people, and those people can lead productive, positively contributing exsistances. You wanna be christian, then be christian. You wanna worship the FSM, fine, I don't care. The minute you break the social contract that humans live by, we've got major issues! The minute you try to push whatever your "holy books" version of the truth is down my throat, we've got major issues! In my opinion, only fools speak in absolutes. Speaking in absulutes generally winds up embarrasing the speaker, and as Obi Wan said, "who's more foolish, the fool or the fool that follows them?"

The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
See you are biasing your

See you are biasing your basis for what is the "true" religion based on your belief in god. Why does there have to be one god? Why is that more rational then Polytheism? Why does god have to be tri-omni or any other thing that you said have to be true? What reason do you have why god must be all-loving?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael, you seem

Quote:

StMichael, you seem to be using your particular religions own claims to authenticity as well as it's particular vernacular to justify, perhaps sub-consciously, or suggest that yours is THE only true path.

I believe it is. However, I will discuss that further on.

Quote:

It seems to me that there are many paths to the same goal. There is more than one road to Detroit. By taking one that is different from yours am I not going to get me there?

Not if each path goes in different directions. Each religion claims mutually exclusive and contradictory things. I would claim that some religions are closer to the truth, like in math where 5 is a closer answer than 2^10 to the question 2+2=?. There is only one right answer, but some are closer than others and all contain some truth.

 

Quote:

Plainly stated, if the values of a non-christian religions teachings are pure, will the followers go to hell purely over a case of semantics?

Semantics is not a determinant to going to hell. But, again, all religions do not believe the same things. And this is very important. For example, let's just take two little examples. Islam would adamantly refuse followers to follow anything but a totally transcendent God. Christianity would worship one God in three Persons. Islam would utterly deny as a fundamental tenet of its belief that believing in such is blasphemy and that nobody who so believes can go to Paradise. Similarly, a Catholic would believe that baptism and subsequent good works and regular prayer and reception of the sacraments is the path to heaven. On the other hand, a Baptist fundamentalist would accuse all such as being heresy and a blasphemy against God's power. One cannot do both. There can only be one right answer. But some are closer than others.

Quote:
 

What if said religion doesn't believe in hell? What if kharma and reincarnation are it's teachings? Right or wrong, the message is the same, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, rape, theft and murder are not cool, look both ways before crossing the street, yadda yadda...

No it ain't. I gave some examples above. But on the level of pure morality, religions are most definitely not the same. For example, Mormonism would endorse polygamy, which is contrary to the fundamental moral principles of Christian religions. Or, different paganisms would pursue human sacrifice and/or torture for various reasons, which would all be abhorrent to many other religions like Christianity. Or, a particular religion could condone abortion and contraception, such as Anglican Protestantism, which would be utterly condemned as immoral by the Catholic Church's teaching. Similarly, to use your example, what if a particular religion teaches hedonism in this life because there is no hereafter. This would conflict with karma and reincarnation (in terms of good conduct necessary for reward in the next life), as well as Catholicism's hell. 

Which is it? You can't do both.

 

Quote:

I am a pretty strong atheist, mind you, I just see no point in getting my undies in a knot over what someone else believes as long as that belief doesn't include the kinds of things that are generally frowned upon by all people, and those people can lead productive, positively contributing exsistances.

Belief determines action. I believe human beings share fundamentals in morality and religion, but there is clearly only one true choice in either area and all choices each have radically different consequences for human affairs.

 

Quote:

You wanna be christian, then be christian. You wanna worship the FSM, fine, I don't care. The minute you break the social contract that humans live by, we've got major issues!

Whither cometh the basis of the social contract? I agree that all men's worship is free, but that is not to say that they are all true. Further, where is the social contract based? Islam, for example, utterly and totally repudiates such an ideal; the law of God is the law for society. All men ought to be ruled by the dictates of Mohammed and the Qu'ran. This utterly conflicts with what you base you social contract theory in. You, probably somewhat unconciously, are basing this in a Western theory of morality which is fundamentally rooted in Christian thought which allows a truly objective foundation for natural society and morality. But this is a clear conflict between different views. Both cannot be true.  

 

Quote:

The minute you try to push whatever your "holy books" version of the truth is down my throat, we've got major issues!

Why, then, if my religion (for example, Islam) teaches me that this is the case? It is all one path to Detroit.

Quote:
 

In my opinion, only fools speak in absolutes. Speaking in absulutes generally winds up embarrasing the speaker, and as Obi Wan said, "who's more foolish, the fool or the fool that follows them?"

Using Obi Wan to support a point of philosophy needs no further criticism. I would point out, however, that the world does operate on absolutes. There are right answers to questions of religion. I can't be right and wrong at the same time when I say that God exists. Shades of distinction exist, but these shades do not override the fundamental fact that there are right and wrong answers.

 

 

Quote:

Why does there have to be one god? Why is that more rational then Polytheism?

Well, I thought I explained this, but if not, I will give the 30-second version. What we know about the creator of all things from natural reason tells us that there must be a prime mover and cause of existence of all things. If this is true, the prime mover must be totally in act and in Himself unmoved. This is to say that He has no potency in Him, which would designate that He can change or is in a state of potency to some other mover (and thus not the prime mover). So, the Prime Mover must be in a state of pure act and totally unmoved. This also indicates that He is utterly simple, without any division, as this implies a potency and allows Him to change (which, again, is impossible for the first cause and prime mover to do). So, in the Prime Mover, God, there can be no division even between His essence (what He is) and existence (how He is). He is utterly and totally one. And, if we wanted to argue that more of such beings existed, that would likewise be irrational. The Prime Movers would all have the same nature and essence (what they were would be identical) and, without matter to numerically differentiate them (as matter is a potency), there could only be One God.

Quote:
 

Why does god have to be tri-omni or any other thing that you said have to be true? What reason do you have why god must be all-loving?

That also follows from the premise of Him being purely in act, but it would take too long to discuss it right now. Suffice to say that, for a being purely in act, no perfection would be lacking in Him because He would be the source of all perfection. His power follows on His nature as intelligent cause of all things, as His will causes all things to exist (and He can thus do all absolutely possible things as a result). God is also all-loving at least because He wills the existence of every existing thing, and to will the good of another is to love that thing; thus, God loves every thing that exists. I don't know what you mean by "tri-omni" but to explain all the attributes of God and how they follow from the Prime Mover would be a little long of a discussion. 

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I would

StMichael wrote:

I would point out that an omnipotent and omniscient God is not also all responsible. This would only apply if He created the world in such a way that all things were predetermined by Him. However, of course this is not the case with Christianity and Judaism, where it clearly is the case that they believe that God gave us free will.

But an omnipotent, omniscient creator must necessarily be responsible for his own creation, for 'he' is responsible for choosing and creatign all the parameters of existence, including the nature of free will, the granting of free will to parts of his creation, as well as shaping every element in the universe that influences a choice. Ergo this would obviate free will.

So free will is incompatable with an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

Quote:

Free will is not subsumed in some "all-responsible" God merely because He created everything, because God gave up perfect responsibility, by definition, in creating rational beings that share in His ability to freely choose.

But this god would presumably make the choice with full omniscience....choosing to give up perfect responsibility, while knowing, omnisciently what would happen, which means that he is still, like George Bush, the decider, and thus still ultimately responsible. Also do not forget that this creator would still be responsible for every factor of existence which effects the choice... 

So this god cannot escape his responsibility.

Your arguments not only fail, they speak to your inabilty to grasp what omnipotence and omniscience, together, entail.

Quote:

Proof of this is the fact that God would command certain observances and reward certain parties while punishing others.

This is not a proof, it is an assertion.

Quote:

If there was no free will and He was "perfectly responsible" in the way you mean, then such a dictate would be purely nonsensical.

You can't argue to dire consequences as a reason to reject the argument! To do so merely begs the question that there is still such a god! The very point of the argument IS to reduce your claim to absurdity, and your response here shows that even you have a dim awareness that this is the case!

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael wrote: I

Quote:
StMichael wrote:

I would point out that an omnipotent and omniscient God is not also all responsible. This would only apply if He created the world in such a way that all things were predetermined by Him. However, of course this is not the case with Christianity and Judaism, where it clearly is the case that they believe that God gave us free will.

Quote:

But an omnipotent, omniscient creator must necessarily be responsible for his own creation, for 'he' is responsible for choosing and creatign all the parameters of existence, including the nature of free will, the granting of free will to parts of his creation, as well as shaping every element in the universe that influences a choice. Ergo this would obviate free will.

So free will is incompatable with an omnipotent, omniscient creator.


Define "free will." Define "reponsibility." I see no reason why these two concepts ought to contradict, even if we granted that God has perfect "responsibility" for creation.

My definition of responsibility is as follows:
"a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible."

God is not perfectly responsible for creation in terms of moral responsibility because He creates free agents that determine their own actions. The way in which you inveigh against this is merely to assume that God cannot create free agents. Why? What reason do you hold that an all-powerful God cannot create free agents? Even if He creates free will itself, He creates it free, and not as determined. How is that a contradiction? You just assert that it is.

Quote:
But this god would presumably make the choice with full omniscience....choosing to give up perfect responsibility, while knowing, omnisciently what would happen, which means that he is still, like George Bush, the decider, and thus still ultimately responsible. Also do not forget that this creator would still be responsible for every factor of existence which effects the choice...

And? Even if He foreknows the effect of His action in granting choice to give free will to creatures, He does not predetermine their actions. Their actions are still intrinsically free even though God foreknows what they will do. There is no reason omniscience entails determination.
Again, you fail to define what you mean by "responsibility." Is God morally responsible for each act of His creatures? That would be silly, because God creates moral agents independent of Himself. They are freely acting as moral or immoral, even though He creates them to freely act in this way. There is no reason you can claim that God is morally responsible for every moral action of His creatures. It's like claiming the parent is personally and morally responsible for each act of their grown-up convict son because they gave birth to him knowing he could be an evil man. Even if they infallibly and omnisciently knew he would be an evil man, they bear no moral responsibility for his personal choices.

Quote:

Quote:
Proof of this is the fact that God would command certain observances and reward certain parties while punishing others.

This is not a proof, it is an assertion.

Why is that? You want to work from a Christian's understanding of God, and this is part of it. Otherwise, you must prove how you can arrive in some other way at knowledge of God and show that this knowledge shows that God determines all actions and is not omnipotent because He cannot create free actors.

Quote:
You can't argue to dire consequences as a reason to reject the argument! To do so merely begs the question that there is still such a god! The very point of the argument IS to reduce your claim to absurdity, and your response here shows that even you have a dim awareness that this is the case!

Again, you want to show my claim to be absurd. You must then argue my position. How can God then punish and reward without free will? Why cannot an omnipotent God create an agent with actually free will? There is no contradiction in the idea. You just assume that omniscience predetermines all outcomes, which is false. The very fact that God creates a free being means that He gives up His ability to determine their action. It would in fact be a contradiction to claim that God, in creating a free being, determines their action as unfree.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Your parent analogy fails

Your parent analogy fails because a parent is not all-powerful and able to set up everything about their child and their environment. 

StMichael wrote:
Why cannot an omnipotent God create an agent with actually free will? There is no contradiction in the idea. You just assume that omniscience predetermines all outcomes, which is false. The very fact that God creates a free being means that He gives up His ability to determine their action. It would in fact be a contradiction to claim that God, in creating a free being, determines their action as unfree.

The contradication comes from attemping to claim freewill within the presence of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. If god is going to bestow freewill on some being and he is responsible for configuring everything that will every interact with it, not to mention the configuration of said being's brain/knowledge/memories, while having perfect knowledge of how all of this will play out, how can he avoid responsibility for the actions of said being?

Given the story of the fall of man, if god was responsible for the entire garden, everything that Adam knew when he was created, the mechanics behind Adam's thought processes, and everything else prior to that point, how can he not be responsible? 

It's not that the omniscience determines the outcome, it's "perfectly" creating while omniscient. He has the power to make any initial conditions and the ones he set up led to the fall, led to sin, led to suffering. Claiming he can make something he isn't responsible for would be like claiming he could make a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

-Triften