Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems and Questions in Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Doug Shaver
    And so, if I affirm that there is some thing for which A does not exist, then I am denying the PSR. Is that not correct?

    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Yes
    And yet, did you not just now deny that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction?

    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Maybe you could just present your argument.
    I've done that. Now I'm critiquing your response.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      That depends on the competence of every Catholic you met. Many Protestants are incompetent, many Catholics are incompetent, but all atheists are incompetent as atheists, because atheism is totally false. Some Protestants are incompetent because they are incompetent and their belief system is only partially false. Some Catholics are incompetent because they are incompetent, in spite of their faith being completely true.

      JM
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
        False. God is unlike a creature. You have ignored the work of theologians and philosophers who have concluded that being is analogous. God is therefore unlike creatures analogously, but not totally unlike, and hence not equivocally and therefore not completely unlike creatures.
        Do you disagree that a monotheist god would impact the world? If not then it seems like you missed my point.

        This doesn’t follow. Some things are known only be deduction. Induction only pertains to what falls under the senses. As God is not observed, then any proof for his existence is not forthcoming by induction, but by deduction.
        It is not necessary for something to be observed for it to leave behind evidence. We can also go be the definition of something for induction. As an example, the only beings we have come across are naturalistic. For a god to be an option for deduction, it must be made reasonable that a non-naturalistic being is possible. Without that, any flight of fancy can be substituted for a deduced god.

        Evolution of religion is a myth promoted by those who believe in a theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is so poorly defined that it is applied to anything that develops whatsoever, including any claim of development in religion. Yet, evolution must exclude an intellect as the principle of development, but at the same time apply evolution to a religion, which ascribes an intellect behind the entire religious show. Such wax nose application of evolution makes any evolutionary claims concerning religion, vacuous.
        We can trace Christianity to Judaism and Judaism to Canaanite and Mesopotamian mythologies. We can trace customs and myths to other religions. We can see religious claims fail to be verified. For something as important as one's religion, it seems frivolous to base one's belief in deductions that follow from what ultimately amounts to guesswork.

        The atheist arrives at conclusions using invalid and unsound arguments and false methods. The entire show is false. The claim that atheists and theologians have access to the same truth is false, because atheism rejects out of hand methods and truths embraced by theologians. An example here in this post is you have claimed that God falls under the inductive method, which is false. Theologians would reject this claim and proceed to show that the proof for the existence of God falls under the deductive method.
        Isn't it interesting that theologians, who have already made up their minds as to what they believe, have access to methods of truth atheists do not?

        The acts to be, to cause, to move, to perfect, and to order.

        JM
        I haven't seen any evidence of a god doing any such thing. I have seen human beings do those things. Perhaps the human being is your true god.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          Yeah, I have a feeling one of those incompetholics frequent this very forum.
          You should do yourself a favour and have a look at the historical faith. You would greatly benefit from joining the Catholic faith with the grace given by God through the seven sacraments.

          JM

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            And yet, did you not just now deny that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction?

            I've done that. Now I'm critiquing your response.
            You've misquoted me where I said far more than yes in post 128.

            Yes to A is a sufficient reason. And you define A as "that whereby a thing is."

            No to "you attempt to prove that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction."
            So your question does not follow. Also you have not provided any rebuttal to the argument for the principle of sufficient reason. You merely provided some trivial objections that were easily answered.

            Even so, if I affirm the denial in the PSR ends in contradiction, then that is a problem for you, because that's what really occurs - you end in contradiction. As you deny the PSR, then your version of atheism is false.

            I think your thinking on the PSR is very muddled. The argument is easy to understand and such provides opportunity for you to reflect on your decision to embrace a more reasoned worldview in theism which does provide sufficient reason of be for all contingent things.

            Also, if you could provide a link to your claimed argument against PSR to provide the context of your recent response where you stated that you ahd already made an argument/rebutal against the PSR.

            JM
            Last edited by JohnMartin; 06-26-2016, 08:41 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              What kind of evidence might tell me that, with respect to Catholic teachings, one Protestant was more competent than several Catholics?
              The principle of sufficient reason.

              JM

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
                False. God is unlike a creature. You have ignored the work of theologians and philosophers who have concluded that being is analogous. God is therefore unlike creatures analogously, but not totally unlike, and hence not equivocally and therefore not completely unlike creatures.

                Do you disagree that a monotheist god would impact the world? If not then it seems like you missed my point.
                God impacts the world in a manner unlike that of creatures. This is important to highlight the problem with atheism which treats God like an unknowable creature. The atheistic approach is false because atheism treats God as though he were a creature.

                This doesn’t follow. Some things are known only be deduction. Induction only pertains to what falls under the senses. As God is not observed, then any proof for his existence is not forthcoming by induction, but by deduction.

                It is not necessary for something to be observed for it to leave behind evidence. We can also go be the definition of something for induction. As an example, the only beings we have come across are naturalistic. **For a god to be an option for deduction, it must be made reasonable that a non-naturalistic being is possible. Without that, any flight of fancy can be substituted for a deduced god.
                The fallacies in your thinking are - 1) You cannot establish that a non-naturalistic being is possible within the naturalist world view. Naturalism assumes only natural causes exist. 2) The inductive method is naturalistic, therefore any supernatural (SN) being does not fall within the inductive method according to the nature of the SN having an essence that is able to be observed. To say a SN thing must be observed within the inductive method is to reduce God to a natural thing. 3) You say **For a god to be an option for deduction, it must be made reasonable that a non-naturalistic being is possible, which can only be arrived at through deductive reasoning, apart from induction. The ** statement denies what you affirm where you say "the only beings we have come across are naturalistic.", for you cannot observe your statement "non-naturalistic being is possible" within an inductive method.

                Once deduction is permitted, then deduction may be used to arrive at truth beyond the inductive method. One such truth is, God is.

                Evolution of religion is a myth promoted by those who believe in a theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is so poorly defined that it is applied to anything that develops whatsoever, including any claim of development in religion. Yet, evolution must exclude an intellect as the principle of development, but at the same time apply evolution to a religion, which ascribes an intellect behind the entire religious show. Such wax nose application of evolution makes any evolutionary claims concerning religion, vacuous.

                We can trace Christianity to Judaism and Judaism to Canaanite and Mesopotamian mythologies. We can trace customs and myths to other religions. We can see religious claims fail to be verified. For something as important as one's religion, it seems frivolous to base one's belief in deductions that follow from what ultimately amounts to guesswork.
                Tracing one religion from another is simply a false reasoning by assuming common doctrine and practice infers dependence. When common doctrine and practice can also mean men have reason and the two , or three religions came to many similar conclusions apart from any so called evolutionary process. Even if it could be demonstrated that one religion came from another religion, this does not conclude to evolution. For evolution only occurs by a process without reason, via natural selection. Such is not the process of religion which is always dependent upon intellect, and reason and often exists apart from any force of natural selection.

                The evolution of religion is mainly a pagan projection of evolutionary theory into other areas of human activity. Modern paganism has rejected the old gods, and replaced them with a mindless process of ever increasing complexity and activity. That theory is then projected into religion, which historically always (the norm) was religion was revealed by a deity, to bring about some good to humanity that would otherwise not exist, such as salvation. The irony of the pagan claim about religion being a process of evolution is at least two fold 1) religions were historically top down models of reality, which evolutionary theory denies. For evolutionary theory, and atheists to apply evolution to religion, means the theory must be applied to a human activity which expressly rejects evolution's bottom up approach. 2) If religions evolved then evolutionists would all be religious, for religion is part of that process. Yet atheists deny the need for religion. So atheists fall outside of the theory which they affirm, and the religions also deny the theory which atheists affirm. The theory is then not applicable to either religion, nor atheism.

                The atheist arrives at conclusions using invalid and unsound arguments and false methods. The entire show is false. The claim that atheists and theologians have access to the same truth is false, because atheism rejects out of hand methods and truths embraced by theologians. An example here in this post is you have claimed that God falls under the inductive method, which is false. Theologians would reject this claim and proceed to show that the proof for the existence of God falls under the deductive method.

                Isn't it interesting that theologians, who have already made up their minds as to what they believe, have access to methods of truth atheists do not?
                Atheists do what they do because they make their own choices. If they want to deny the truths affirmed by theologians then atheists will come to different conclusions.

                The acts to be, to cause, to move, to perfect, and to order.

                JM

                I haven't seen any evidence of a god doing any such thing. I have seen human beings do those things. Perhaps the human being is your true god.
                You may not have seen it, but you can deduce that you have experienced it as an effect of the prime being.

                JM

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                  You should do yourself a favour and have a look at the historical faith. You would greatly benefit from joining the Catholic faith with the grace given by God through the seven sacraments.

                  JM
                  I think I'd rather stay Lutheran...

                  If I did decide to convert to something else it would probably be Orthodoxy, and not Roman Catholicism.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    The principle of sufficient reason.

                    JM
                    You're evading the question.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      I think I'd rather stay Lutheran...

                      If I did decide to convert to something else it would probably be Orthodoxy, and not Roman Catholicism.
                      Orthodoxy has some major problems. Apparently an Orthodox Christian can get married up to three times, and they allow contraception. Both are sinful. Orthodoxy does have apostolic succession and the seven sacraments, and Orthodox teaching on many doctrines. But they have historical problems, not unlike Lutheranism.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        God impacts the world in a manner unlike that of creatures. This is important to highlight the problem with atheism which treats God like an unknowable creature. The atheistic approach is false because atheism treats God as though he were a creature.
                        No, it doesn't.

                        If you can't get it through your thick head that atheism is concerned with all concepts of God/gods, and not just yours, you may as well shut up about what atheism does/doesn't do.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          If you can't get it through your thick head that atheism is concerned with all concepts of God/gods, and not just yours,
                          Find me a theist who can do this.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            Find me a theist who can do this.
                            Please don't act like there aren't plenty of us here on TWeb.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              Please don't act like there aren't plenty of us here on TWeb.
                              I wouldn't say 'plenty', but it's not fair of me to say none.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                No, it doesn't.

                                If you can't get it through your thick head that atheism is concerned with all concepts of God/gods, and not just yours, you may as well shut up about what atheism does/doesn't do.
                                If atheism deals with all concepts of God then it deals with treating god as a creature.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                53 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X