BS: New things about atheism

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,82RA
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 12:58 PM

>>Your "proof" actually proves that you use faulty logic when coming to conclusions. Your first assertion,"There is no such thing as a first cause in our experience" is demonstrably false--to wit--The Big Bang Theory<<

Are you saying that astrophysicists the Big Bang is an uncaused cause?? Could you provide a staement from a reputable scientist? I know of no quallified person claiming any such thing. Most believe it is not even the beginning of the universe: "...when the universe was between 10^-35 and 10^-33 seconds old, it underwent an exponential expansion, increasing its radius by a fantastic 10^50 amount. This 'inflation' phase happened just before and was even more rapid than the standard Big Bang phase." --Beyond Einstein, Michio Kaku, p.139

>>--the rest your arguement is circular logic, and a vague recapitulation of the "chicken and the egg", and, in case you missed it, the egg won--having pre-existed chickens in the reproductive evolution by millions of years--<<

You'll need to explain this so that it has some relevance to the discussion. It's nothing more than a subjective statement as it sits. Logic, man, logic.

>>So, what we've established is that you tend not to use reason and logic when coming to conclusions--therefore, you atheism is irrational--<<

What we've established is that you do not even know your science much less what is rational or irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 12:33 PM

I think that your examples go to reinforcing rather than refuting St. Thomas' point--he was talking about the same physical universe that Newton was, after all--

In the pool ball example, the pool cue initiates the movement, and the movement of the cue is driven by a hand driven by a mind(The Hand of God!)--the will of the mind being the first cause--so it is a particularly apt example of the idea.

As to validity of our observations, and the models, like cause and effect, that we create, based on them, you are exactly right, they are more reflective of our perspective than of universal truth--St. Thomas was very clear on the idea that our intellect and it's attendent devices had limits--

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:48 AM

It is specious because this sort of view of cause leading to effect is learned from the material universe at the macro level of the ordinary space-time continuum.

Suppose we postulate that for every dream there must be a dreamer, right? Extrapolating from that that since we all dream in similar ways, there must be some Super-Dreamer, and all our dreams are actually from Him, is a fallacious leap in logic. It is just as possible that the commonality is simply an averaging of illusion stemming from trillions of different unique dreamers.

For another thing, the order of thought that wrestles with issues like the origins of existence is not likely to be the same order of thought that requires unidirectional continuity in time. The notion that time is inelucctably moving from the past toward the future, resulting in an endless series of blips of "present", is kinda local, if you see what I mean. And it may be completely cockeyed when compared to the kind of factors in play around the actual question of existence itself. But the "prior cause" argument only holds within a structure of such unidirectional time.

The metaphor comes to mind of a bunch of pool balls discussing where they came from and how they came into existence. Their arguments would include that every poolball who ever appears anywhere is moved there by a prior strike from another ball or from the cueball or from a cue. This is the whole frame of their experience. The idea that an entirely different sort of game might be involved -- the leisure game industry and its factories -- escapes their discussion all together.

The metaphor, of course, fails on the flaw that it is entirely within space-time constructs. But I think you can get the point. Extrapolating from Newtonian spacetime rules to describe non-physical events and sequences is childish at best.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:27 AM

Amos,

You said:

"It is a specious assumption that since in physical trains of causality phenomena all go back to a prior cause, and that such trains just "can't" go on forever, there must be a starting point of a cause that was itself not caused"

Why is this specious?

As to the question, "Why does there have to be a "mover"? It is because our direct experience is that without a "mover", there is no motion.

This is basic stuff Mrzzy--why haven't you worked it out already?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:54 AM

There have been several religous or mythical traditions in which the two-terminal generation of existence, modeled on human biology, explained the creation of at least some layer of reality. It seems to me, though, they are mostly secondary myth systems, largely forgotten -- at least I can't recall which ones I am thinking of..

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:50 AM

But dualism isn't about having two gods. It's about either good and evil in everything and everyone, or two planes, worlds, areas, call them what you will, (generally physical and mental or spiritual) a la platonic dualism. The first could be expressed as a good and an evil deity (or maybe the chaos and order of some creation stories) but neither has to involve any gods at all.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:31 AM

For any potentiality or motion or comparable change to exist you need at least 2 things. We need at least two things to show the relative difference between them.

For example the big bang concept has given over to the theory that there was a collision of two seperate (mem) branes of existence which has all the appearence of what we used to call the explosion of a big bang singularity.

ergo: there are TWO GODS.

kinda like us when we have a baby huh?

Isn't it wierd that our magor religions never got this quite right, Hindu has hundreds, The Greeks had dozens, The Jews had one, The Christians had THREE....

Jeez Louise you'd think that someone would have guessed TWO !!

Its as plain as the nose* on your face that God comes in two parts.
Yeah there is dualism but I've never heard of a practising dualist.




*with 2 nostrils of course.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:30 AM

There doesn't have to be. It is a specious assumption that since in physical trains of causality phenomena all go back to a prior cause, and that such trains just "can't" go on forever, there must be a starting point of a cause that was itself not caused. You can sort of appreciate the impulse to decry infinite regression as unacceptable, but there are too many un-reasoned leaps in the series to make it robust. For one thing, the blind assumption that "all" must have "one" cause; for another, the blind assumption that prior cause must end in an entity. "This everyone understands to be..." is almost a dead giveaway that someone put their thinking on auto.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:14 AM

Please explain what I didn't get... here is the 1st argument in its entirety (anything not in italics is me):
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Now, why does there "have" to be "a" "mover?"

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 08:37 AM

A lovely nun I once knew told me that she had come to the conclusion that philosophy is the most interesting useless thing you can do. Her point was that you can waste endless amounts of enjoyable time debating things that no one knows and no one can prove; but the point of life, she said, is to *do*. To put it in philosophical jargon, she was more interested in theopraxis (acting in the world out of beliefs about God) than theology (debating abstract ideas about God). I think she had it right.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 08:26 AM

What I find interesting about the semitic religions is the insistence on a 'good' God. Where did that come from? The ancient polytheistic religions feature deities that can have darker sides as does hinduism I believe. (Which arguably is an ancient polytheistic religion, although that feels a bit simplistic to me.) Buddhism doesn't even have a god as such. I just find the idea of a 'Good' God creating a world with pain suffering, evil etc bizarre. And you can ascribe these things to the fall of man or satan or whatever, but all of these reasons emmanate from God anyway. He is meant to have created satan and the fruit etc. (It couldn't have been a mistake either, since he apparently knows everything that will happen, thus the results of all his actions.)
The 'good' 'merciful' God idea must be a more recent development as well since the god in the old testament does vicious things to people for ridiculous reasons (eg in some sort of penis measuring contest with satan (Job).) Bit of a thread creep. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 02:00 AM

Exactly. It's more than a BIT presumptuous. It is vain in the extreme. And that's why I take issue with it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 01:43 AM

It is a bit presumptuous to assume that our small minds, and the meager tools that they've created are able to perceive the nature of the totality, much less to understand it.

An important idea that St. Thomas presented has to do with reason and faith--something approximating the idea that what we cannot understand through reason, we must accept through faith.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 01:18 AM

"The classic refutation of First Cause is what or who caused god? And so on ad infinitum."

If you are a THINKING "believer", I would suppose that it is that very mystery that inspires your awe, and the contemplation of that mystery that feeds your spiritual sense. Perhaps it is this unknowable and incomprehensible "cause" that Thomas actually meant by First Cause, rather than a kind of cosmic superman, who, as above, would require a further cause. If you acknowledge existence, you must acknowledge the illogicality of the fact of existence. There is no conceivable reason for ANYTHING to exist, including "God", yet things do exist. Why? Perhaps the name "God" meant to Thomas the unknowable, irrational, impossible answer to that question ...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 12:48 AM

I don't think you have the slightest idea what I believe in, 282. Why don't you tell me how you define the word "God", and we'll see if I believe in anything that meets your definition. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:56 PM

The classic refutation of First Cause is what or who caused god? And so on ad infinitum.

The Teleological argument is refuted becaue if you observe many species, there is no real intelligent design. It's not random either because all life .

The Ontological argument goes back to DeCarte's "Humunculous" somehow located in the pituatary gland connecting the soul and the body. The "soul" is not measurable by scientific means.

In discovering new galaxies, we find that there may be more than one "big bang".

As Dawkins has pointed out, we are only just beginning to discover the world from a macro and micro view. Our perceptions are limited but are expanding as new scientific breakthroughs occur such as "string theory", "branes", "field theory" etc. We are like the trapped women in the burqua who can only see through the slits.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:42 PM

You don't get it, Mrzzy, "The fact that there is motion does not mean there has to be god"--isn't a refutation--you have to explain why you think that St. Thomas is wrong--And careful readers will note the similarity between the language of this proof and the language of Newton's Law's of Motion--particularly the first one--
St. Tommy says"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act."

ewton's first law of motion is often stated as"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Tread carefully, because if you disprove this--the foundations of modern science will crumble and fall into the sea.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:16 PM

OK - read the 5 reasons for god, and they aren't. The fact that there is motion does not mean there has to be god; the fact that things are does not mean they were created; the existence of things does not mean they had to exist; the fact that some things are better than others does not mean there has to be god; and the fact that things work doesn't mean there is god. Again, what there seems to be is a lack of understanding of basic science.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:09 PM

Actually, the five proofs are about half way down the page--AR--evidence, I suppose, that you're eyesight isn't as good as you think. And you did say that you could prove several things:

"Anyway, it's not necessary to know what Aquinas proofs are. I can disprove without every hearing a one of them"

"Any argument you can advance that you feel PROVES the existence of god, I can disprove"

Your "proof" actually proves that you use faulty logic when coming to conclusions. Your first assertion,"There is no such thing as a first cause in our experience" is demonstrably false--to wit--The Big Bang Theory--the rest your arguement is circular logic, and a vague recapitulation of the "chicken and the egg", and, in case you missed it, the egg won--having pre-existed chickens in the reproductive evolution by millions of years--

So, what we've established is that you tend not to use reason and logic when coming to conclusions--therefore, you atheism is irrational--

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: 282RA
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 09:09 PM

>>(yawn) And after you disprove God's existence, what new and glorious project awaits?<<

Our resident True Believer who hides behind the "spiritual" badge demonstrates why he is what I just said he is.

I made clear that I had no interest in disproving god's existence. I have NEVER disproved it and I never will. What I disprove are the ARGUMENTS supporting the existence of god. There is a universe of difference between the two. God COULD exist but not the way theists believe.

Instead of whining and ho-humming, a theist would be wise to go back to the drawing board and use his brain to come up with something worth believing in. If he can't, then admit defeat or at least admit the argument is wrong but you're going to come up with a sound one sooner or later. My reply is that I'll be here.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: 282RA
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 09:04 PM

>>God is the " first cause, itself uncaused " (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu), that is pure actuality without potentiality and, therefore, without corporeality.<<

Here's one example. This one is easy to shred:

1. There is no such thing as a first cause in our experience so it is useless to apply to prove god's existence. By our experience, cause is an endless chain. A first cause actually violates everything we know about causality. An uncaused cause is, in fact, a contradiction. It is, by nature, acausal since it came into existence acausally. If if is acausal (and it is) then it likewise cannot cause anything to happen. No first cause.

2. The very wording presupposes god's existence. Notice no proof of god's existence is actually offered in the argument. It simply takes for granted that since god exists, god is the uncaused First Cause. A step or two was conveniently skipped over. FIRST prove god's existence, THEN tell me what god's nature is based on that proof.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:59 PM

(yawn) And after you disprove God's existence, what new and glorious project awaits?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: 282RA
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:54 PM

What are they? Someone posted a link entitled 5 proofs of the existence of god to a website that offered no such thing.

Anyway, it's not necessary to know what Aquinas proofs are. I can disprove without every hearing a one of them.

Here's the secret to disproving any and all pro-god arguments:

They ALL require that the existence of god be presupposed somewhere in the premise of the argument. In effect, such arguments are loaded. The more sophisticated arguments merely find ways to disguise the presupposition of god's existence. Paolo Dezza is an expert at producing such arguments but, in the end, they all fall down.

So, if you doubt what I have asserted, give me your favorite pro-god argument and I'll show you where its weak spot is. Don't make it too easy. Find an argument that disguises that weak spot as much as possible. The standard arguments are pretty boring these days since I've been shredding them for years. I'd like to hear some new ones.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:27 PM

And, 282RA, your refutation of St. Tommy is due at your earliest convenience;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:22 PM

In a way, Frank, this was a set-up--I was citing St. Thomas definition of God, from the Summa Theologica, and the proofs are there--check this: Five Proofs of the Existance of God--it can be argued, that, essentially, St. Thomas, with his reconcilliation of Aristotilian thought with faith, was the first cause to Carl Sagan, and all of modern science.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 08:03 PM

Actually, the moslem and the christian god are variations on the jewish god.
282RA - bang on - except that I can no longer respect that the assumption that the persistent belief in the face of all those arguments should nonetheless be respected... I think it should be thought of as silly, as if they still believed in leprechauns.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 03:32 PM

M.Ted, let's see you prove your assertions scientifically.

I think if there was a First Cause, I'd prefer it to be Carl Sagan.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

Why would you assume that God needs to be worshipped?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM

naawww...any earlier incarnation of Carl would have smugly kept creation to himself! *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:19 PM

Well, sure...but for all you know that primum movens might have BEEN Carl Sagan in an earlier lifetime!! :>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:18 PM

So ... God is or was an action, the Mother of all Big Bangs? Why is that something to worship (if it is)?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:04 PM

It's Carl Sagan who was way too small. God is the " first cause, itself uncaused " (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu), that is pure actuality without potentiality and, therefore, without corporeality. I don't see how you can get any bigger than that--

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:56 PM

A Song For Mudcat

"Anything you can prove I can prove better.
I can prove anything better than you.
(No you can't!) Yes I can! (No you can't!) Yes I can!
(No you can't, no you can't, no you can't!)
....
(YES I CAN!!!)

Nyahh! Nyahh! Nyahh! Yes I can!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: 282RA
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:52 PM

As an atheist, I don't take a tack or refuting the existence of god or the absence of some type of hereafter ot reincarnation.

Any argument you can advance that you feel PROVES the existence of god, I can disprove.

That's it. That's my atheism--the whole ball o' wax.

What arguments do I offer to prove there is no god? None. I'm not out to prove there is no god, but I can show you why your arguments in favor of god's existence are flawed.

Afterlife? Hell, I don't know and I don't care. That's another argument.

A smart atheist knows how to serve the ball back to the other court and wait for the opponent to return it. In this way, the atheist avoids dogmatism. By insisting there is no god or no afterlife etc. such a person is a kind of materialist. Materialism is fine if it floats your boat but it's not atheism. It is dogmatism.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:39 PM

That sounds about right to me.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:36 PM

"The Christian God is WAY too small"

On the other hand - or maybe on the same hand - I'm listening to a radio show on Rumi, and the presenter says that the Sufis regarded the outer world as the MICRO and the inner world as the MACRO. Course, that doesn't contradict anything Jesus said, I don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:30 PM

So do I, Frank. ;-) The Christian God is WAY too small. That also goes for the Muslim God and the Jewish God (which are really just slightly different versions of the Christian God).

The idea of a God that is exclusively masculine, for one thing, is ludicrous, laughable, and damnable, in my opinion. And that's just the beginning of the problems.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:16 PM

LH,
I go with Einstein (Spinoza's god) or Carl Sagan who says that the Christian god is "too small".

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 05:39 AM

I am English and fascinated and intrigued by the premise of this thread. By and large, in England, we are apathetic about religion (there are, of course, some exceptions). Religion is treated rather like a harmless hobby most of the time: I do music in my spare time, you do God. The idea that it is a social *expectation* that one is a theist and subscribes, presumably, to a branch of evangelical Christianity (is that the expectation?), sounds really outlandish to someone from England.

Having said that, huge numbers of people in England call themselves nominally Christian but are fairly clueless about theology and do not attend church. It was summed up well by a Sydney Carter song in the 1960s: "I love the merry organ and the bells across the snow; I love the Church of England although I never go." Experience has taught me that in England, when people *like this* say they are Christian, they are *often* really expressing the idea that they have a white identity. They talk about "our religion", meaning Christianity (of which they are not, in reality, a part), as opposed to "their religion", by which they mean the religion of anyone who is non-white, which in their minds = non-Christian. It is a way of setting up racial barricades based, superficially, on religion, but a different set of problems to the USA, it seems.

Subject: Samaritan style phone service for aethiests
From: julian morbihan
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:48 AM

Did you know that British Telecom are launching a new service based on the Samaritans for aethiests.

You dial a number and nobody answers

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:55 PM

"Peace, that's him! But he said he was a potter from New Mexico. "

Bee, you may have misunderstood. He had some new pot from Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:50 PM

I just like the idea of Jesus being an atheist, it's very Dada.

God and my toothbrush are Dada, and New Yorkers can be Dada too, if they are not already. (Tristan Tzara)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:41 PM

Why do you figure that? Maybe God doesn't like the Christian religion any better than you do.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM

"f he were here now, I believe he would disassociate himself from the Christian churches that use his name largely in vain...that being almost all of them!"

If he were here now I bet he would be an atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:30 PM

Peace, that's him! But he said he was a potter from New Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:14 PM

So true, Frank, but I do not consider the Christian religion to be a legitimate representative of either Jesus or of his actual teachings. If he were here now, I believe he would disassociate himself from the Christian churches that use his name largely in vain...that being almost all of them!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:54 PM

Looked like this but his nose was in better shape.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:47 PM

HEY, maybe that's the same guy. Spoke Greek, right?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:45 PM

I met the same guy around 1970, Peace, only he told me something profound about the cat, and then crashed for two days on my couch. And there was something important about orange tapioca...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 08:58 PM

I do. I spoke with Zeus in the 1960s. I can't really remember what he said, but it was along the lines of 'Prunes to the others as they send wooden prunes to you.' He was a very strange guy.