Problems and Questions in Atheism

[element771]

And you don't provide any evidence for your claims.

JM

Claims regarding?

I was referring to Shuny...not you, sorry if that was confusing.

If I wasn't confusing and you understood what I meant, just ask anyone on here if Shuny understands the arguments or philosophy...

[JohnMartin]

Claims regarding?

I was referring to Shuny...not you, sorry if that was confusing.

If I wasn't confusing and you understood what I meant, just ask anyone on here if Shuny understands the arguments or philosophy...

Very good. My mistake.

JM

[firstfloor]

I am both a man of science and a man of faith...I have been hearing about this supposed conflict between the two but so far, I haven't found one.

[The Pixie]

A good discussion on the historical fact of the Fatima miracle is found at

The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima: Indisputable Historic Fact with Peter Chojnowski

...

Peter Chojnowski details the historical situation in Portugal, the sufferings of the children at Fatima and the miracles that occurred at Fatima.

JM

Is this really the best Christianity can do? An event from 100 years ago, which can be explained naturalistically, and is not specific to Christianity besides happening in a Christian country.

If Christianity is true, then God wants everyone to believe that Christianity is true, and so we should expect decent miracles that make that clear. We would, for example, expect Jesus to announce his resurrection to all the world, not just a select few.

If Christianity is false we would expect miracles to be scant and poor. Like this in Fatima, which is explained as an effect of staring at the sun or as a meterological effect, and like the resurrection, vague sighting by a few. Add faith and embellishment, and a miracle is born.

[element771]

Conflict according to you? This person that thinks While God wills it E=mc^2? Just because there is an appearance of conflict, doesn't actually mean there is one. IMO, there is no reason for God to violate any natural laws. I think "miracles" can have natural explanations as God can work through the laws of the universe to make things happen. It is not like I haven't thought about this one before.

What is your definition of a miracle?

[firstfloor]

Conflict according to you? This person that thinks While God wills it E=mc^2? Just because there is an appearance of conflict, doesn't actually mean there is one. IMO, there is no reason for God to violate any natural laws. I think "miracles" can have natural explanations as God can work through the laws of the universe to make things happen. It is not like I haven't thought about this one before.

What is your definition of a miracle?

Then we are perhaps on the same page. I would say that there is no indication that natural laws are ever violated or that it is even possible that they can be violated.

I would suggest that a miracle is any occurrence, normally seen as beneficial, that is attributed to any god or gods. Therefore, gods are not strictly necessary for the discovery of miracles since the attribution alone, even if it is false, is sufficient for the claim.

How does God make things happen in your opinion?

[JohnMartin]

Is this really the best Christianity can do? An event from 100 years ago, which can be explained naturalistically, and is not specific to Christianity besides happening in a Christian country.

If Christianity is true, then God wants everyone to believe that Christianity is true, and so we should expect decent miracles that make that clear. We would, for example, expect Jesus to announce his resurrection to all the world, not just a select few.

If Christianity is false we would expect miracles to be scant and poor. Like this in Fatima, which is explained as an effect of staring at the sun or as a meterological effect, and like the resurrection, vague sighting by a few. Add faith and embellishment, and a miracle is born.

The miracle is poor if you ignored what happened there and how many experienced the miracle.

JM

[element771]

Then we are perhaps on the same page. I would say that there is no indication that natural laws are ever violated or that it is even possible that they can be violated.

I would suggest that a miracle is any occurrence, normally seen as beneficial, that is attributed to any god or gods. Therefore, gods are not strictly necessary for the discovery of miracles since the attribution alone, even if it is false, is sufficient for the claim.

How does God make things happen in your opinion?

Well, I am agnostic on the option that God really "makes" anything happen as an active process. But I will speculate...

He could have put into the system the necessary natural phenomenon to happen at just the right time. Miracles of timing would be one way. Colin Humphreys is a material scientist who has investigated several miracles of the Bible. He published a Nature paper on the date of the crucifixion which was really cool. As far as miracles, he argues for a natural explanation for the parting of the red sea. He also researched the star of Bethlehem pretty thoroughly and verified his findings using Chinese astronomical texts. Really really interesting stuff IMO.

Another possible way would be taking advantage of quantum level phenomenon. I think that quantum indeterminacy would allow for God to "manipulate" reality without violating any laws so to speak. For example, it is possible for matter to pass through other matter in extremely rare cases. God could "take advantage" of one of these cases or even make it happen via interaction on the quantum level. Again, this would not violate any laws but more just be a natural outworking of quantum principles.

C.S. Lewis argues that a true miracle would not be distinguishable from a rare natural occurrence. I tend to agree.

[InspectorG]

The miracle is poor if you ignored what happened there and how many experienced the miracle.

JM

And what is the metric for a legitimate miracle? Number of witnesses?

Was it a true miracle when the ancient Egyptian clergy stated that a given Pharaoh successfully passed though the Duat? They sure spent a lot of time and money on making sure it happened...

Many people in Mexico claim the miraculous when Pareidolia shows them the Blessed Virgin in a chunk of pavement.

Was it a true miracle when 7 year old Krishna saved a town from torrential rains/floods by lifting the mountain the town resided upon up into the air? All those villagers saved...

Was it a true miracle Stanislav Petrov SAVED THE WORLD from Nuclear War? Must have been true because he was initially rewarded but then persecuted for political reasons(reward retracted)...


Forgive me if i dont put credence in the miraculous. If the Biblical God wants my attention, he/she/it/they can contact me personally, just like anyone else i have dealings with.

[InspectorG]

The aims of this thread.

1) affirms the existence of an uncaused cause, which is understood not to be God...

You are not addressing the possibilities of an Eternal Universe or Emergentism.

For an Uncaused Cause to work, you need proof the universe was at one point non-existent. Then proof your Supernatural Agency was the cause and bot the Universe bootstrapping itself into existence.

Any scientific demonstrable proof? Two big hurdles i do not know of any theistic scientists trying to prove.

Theists NEED to Special Plead an 'Uncaused Cause' for their narrative to function.

Because they want the Universe to fit their convenient beginning-middle-end narratives to feel better in a non-Anthropocentric universe. Adherents of such schemes tend to claim to be rewarded with some form of undeath. Non-adherent usually get some everlasting punishment.

Because in practice(culturally), fear works better than reason. Specially for the masses who dont recognize a presumed basis for an argument.

[JonathanL]

the Universe bootstrapping itself into existence.

Anyone who believes the Universe "bootstrapped" itself into existence doesn't have a shred of intellectual integrity in them.

[37818]

You are not addressing the possibilities of an Eternal Universe or Emergentism.

In order for there to be uncaused anything there has to be uncaused existence. The universe has to be defined to include that uncased existence.

For an Uncaused Cause to work, you need proof the universe was at one point non-existent. . . .

No. All you need is a beginning for anything. Uncaused existence has no beginning. An infinite series of cause and effect would need no first cause. But it would have an uncaused cause for having no first cause. Being contingent on there being the uncaused existence.

[InspectorG]

Anyone who believes the Universe "bootstrapped" itself into existence doesn't have a shred of intellectual integrity in them.

And those who believe in Supernatural Agency do? I can give our ancestors a pass but with current understanding, why is SA still even on the table?


I can see how some people who have had Peak Experiences can attribute it to the Super Natural. Though it has is flaws as well.

But reasoning, intellectually, from a standpoint of SA instead of what we can observe, is disingenuous.

We dont know: therefore God, is lazy intellectualism.

[JonathanL]

And those who believe in Supernatural Agency do? .

Well, one of them involves believing in a logical contradiction, and it isn't belief in a supernatural agency.

I can give our ancestors a pass but with current understanding, why is SA still even on the table?

What about our current understanding (about what?) has made belief in a SA more problematic?

I can see how some people who have had Peak Experiences can attribute it to the Super Natural. Though it has is flaws as well.

No idea what you mean by Peak Experiences, so I can't comment on that.

But reasoning, intellectually, from a standpoint of SA instead of what we can observe, is disingenuous.

I don't know a single argument for theism that starts by presupposing the existence of God.

We dont know: therefore God, is lazy intellectualism.

As opposed to caricaturing your opponents standpoint to make it easier to shoot down?

[InspectorG]

In order for there to be uncaused anything there has to be uncaused existence. The universe has to be defined to include that uncased existence.

In order for something to exist, there, by definition, has to be a state where it cannot exist.

No one has yet proved a state of 'nothing' can even happen. Perfect vacuum the size of the Universe?? A Space-Time devoid of energy/matter?
Easy for humans to form conjectures about nothing due to imagining the opposite of 'something'. Whole other problem of proving or demonstrating it.

So if there is no alternative to the given state of existence, then there was no cause needed to bring it about.

Existence always 'is'(or perhaps better stated as 'does'), did not have a cause.

No need for an uncaused cause, in either A-Theory or B-Theory of time.

"No. All you need is a beginning for anything. Uncaused existence has no beginning. An infinite series of cause and effect would need no first cause. But it would have an uncaused cause for having no first cause. Being contingent on there being the uncaused existence."

'But it would have an uncaused cause for having no first cause'.

No, there is no cause for not needing an initial cause, because by definition, it has none.

The being is not contingent on anything because there is no other state other than existence.