by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
From the OP
There is so much more detail I could add to this
Perhaps working backwards and removing details is a way to find a broader, generalized understanding of "truth" - theistic or atheistic, only remain subjective preferences then! Would any consider this suggestion?
Would any consider this suggestion?
I might if I understood it.
I might if I understood it.
Your response obviously makes me smile in a good way; and smile at my own way of expressing matters too.
If there is a basic disagreement on the foundation of a matter, it is simply not possible to reconcile views by working out details. Details then tend to divide views and create further discord.
Theism and atheism are examples of such a difference in subjective conclusions. Endless detail will not alter a stance because there are too many variables to reach that basic conclusion.
Dear Cofty, does this sound easier? I hope so!
Anybody can post a link to twenty arguments for anything.
And what are the arguments from Atheism?
The new Atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. The "Four Horsemen".) only provides Scientism and Sola Scriptura mumbo-jumbo as arguments. And a huge amount of vitriol and mocking.
Your so precious problem of natural evil has some possibilities of explanations. If not 100% convincing, they are a good reason to keep the benefit of the doubt at least.
Ironically the very problem of evil is also a problem to Atheists too. Why the human mind developed the perception of evil? We are the only specie with a perception of evil. Why? What is the evolutionary advantage/pressure of it? And how it developed? Where are the traces of this feature in other species?
The 19th century atheists were way more consistent because their Atheism was not a conclusion but a starting point. Atheism was an axiom and they agreed with the non existence of God implies the non existence of meaning and morality.
Nietzsche (the most intelligent person of the 19th century IMHO), for instance, provided no argument for Atheism at all. He simply accepted Atheism as an axiom not a logical conclusion. The only argument from him was the knowledge of atheism brought joy to him, that's why he called his atheistic axiom as gay science (joyful knowledge).
When I look to the new Atheism arguments I still see men just feeling good with this joyful knowledge and not a single logical argument!
John_Mann - And what are the arguments from Atheism?
I feel I have to come in here. For myself, atheism isn't a belief system like religions or cults. I am not concerned with what Dawkins or anyone else has to say about their views.
Cofty made some points when he opened the thread. How do you respond?
The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.
The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.
The bible really would contain prophecies that could be verified using objective historical evidence. It wouldn't be necessary to rip verses out of context and interpret ambiguous phrases to try to make details fit post hoc..
The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.
The ethics of scripture would be enlightening and uplifting without exception. It would condemn things like slavery unambiguously and champion the rights and equality of women. It would not advocate moral evils that need to be explained away with appeals to relativism and special pleading.
Miracles would really happen - even now in the age of CCTV, smart phones and scientific enquiry. It would require stubbornness rather than healthy skepticism to deny them.
Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.
Prayers would get answered reliably. Confirmation bias would not be necessary. The prayers of believers would have real and observable power.
There is so much more detail I could add to this, but in summary it would be more difficult to reject the claims of christianity than to accept them. It is not too much to expect that this should be so.
For myself, atheism isn't a belief system like religions or cults.
You're right because Atheism cannot be concluded by logical steps.
It's not a system because it's only one axiom not a set of axioms.
It's just the axiom: no theism.
This axiom like any other is taken to be true through faith.
Atheism is not a logical conclusion but a subjective starting point.
John_Mann - Thanks for coming back.
What are your responses to the points Cofty originally mentioned?
Please respond to these points below. I am very interested to see your replies.
1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.
2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.
3.The bible really would contain prophecies that could be verified using objective historical evidence. It wouldn't be necessary to rip verses out of context and interpret ambiguous phrases to try to make details fit post hoc..
4.The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.
5.The ethics of scripture would be enlightening and uplifting without exception. It would condemn things like slavery unambiguously and champion the rights and equality of women. It would not advocate moral evils that need to be explained away with appeals to relativism and special pleading.
6.Miracles would really happen - even now in the age of CCTV, smart phones and scientific enquiry. It would require stubbornness rather than healthy skepticism to deny them.
7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.
8.Prayers would get answered reliably. Confirmation bias would not be necessary. The prayers of believers would have real and observable power.
9.There is so much more detail I could add to this, but in summary it would be more difficult to reject the claims of christianity than to accept them. It is not too much to expect that this should be so.
I think I'd already answered them but let's do it again.
1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.
Why not? CC accepts the ToE and this theory implies death and destruction.
This is how the physical world works. Catholic faith is all about the salvation of the metaphysical soul.
2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.
Our physical bodies and some features of our minds came to existence through natural laws.
Only our immortal soul was made to be an image of God.
3.The bible really would contain prophecies that could be verified using objective historical evidence. It wouldn't be necessary to rip verses out of context and interpret ambiguous phrases to try to make details fit post hoc..
There's historical evidence that the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.
In these Gospels its destruction was prophecised by Jesus to be occuring during a biblical generation (40 years).
4.The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.
This is a very subjective statement.
But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.
5.The ethics of scripture would be enlightening and uplifting without exception. It would condemn things like slavery unambiguously and champion the rights and equality of women. It would not advocate moral evils that need to be explained away with appeals to relativism and special pleading.
This statement is based on Sola Scriptura and is very subjective too.
6.Miracles would really happen - even now in the age of CCTV, smart phones and scientific enquiry. It would require stubbornness rather than healthy skepticism to deny them.
I only accept the Catholic definition of miracle. I believe miracles only happen in a Catholic context. Here are some of them:
- Our Lady of Fatima ( the miracle of the sun)
- Our Lady of Zeitoun
- the Eucharist miracles of Buenos Aires and Lanciano.
7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.
Natural disasters are inevitable consequences of natural laws. And natural laws are necessary in a world that harbors free-willed agents limited in a physical world.
8.Prayers would get answered reliably. Confirmation bias would not be necessary. The prayers of believers would have real and observable power.
This is a very subjective statement.
But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.
9.There is so much more detail I could add to this, but in summary it would be more difficult to reject the claims of christianity than to accept them. It is not too much to expect that this should be so.
(...)
I want to add that there's not a single logical argument to Atheism.
Nothing, nihil...
John_Mann,
"Our physical bodies and some features of our minds came to existence through natural laws.
Only our immortal soul was made to be an image of God."
If God supposedly can design a dimension of existence (the afterlife according to you) to be free from:
1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.
2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.
7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.
Why couldn't he do similarly for the physical/natural world?
What's the point of creating a physical/natural world where 1, 2 & 7 exist if there is another dimension in which they don't exist?
What does God get out of having these 2 dimensions of existence which have starkly different characteristics?
If you had the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do not exist versus the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do exist, which option would you chose and why?
Why couldn't he do similarly for the physical/natural world?
What's the point of creating a physical/natural world where 1, 2 & 7 exist if there is another dimension in which they don't exist?
What does God get out of having these 2 dimensions of existence which have starkly different characteristics?
If you had the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do not exist versus the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do exist, which option would you chose and why?
Good questions.
First thing is about definition of God.
For my metaphysical (a branch of Philosophy) analysis I always use as definition the first premise (axiom) of the St. Anselm's ontological argument:
- God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
AFAIK this definition of God is the most simple and elegant and I never found someone, until now, who doesn't accept it. Even Atheists must accept a definition of God in order to deny it. AFAIK this definition is accepted by every theist and atheist.
God is not a Marvel's superhero. He's bound to His very nature. From His nature comes necessary truths that are the same in all possible worlds (even in every dream of everyone) and are independent even from God's will. He can't lie and He can't be evil, for instance, because truth is greater than lie and good is greater than evil.
God using His middle knowledge or scientia media (please read about Molinism) searches all possible worlds from His nature.
Zero sum is an example of a necessary truth. Completeness and consistency is a zero sum, you must choose just one of them (the scientific method takes consistency that's why it can't be universal or complete, for instance). You can't have completeness and consistency at the same time (please read about Gödel's incompleteness).
Free-will and evil is a zero sum too.
How do we know that?
At the point God decided (using His free knowledge. See Molinism) to create free-willed beings bound (even temporarily) in a physical world He searched all possible worlds and He had to choose the best of them because it must be the greatest decision. Free-will is greater than temporary evil. So it's worth to pass through some temporary evil.
This is the best or greatest world possible in a zero sum between free-will and evil.
