I don’t think you understand the atheist position on love at all. (not that there is a singular position - atheism is only a lack of belief in gods, nothing more, so anything else is separate) I could go on a long rant, but it ultimately comes down to this - just because you can’t find any meaning in a world that’s only physical doesn’t mean we can’t. That’s your problem, not ours.

“It is a biochemical sensation or a personal experience.”

LOL.  So it is *real*?  Sounds like a lot of double talk to me to get from point a to point b.

How about this:  Provide evidence of your theistic claims before worrying about what those atheists think.

I am curious about one thing: why spend so much time on a straw-man version of what you “think” atheists consider love to be?  Why spend so much time arguing about the semantics of love?

Why not ask atheists what they actually think of love?  This is the most puzzling aspects of Catholics (and strong-minded theists in general): they simply cannot understand atheists.  No matter how much time and effort they put into blog comments like this, they wind up with a straw-man, a projection of their own beliefs about what atheists are and how they think.

As the old adage says, “A cat may look at a king.”  But can the cat really SEE the king?

Apparently not.

God is Love, Love is Blind, Ray Charles is Blind. Ray Charlse is God.  Sadly, that is of approximate equal intelligence to the above tripe. Love and God are both emotion at best, exept I can prove my wife loves me BY DEFINITION.  No such definition for God.

When Mary Kochan posted on Catholic Lane:  http://catholiclane.com/you-whiny-sniveling-little-atheists-are-pathetic It wo,uld be banned as hate speach if it were against any religion.  The bile against Atheist is sad.

I’m out of this link.

I read the highly unfortunate “spittle-flecked rant” on Catholic Lane.  It combines the usual Catholic inability to understand atheists with an almost equal inability to understand the lawsuit.

It is against the law of the United States to use state resources for the promotion of any particular religious faith.  That’s what the lawsuit objected to.

Not that it has anything to do with the various misunderstandings of both atheism and love exemplified in the blog post above, of course.  Just sayin’.

Most of the commenters seem to have missed the author’s byline at the end of the article, which indicates he is a “former atheist.”  Or is it that once an atheist turns Christian he loses any credibility you might have once afforded him as an atheist?

Kevin: I suspect he is a “former atheist” like Jennefer is.  An unexamined non-belief in God is just an uninformed person. Who cares! I KNOW why I don’t believe in God. Now, he implies apparently that he didn’t LOVE when he was an athest, he didn’t know how…just neurons firing… (bulldroppings).

Just as prison sentence gives a rapper “street cred”, Blogging as a “former Atheist” seems to be needed to attack those they don’t understand at all.  Classic.

“Or is it that once an atheist turns Christian he loses any credibility you might have once afforded him as an atheist?”

No, he loses credibility by attacking a straw man; as John D pointed out, there IS no singular “atheist” position on love, and even if Mr. Cronin can’t find meaning in a materialistic worldview, that’s his problem, not ours.

Would any of the atheists posting here like to tell us what “love” means to them, given that they insist there is no singular atheist postion on love?  Complaining that a straw man has been attacked, and then giving no position that one considers not to be a straw man seems a lot like ducking the question to me.

“I can prove my wife loves me by definition?”  Huh?  I can name a half dozen wives who ducked out on their husbands when the had an autistic child born into the family.  “Wife” can be a very temporary definition indeed! (I can name even more husbands who ducked out on their wives in the same circumstances.) Of course, any of these spouses may have had tender feelings for the other at some time or, apparently, under some circumstances that didn’t include the challenges of autism.

Mike “Complaining that a straw man has been attacked, and then giving no position that one considers not to be a straw man seems a lot like ducking the question to me.”

I think Frank is happy with the answers he already provided.

Seriously?
Without a brain, nothing experiences anything much less love.  So your position that love is “objectively” real is ridiculous.

Your mental gymnastics doesn’t prove the existence of god either.  If you really want to convert this atheist, simply provide solid evidence.

Well, Mike, that seems to have shut down the trolls. Good job!

Mike.  Interesting point. Is there a singular Catholic position on love?  I doubt it.  Love changes and evolves.  Being married 28 years, it is different now from then.  Atheists are just like all people, just without superstitions (in my case).

“Love is the ultimate bewildering part of life and living for an atheist, a ubiquitous, relentless reality haunting their case for a godless [Universe]”

This is not indicated by any of the research on Atheists. Adding to this I have asked many Atheists what they consider love to be in my own research and most answer quite confidently (as much as any human can) that love is a part of being a social animal. It is part of our evolutionary history and the empathy inherited from millions of years of social interaction. However, few people stop there, they understand it as a complex (and often rather slippery) concept.

I’m with @Rilke’s Granddaughter, instead of assuming you know, “Why not ask atheists what they actually think of love?”. Taking all of my conversations and research till this point into account, because individuals rarely discuss all of the factors involved by themselves:

Love involves biological, psychological and social factors (all of which can be documented and studied scientifically) that have their roots in the advantages provided by co-operation and extended child rearing. However most agree that love is far more than these academic ideas and involves intense emotions and possibly often the feeling of wanting to give all of yourself to a person or thing.

My research has mainly been with a small sample (Qualitative research) of Australian Atheists and it is far from over, but my impression so far is that Atheists have a very grounded idea of what love is, that they feel requires no supernatural support. Atheists do not feel that their world is “empty, silent, purposeless…”. The world is far from silent, it bubbles with amazing activity. For these Atheists, adding God provides nothing additional to the picture, the universe and love are just fine without Him.

“Would any of the atheists posting here like to tell us what “love” means to them, given that they insist there is no singular atheist position on love?”

I may be going out on a limb here but:
love
?
?/l?v/ Show Spelled [luhv] Show IPA noun, verb, loved, lov·ing.
noun
1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?

That was hard.

“Would any of the atheists posting here like to tell us what “love” means to them, given that they insist there is no singular atheist position on love?”

I may be going out on a limb here but:
love.
1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?

That was hard.

These kinds of stories are simply ridiculous and frankly insulting. It’s insulting to non-believers by saying they are incapable of experiencing and sharing love and it’s insulting to everyone’s intelligence to suggest the Abrahamic god is love when it’s credited with such barbarism in the Old Testament and who will torture anyone for eternity who doesn’t love it enough.

Love, like every other thought and emotion, is a function of the brain. Now if it makes someone happier to think the brain is just a vessel which channels thoughts and emotions from a god, transdimensional gnomes or whatever else one can imagine, so be it but it’s incredibly hateful to tell others they can’t think and feel to the same depths as you just because they don’t agree with you on the source of those thoughts and feelings.

The last point I feel compelled to make is over this “former atheist” nonsense. First, atheists generally don’t care about who it is saying something, but rather what it is they’re saying so this article is no more or less ridiculous whether it comes from an allegedly former atheist, Brad Pitt, Tom Brady, or anyone else. Second, those of you who indulge in religious belief have to understand that someone who claims to be a former atheist doesn’t necessarily have some great insight into atheism or other atheists and that’s REALLY important to understand because that “former atheist” tag is used solely to convince all of you to believe him. It’s not for convincing us since, as I said, it carries no weight with us.

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 7:48 PM (EST):
“Would any of the atheists posting here like to tell us what “love” means to them, given that they insist there is no singular atheist postion on love?”

To me love is a powerful, positive experience of connecting with another person that gives my life meaning. I do not have a problem with the fact that this experience is generated by biochemical events taking place in our physical bodies. Love is experienced and expressed in the physical realm only. We cannot communicate except through speech and actions. How do these facts make love a myth, a fantasy, a mirage? I don’t claim that “. . . love is actually and factually ‘real’ beyond its experienced reality.” “Experienced reality” is good enough for me.

Cronin: “Love must have a source, a cause, a perfect embodiment for it to be more than simply sensation. And for it to be really ‘real,’ it must be more than just simple sensation.”

And of course love is not just emotion. It is intellectual and rational (and irrational sometimes!), and it is expressed according to one’s character. That means that even when the emotions get negative, you hang tough if you have learned that caring for each other offers the greatest reward in life, and that emotions can be volatile.

I’m not sure what you mean by citing the cases of spouses who deserted their families when challenged by the birth of an autistic child. The failure or success of specific marriages doesn’t really have anything to do with whether “real” love transcends “experienced reality,” unless you are claiming that when a marriage fails, by definition the love wasn’t “real.” This doesn’t advance the argument for the existence of god based on the existence of “real” love.

To me, this is the crux of Cronin’s argument:
“Just as we know the universe has a first cause, so too must love have a first cause. Just as our reasoning must have a reality and a cause outside the sensory universe, so too must love have a reality and a cause outside of the physical world. Just as morality and beauty must have a cause, so too must love.

“But if love is real and has a reality beyond the mere physical, biochemical plane, beyond our senses and our sensations, beyond a phenomenal reality arising from the interplay of neural activity, then love is real in all its aspects and effects. Then we know the source of love. And it is God.”

Cronin is making all kinds of assumptions about what we “know” in this argument. He is assuming that we all need for love to have a transcendental dimension, and therefore believe that it does. Then he assumes that we all are already convinced that the material universe must have a non-material cause. Then he assumes that we all believe that the things we experience as pleasant and useful about being human (beauty, morality, reason, love) must have a non-material cause. Then he names this non-material cause “God.”

But he never proved that love has a transcendental dimension. He merely expressed his feeling that it does, and assumed that everyone shares this feeling.

Dear So-Called “Atheist” (and all)—

Use caution reading this as it may be as a “ton of bricks falling”, etc.

Please consider the following.

There is no such thing as an “Atheist” because it is impossible.

It is impossible for a human to “not believe in God”. It is, however, possible for a person to think or say that he or she is an Real-Atheist; but, none act that way. None live the life of a Real-Atheist. Note that there ARE people who reject God. Such do not “like God” but they do, in fact, “believe in God” in that they are spiritually aware of God’s existence though on the surface, with their mouths, they do not admit such.

There is an old story where “a man once said that he does not believe in God but then he also said that he does fear God”. So-called “Atheists” are like that. They rally “against God” and “against those who believe in God” and it is truly funny, for by that rally they affirm their belief in God, or else there would be nothing for them to fight “against”.

Atheists say “you do not understand me”. In fact, that is just another method of running away from God. Such are easily understood. They want to make their own rules and accept no absolute authority in life, such as in matters of morals, human action, physical reality, biological reality, spiritual reality, etc, etc. It is no wonder they leave the details to others and simply choose to close their eyes to the reality around them, because it is (at least at times) seemingly easier to run from authority than to submit to it. The response to such an “Atheist” is easy—“if you are truly an ‘Atheist’ then there is actually nothing in you to understand as you have no claim to the absolute truth and all you amount to is less than a collection of nothing”. The “Atheist” objects “how dare you say such a thing and trample my rights/ thoughts/ feelings/ ideas/ reality”. The answer is simple “what is all that based on?”.

If there is no foundation (no absolute) then there can be no house (no truth).

Close your eyes or mind and it matters not—your conscience is still there, you soul still exists, and it is inextricably bound-up with YOU for eternity.

So called “Atheists” are not real “Atheists”. Why? Because the soul knows its creator is God. For a Real-Atheist, love would be an opinion, nothing more. So too with morality, and reality, and existence, and love. There can be no love without a foundation, an underlying principle with ultimate authority. That principle is God. An “Atheist” has no answer to the question “why love and not hate?”.

I believe the quote goes something like this—
“if there is no God, then everything is permissible”.

There would be nothing to stand on, abstractly or morally or concretely. The universe, existence, love, etc, would have no explanation or reality for an “Atheist”.

So, how does one know that there are no Real-Atheists?
One simple way is by their actions. No one truly lives in a morally relative work. So-called “Atheists” do go around doing exactly what they want, any time they want AND remain unconcerned if others do things as THEY wish, unfettered in the same way.

Humans know love because God is love and the Creator.

So, when the “Atheist” claims to “know love” he (or she) IS correct.

But, when a human claims to be an “Atheist” he (or she) is NOT correct.

A humans cannot BE an “Atheist”.

HTH.

Slave to Jesus through Mary, I am yours…

—Mark Kamoski

<OnlyLightlyProofread>

What a ridiculous article. Love = god exists. Truly a failure of intellect in these examinations.

Love to me is an elevated degree of social bonding with a spouse, a family member, etc. It is subject to change just as friendships can change, moods can change, etc. It points no more to the existence of god than it does to unicorns. It manifests in biological and chemical expressions that can be observed in the brain.

This article is nothing more than the first cause argument with the universe replaced by love. A series of unfounded assertions and straw manning typical of people trying to demonize atheists.

Religionists, in making arguments trying to justify religious belief despite its irrationality, often have serious difficulties distinguishing between subjective emotions and thoughts and physical reality. (Many people in general have this difficulty, but it’s in discussion of religion that we find the problem frequently manifesting itself as fallacious rhetoric used to try to support religious belief.) This is exactly the nature of the problem in Frank Cronin’s essay here.

Emotions are subjective, but they certainly are our reactions to our experiences. Calling them “myths” in this context is merely silly. The issue is that our emotions are triggered by our personal experiences, interpretations, and past. That doesn’t make them “myth” (in the pejorative sense). They are quite real reactions of our mind. But - here is the critical point in this discussion - this doesn’t make them dictate anything about objective reality (any more than subjective thoughts do).

Our perceptions, our thoughts, and our emotions are *caused by* and not *causes of* what’s going on around us in the real world. Our thoughts and emotions are fallible, it is the real world itself that dictates what reality is, and we can only determine things about reality by being careful and using feedback to see if what we think (or feel, in the case of emotions) about what’s going on around us is accurate (or at least close enough to being accurate). Many times it’s not - and the rational approach then is to CORRECT what we think (or ignore and adjust our mistaken emotions). This is where thoughts and emotions can indeed be thought of as myths - even though they are quite real as existing in our minds, they are myths in the sense that they are incorrect responses to reality and are in need of error-checking and modification in order to come into closer correspondence to the real world around us.

As human beings we have many emotions, and love (which is actually an ambiguous word used to refer to a variety of emotions) is certainly one of them. Love, or rather how we experience love, is just as real as any of our emotions as an aspect of our psyche. But it’s triggered by what’s going on around us in the real world, and yet how each of us manifest our love is embedded in the matrix of our own psyche.

With many of his other essays, Cronin attempts to argue against atheism by using entirely straw man arguments (as already thoroughly discussed and demonstrated in response comments). The emotions and thoughts of a person, and his own responses to his emotions and thoughts, are part of the real world precisely because he is a part of reality - but this fact does not imply that the real world outside of the person’s mind is dictated in any way by his emotions and thoughts (except for, of course, the real world results of his objective actions), which is the fundamental error in Cronin’s argumentation. An awful lot of proponents of religious belief just can’t seem to figure out this hard distinction - a distinction that seems quite obvious to most atheists.

Going back to part 2 of this, I conclude that Cronin doesn’t express himself clearly. If he did, it would be even easier to see where his argument fails.

Cronin: [If] “everything is either matter or energy, all existence, all life forms, all human experience are simply the product of matter and energy, an effect of the material of the universe. . . . everything is lost. Everything becomes an illusion. Right and wrong disappears in the face of the relentless logic of biochemistry. Beauty also follows suit. Even logic, reason and common sense are destroyed by the irresistible invasion of the materialist truth of matter and energy.”

Cronin is mixing up experiences (getting kissed, enjoying a sunset, returning lost money to its true owner, solving a problem through analysis) with concepts (love, beauty, right and wrong, logic). He is saying that actual experience is an illusion if a corresponding concept doesn’t exist outside of the material universe. This is simply incorrect use of language. You can argue over whether the experience is meaningful if a corresponding concept doesn’t exist outside of the material universe, but “meaningful” doesn’t have the same meaning as illusory.

An experience (such as an LSD trip or a dream or a hallucination) could involve illusions, in that you might think you saw inside a solid object, or that your feet put roots into the ground, etc. The interesting thing about this is that some people find deep meaning in such an experience without necessarily assuming they have transcended the material universe.

Mark wrote…

Please consider the following.

“There is no such thing as an “Atheist” because it is impossible.
It is impossible for a human to “not believe in God”.”

Ok, I’ve considered it for the millionth time, and here is my standard response - it is impossible for a human to “not believe in Zeus”. Do you understand now why your assertion is just that? An assertion, nothing more. Just saying that nobody can actually not believe in your chosen deity does not make it any more true than saying that it’s not possible for you to not believe in Zeus.

“It is, however, possible for a person to think or say that he or she is an Real-Atheist; but, none act that way. None live the life of a Real-Atheist.”

And what, pray tell, is the life of a “Real-Atheist”? All atheism is is the lack of a belief in any gods. Nothing more, nothing less. That lack of belief tells you nothing about how to live your life at all, so to assert that there’s some one right way to live as an atheist is completely unfounded.

Mark Kamoski, that was a very entertaining parody of religious fallacies.

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God….how can anyone argue with a fool? The fool has no ability to learn nor even to desire to learn. As the old saying goes: You can’t fix stupid…what is more stupid than a fool?

@ John D.

Regarding this…

“All atheism is is the lack of a belief in any gods. Nothing more, nothing less”

...OK, then take the next step.

What is “truth” or “morality” or “love” or “beauty” in such a state?

On WHAT foundation are such matters based?

If you say “my beliefs” then they are not principles but only opinions, no better or worse than the next person and, thereby, there is no foundation for “good” or “evil”.

What I am saying is that those principles (“truth” and “morality” and “love” and “beauty”) would not exist in reality if there were no God.

“Ah”, the Atheist remarks, “but they do exist as I believe in them and I hold to such-and-such a principle and expect the same of others”, such as “the right not to be killed unjustly” or whatever.

“So”, we reply, “by what authority does such exist?”.

I am still waiting for your answer.

Most so-called “Atheists” do not take the next step in reasoning. They say “I do not believe in God” and that is it that is all I have to explain.

To which we retort—“ah, you have then the universe to explain or it remains ether”.

I await your answer.

Thanks.

God bless you.

—Mark

Dear Psy—

No parody was intended.

It may be easier to read that way for some; but, my post is serious, as-written.

Please consider re-reading my post in that light.

Thanks.

God bless you,

—Mark

@ Post by Steve Greene on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 12:05 PM (EST)—

Regarding this…

it is the real world itself that dictates what reality is

...ah, there it is plain as day…

...so there IS an “absolute reality” which is AKA an “absolute truth”...

...such statements are “knocking at the door” and are SO close…

...keep going and God will be found.

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark

I’m my own personal god, thank you very much, therefore I can love and be loved in return.

Boosh and or Kakow!

So, the argument here is that a pleasing lie is better than a truth you don’t particularly care for. That, and atheists are subhuman creatures with no capacity for love. They’re “the unstable, the unreliable and the unloving”.

Clearly Cronin feels hate and bigotry are very real things, too. Logic, now, not so much.

Mark Kamoski =“No parody was intended.”

C’mon. I spilled my coffee laughing at that. Now you respond to John D. with and imaginary conversation actually using “I believe” as part of the atheist response and continue with a pseudo philosophical response.

(“truth” and “morality” and “love” and “beauty”) are constructs of the material brain. Empathy for example is constructed in the anterior cingulate cortex for example.

=“by what authority does such exist?” Here you impose your personal authoritarian philosophy-political view into your story.

To which we retort—“ah, you have then the universe to explain or it remains ether”.

More authoritarian personality thinking, a discomfort with ambiguity, needing to have an answer even if its wrong.

If you come have a testable explanation other than ‘feel good’, self satisfying conclusions non-emotionalist will take them seriously.

“Love means never having to say your Sorry.”, but writing this tripe means you do.

Mark Kamoski, you quote me as follows:

“it is the real world itself that dictates what reality is”

Then you reply, “So there IS an ‘absolute reality’ which AKA an ‘absolute truth’. Such statements are ‘knocking at the door’ and are SO close. Keep going and God will be found.”

Of course, the very issue (which, by the way, Cronin’s essay above is completely irrelevant to, thus being merely a red herring) is the fact that you don’t have any good evidence for this god you believe in as being part of the real world. (All of us, including you, know that your belief in a god is merely a matter of religious faith.) Thus, believing in a god (whether it’s Isis, Thor, Aphrodite, or Yahweh) is like believing in Bigfoot or that we’re being visited by aliens in spaceships (UFO-as-alien-spaceships mania is hot with a lot of people these days). (Actually it’s substantially worse because, unlike with Bigfoot and UFOs, even the basis for gods, angels, demons, and the like is fabricated on a myth of a mystical spirit world, for which there also is a complete lack of any good evidence.)

Atheists take the matter of dealing with reality (“the real world”) far more seriously than theists do. This is in fact manifested by how anti-science attitudes find great popularity among theists (including very much among Christians), whereas in discussions such as this between Christians and skeptics like atheists we find the skeptics supporting science (the scientific process being the preeminent example of dealing with and learning about reality through empirical investigation and rational analysis). Theists are forced to attack science in various ways precisely because the religious beliefs they choose to cling to have not found any good scientific justification. Thus, your remark that I’m “SO close” is correct in a sense, but only in the sense that atheists are far closer to the truth than theists are, because atheists demonstrate themselves to be far better at dealing with reality than theists, precisely because they show they’re not allowing themselves to be led astray by confusing their personal wishes and desires with reality.

When you guys can actually produce some good real world evidence of this god you believe in, feel free to let us know about it. Of course, in order to do that you’d have to be doing good scientific research and publishing it, rather than merely throwing out false portrayals of atheism allegedly implying that love is only a “myth” as red herring rhetoric to distract from your failure to produce good real world evidence for the religious myths you embrace.

You have no clue what you are talking about. My love for my wife and children is every bit as real as yours.

There is nothing so smug as a Jackass who has found a Prickly Pear, which he dares not bite, yet will not give it to one who can use it.

I have found my absolute, I will gladly share him with you, but you desire to destroy and to deny never knowing that the same rule applies to finding God as applies to finding the Atom. They both are there just beyond your vision. They require faith to touch them…it costs nothing to find God, but you fear to try to apply a tiny bit of faith..will it reduce you? Yes, it will reduce you, you will have to bow yourself low but upon finding the truth you will gain all…

Boring!!!

If love is so “real” why is it that the religious get divorced so much more often than the atheists?

Also, let’s not forget that the Christian and Muslim definition of love is supposedly most perfectly embodied in the one who created of Hell.

“For atheists, acknowledging love and love’s reality is to admit to God’s existence and character all at once, even without knowing it at first, for love may be the nearest, most obvious, most unmistakable proof of God’s existence.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/atheism-and-the-myth-of-love/#ixzz1gfW2CIc5”

Balderdash. Is that word archaic yet? Love has nothing to do with proving the existence of “God”. If God exists, he/she/it actually DOES something, right? Here’s what most people believe this God character does:
1. Answers prayers.
2. Keeps you alive after you’re dead.
Let’s dispose of #1 first. 11 million innocent people were murdered in Hitler’s death camps. (Hitler was a Catholic, but that’s another story.) Of those 11 million, probably 10.9 million or more prayed fervently to God to be saved (from the ovens, not saved from Hell). So how many were saved? None. Why didn’t God do anything? Maybe it’s because He (or it) simply doesn’t exist. Impossible, you say? Then WHY DIDN’T GOD DO ANYTHING? An answer to that question of “I don’t know” is unacceptable. Come up with a better, that is to say, worse one.
God’s #2 job task on his resume: Keeping people alive after they’re dead, as a spirit or ghost or in some sort of state in Heaven or wherever. And how long would they remain in this state? Forever. Now image how someone would feel after a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or many many many more years. What would YOU be doing, no matter what state you were in after that length of time. Talk about being bored.

Final thought: As the song goes, what’s love got to with it?

If you’re a jesus freak and you say you love your wife, I respect that. I would agree that you love your wife. So go make love to her and stop questioning other people’s experiences of love and maybe she wouldn’t cheat on you, bahahah!

@ Post by Steve Greene on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 6:01 PM (EST)—

Dear Steve—

You say this…

“the very issue… is the fact that you don’t have any good evidence for this… [God] you believe in as being part of the real world”

...to which I reply that the evidence is, in fact, the real world itself. One sees the real world and thereby knows creation exists. Existence is passed-on and if there is no first giver than the gift of existence never gets passed on. Infinite regression does not work. One cannot simply reject the First Cause Argument and then, in the same breath, pledge alligence to physics and biology and etc—the real world at-large. Big-Bangers are funny that way all too often. For example, can anyone demonstrate one instance of one aspect of the real world that exists outside the bounds of causality?

You say this…

“This is in fact manifested by how anti-science attitudes find great popularity among theists”

...and you say this…

“When you guys can actually produce some good real world evidence of this… [God] you believe in, feel free to let us know about it. Of course, in order to do that you’d have to be doing good scientific research and publishing it”

...to which I say AMEN. Such theists are forgetting that Reason and Faith have the same root—namely, truth. What you may not know is that there are MANY good theists who embrace science and find no contradiction therein. In fact, the 2 are complimentary. See the site http://www.Reasons.org for a ton of good research. From science, for example, we have the Fine Tuning Argument For The Existence Of God. Even if such arguments are not accepted as certain proofs one would be VERY hard pressed to claim that they are unreasonable proofs. Do you reject The Fine Tuning Argument For The Existence Of God?

HTH.

God Bless You.

—Mark

@ Post by Psy on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 5:12 PM (EST):

Regarding this…

truth and morality and love and beauty are constructs of the material brain

...they then if they exist as-such then they have no claim to truth but only opinion and one lives in a relativistic quagmire where there is actually no justice or love or beauty or free will. That is, if one’s mind is a product of random chance, an evolution that is not guided by an intelligent design, then why would one trust it?

Regarding this…

“Here you impose your personal authoritarian philosophy-political view into your story”

...no, I am merely pointing out, as Cronin does above quite well, that without an absolute reference point then one is just discussing opinion. Is your claim to know love an opinion or a fact?

Regarding this…

If you come have a testable explanation other than feel good, self satisfying conclusions non-emotionalist will take them seriously

...well, you sound like you might be ripe for The Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God. The First Cause Argument For The Existence Of God also appears to those who love science, because it hinges on one of the very foundations of science—namely, causality. Do you reject these arguments? Why?

However, if you are bold enough to step right in to the testable arena then I suggest the following. First, note that God is infinite and therefore cannot be measured by scientific means. Second, note that God gave humans revelation and a souls so that they may know God, by the natural light of reason and by spirtual experience. So, as such, one can choose an approach to find God by reason or by faith or by a hybrid of the two.

For the approach from reason, see the Fine Tuning Argument For The Existence of God. If you must have science, and there is lots of material on that at http://www.Reasons.org and sites like it.

However, another very good way to find God is to actually look for God. Have you done this?
If a human seeks God, then a human will find God. There is your testable explanation, yours for the effort. Is your

Here is a challenge for all atheists.

Here is my explanation, in the the following thesis.

Every human who seeks God will all his (or her) body and mind and soul will find God.

Here is the test for that explanation. Go to a Roman Catholic Church. Go inside. Look for the Tabernacle. Ask for directions if you cannot find it. It is an ornate box of sorts in a prominent position, usually up near the front. Go when it is quiet, without many people there. Sit in front of the Tabernacle and exert as much force of mind and body and spirit and heart and will to seek God. Give it all you have. You need to really TRY to find God. If you do, then you will succeed.

Now, I contend that if you seek God, then you will find God.

For you to disprove that, you will need to actually seek God and not find God, but you must use the test given.

That is the challenge.

Will you take the challenge?

Please do—you will NOT regret it.

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark

NOT_PROOFREAD

“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God”.

You know it’s sad.  I see this one bantered about a lot.  My first inclination is to respond with a quick quip.  “If a fool can figure it out, what’s your problem?”.

I suspect though that responding in kind (in the spirit of the original poster) does no good.  In any event, “fool” (nabal), in this context is in reference to morality, not intellectual prowess, . A fool would be one who is morally bankrupt a vile person.

So in essence it says that a vile person says in his *heart* that there is no god. So you see, it’s not in reference to an atheistic position at all.  It applies just as easily to a morally Bankrupt Catholic who through is actions proclaims that there *is no god*.  FWIW

It’s a sad commentary on the state of your religious education that an atheist has to point this out:)

Mark Kamoski on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 3:59 PM (EST):

John D. “All atheism is is the lack of a belief in any gods. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Mark Kamoski: “...OK, then take the next step. What is ‘truth’ or ‘morality’ or ‘love’ or ‘beauty’ in such a state? On WHAT foundation are such matters based?”

The words you list are shared concepts about categories of human experience. I’m sure you’ve noticed that in different times and cultures these concepts are described differently. That is because they originate from human experience, which varies from culture to culture, and even from person to person. There are similarities which arise from our shared biology.

@ Posted by Dan on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 11:48 PM (EST):

Dear Dan—

Regarding this…
“trillion trillion trillion or many many many more years. What would YOU be doing, no matter what state you were in after that length of time. Talk about being bored”
...please note that no one on this side of Eternity really knows what Heaven is like. As such, it is pure speculation that one would be bored or otherwise. We know the promise is that it will be Paradise and it will be good. As such, there is a trust factor, an aspect of Faith.
HTH.
Thanks and God bless you.
—Mark

@ Post by cowalker on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 9:16 AM (EST):

Dear Cowalker—

Regaring this…

The words you list [morality and beauty and etc] are shared concepts about categories of human experience… That is because they originate from human experience, which varies from culture to culture, and even from person to person. There are similarities which arise from our shared biology

...actually, that’s not quite right. Morality is a principle, as such it is not dicated by culture. Cultures may discover it, yes, but they do not create it. That the German culture said killing the Jews was OK did not make it so. That the USA says abortion is OK does not make it so. They are shared concepts because human experience witnesses the same reality, morality/love/beauty, and thus shares it across time and space. Yes, there are differences, but the similarities are more significant. Humans generally respect life. Humans generally respect their family. Humans generally appreciate the beauty of the sea. Humans generally appreciate the beauty of a sunrise or a flower. Is it mere conincidence they generally do so, across time and space?

Also, that there IS an underlying reality that CAN be shared is, in fact, one of the main points here. Cronin notes this clearly. Without an absolute principle of love, there can be no love but rather only opinion. Is love an opinion or does it actually exist?

What do you think?

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark

“...OK, then take the next step. What is ‘truth’ or ‘morality’ or ‘love’ or ‘beauty’ in such a state? On WHAT foundation are such matters based?”

Why is there a need for a *foundation*?  Sometimes an apple is just an apple and there really is a spoon.

For example (hypothetically speaking), if new indisputable evidence came to light that Jesus/God was nothing more than a literary device, who’s purpose was to enforce/compel certain types of behaviour (i.e. Santa Clause)?  Would you suddenly find your spouse ugly, leave them to embark on a road trip of of murder and mayhem?

Hi Mark (Kamoski) - I do want to thank you very much for immediately demonstrating by example the correctness of my comments about the empty rhetorical games theists rely on, rather than getting to the actual point and the actual business of producing good real world evidence for the existence of this god (or gods) they happen to believe in.

I mentioned the very strong penchant religious believers have for denigrating science, which they do because science is a preeminent example of empirical investigation (study of the real world) and rational analysis of the information thus gathered and because science not only fails to provide any support for the myths made up by religious believers (for example, that supposed worldwide flood that “covered the highest mountains” told about in Genesis never happened) but has disproved them left and right. I often laugh when I see Christians cite the common Christian cliche about God giving three different answers to prayer: (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Not now, but maybe later. Which is, of course, exactly the same results as with no god at all. It’s a perfect example of how Christians and other religious believers just make up empty word games to try to mask their failure to possess any good real world evidence for the god they believe in or for other associated religious beliefs.

This is precisely why reason and faith not only don’t have the same root but are diametrically opposed to each other. Reason, through fundamental epistemological considerations, dictates the scientific principle of FALSIFICATION, which means that when we make claims about reality then we have to check things out by investigating the real world itself to get relevant data to see whether or not a claim is correct, and if the real world data contradicts the idea then we realize that the idea is false (falsified by the real world evidence) and we reject the idea and move on. This is the antithesis of religious faith, where religious believers cling to a whole cornucopia of fabricated notions that are either already scientific falsified or so far removed from reality in the first place that they totally violate epistemological considerations by being utterly incapable of falsification even in principle.

You write, “What you may not know is that there are MANY good theists who embrace science and find no contradiction therein.” Nice shell game rhetoric - and oh so typical of the response atheists get from religious believers - nice little irrelevant red herring there. I did not ask if there were people who were scientists who have compartmentalized their personal religious beliefs. Seriously, I could not care less. Read what I wrote again: “When you guys can actually produce some good real world evidence of this god you believe in, feel free to let us know about it. Of course, in order to do that you’d have to be doing good scientific research and publishing it….” Something that, obviously, none of those people have done, that you’ve referred to in such a red herring manner.

(Note by the way that I encounter this exact same piece of rhetorical trickery with young earth creationists, who believe in the religious doctrine that God created “the heavens and the earth” about 6,000 or so years ago according to a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1, 5, and 11. When I point out the fact that in order to back up their religious belief scientifically they’d have to produce some genuinely scientific research in astronomy or geology which has been published in the professional peer-reviewed science literature - and the almost invariable response I get is exactly the one you game me: There are a number of scientists (men who do research in some sort of science field) who are young earth creationists. So what? I couldn’t care less. Medical research on cancer treatments or chemistry research on how to reduce the toxicity of paint and wood stains are utterly irrelevant to overturning the entire fields of astronomy and geology by producing scientific evidence for the religious belief that the universe and the earth have not been in existence for more than about 6,000 years.)

The fine-tuning argument? Wow, how could religious believers get things so colossally backward? It’s like the rain puddle in the small depression in the middle of the sidewalk thinking to itself, “Isn’t it amazing how this sidewalk and everything around it was made just for little old me?” The earth is an infinitesimal speck and 99.999999999999…% of the universe is utterly inhospitable to life, let alone being inhospitable to producing multicellular species with the complexity of intelligence we humans happen to possess. Apparently this god you’re touting is massively, incredibly incompetent. (Not to mention the fact that we’re again dealing with yet another empty theistic word game that fails the epistemological consideration of scientific falsification.)

Of course, a really convincing argument would be the opposite of the basis of the fine-tuning argument in the first place, if it could be established that it’s *impossible* for humans to exist in this universe (and, no, god-of-the-gaps arguments don’t count in this department), and yet we do anyway - now *that* would be a good argument for a god. But that’s the exact opposite of what theists argue, because theistic arguments are not genuinely logical, scientific arguments but are merely attempts to try to hide the fundamentally irrational nature of religious faith.

Why are such fallacies so pervasive in the rhetoric of religious believers? It’s precisely because they cannot actual meet the task required of them. They cannot produce good scientific evidence for their belief in some god.

All of us, including you, know very well that your belief in a god relies on religious faith and has nothing to do with science. The Bible doesn’t teach science, it doesn’t teach the scientific process, it doesn’t teach empirical investigation or rational analysis and critical thinking, and instead teaches and promotes irrational notions about epistemology along with all of the false empirical ideas it contains, and teaches that either you arbitrarily buy into its claims on faith or its god will torment you in a lake of fire for eternity. (Not to mention the primitive, barbaric notions about God and morality that it teaches). These are some of the many reasons why when you religious believers make remarks like “Reason and Faith have the same root - namely, truth”, atheist just laugh at the sheer absurdity.

Pseudoscience rationalization is nothing more than the typical (and typically miserable) attempt by religious believers to try to mask the obvious irrationality of their adherence to such fabricated notions (aka, superstitions molded into religious tradition), motivated by cognitive dissonance. I almost sympathize with you. Mark, don’t feel too bad. Your dismal failure to meet the responsibility of producing good scientific research results that actually back up the claim that some god exists is only a failure you share with every other sort of god-believer on the planet since the dawn of human history.

Who Really Believes Jesus Existed Anyways?
http://www.squidoo.com/who-really-believes-jesus-existed

Mark Kamoski on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 9:39 AM
“Humans generally respect life. Humans generally respect their family. Humans generally appreciate the beauty of the sea. Humans generally appreciate the beauty of a sunrise or a flower. Is it mere conincidence they generally do so, across time and space?”

No, it’s not a coincidence at all. We have many traits in common that helped as survive. Among these are preferences for particular stimuli that indicate safe conditions and plentiful food, and the instinct to care for our family members. Humans who did not have those traits would not have survived to reproduce. Our intelligence, consciousness of self, and imagination have led us to elaborate on our instinctive behavior, to organize and preserve knowledge, and to develop complex relationships with other humans. That is why all humans have some esthetic and moral preferences in common, and do not share others.

I believe that morality is a preference rather than principles that exist somewhere outside the material universe in an abstract state. It is my opinion that we should cooperate to balance our wants and needs in the material world for the benefit of all. If enough people agree with me, we will raise our children in a nation of laws based on an agreed on moral code. It is a perpetual struggle to achieve cooperation among humans, but we don’t know any other way to survive. It really doesn’t help to appeal to an abstract morality outside the universe that religious people don’t agree on anyway.

Mark Kamoski: “Cronin notes this clearly. Without an absolute principle of love, there can be no love but rather only opinion.”

Cronin repeatedly asserted that without an absolute principle of love, there can be no love but rather only opinion. He did not prove his assertion. I also don’t think the word “opinion” is correct here. Love is a powerful experience that combines emotions, biological urges, esthetic appreciation, sensual pleasure and reason. I like Wikipedia’s definition of opinion. “In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.” Love is an experience, and an opinion is a belief. I love my children and I know this because I experience it. I am also of the opinion that they are beautiful. Of course this opinion might be based on feelings rather than facts. ;)

It’s interesting how many of atheists’ arguments against religion could be used against other institutions that, from the perspective of an atheist anyway, are also merely human contrivances.  Take for instance marriage.  Marriage is certainly not an instinctual thing, yet it seems to be important for maintaining order and balance in a society.  I think that most people feel it would be bad for all of us if we no longer expected men and women to make a public commitment to each other.  But if marriage is really necessary, and it’s not instinctual, then it presents a quandary for those who believe we are nothing more than a product of evolution, because we are then either an evolutionary mistake, in which case our continued success cannot be explained, or we are something else.  Perhaps this is why so many atheists tend to rail against marriage, for they are compelled to show that it is not a necessary thing, simply in order to maintain their worldview.  And perhaps that is a clue to their problem with love as well.

The experiments proposed have been studied and tested and no proof or evidence for the existence of a ‘God’ or ‘Gods’ being a construct of the mind.
Neurotheology – With God In Mind
http://clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheologywithgodinmind/

I personally have had these experiences on several occasion through out my lifetime and never found it to be anymore than a construct of the mind.
My daughter during a near fatal accident had a near death experience and described it simply as the process of the mind shutting down and it was a cool experience with the tunnel of light effect.

Is this site broken? Its difficult to have a conversation when post are time delayed or don’t show up at all.

@Kevin

We don’t have a problem with love, or marriage. Just theists bigotry towards excluding that right to certain groups of people. Theists are the ones asserting nonsense that atheists have an issue with these concepts.

The only thing that makes marriage “necessary”(to use the term very loosely), is the legal structures that have been built around it by the state. That married people in a sense become as one in many legal senses are basically state sanctioned benefits that make marriage a more meaningful and “necessary” concept. Without these benefits, marriage would have no more benefit than a declaration of someone being your best friend. Religion is not required to get married, and in fact the only part that matters in the marriage process to the aforementioned benefits is the paperwork you sign at the county courthouse or wherever. Theists are the only ones that claim atheists reject non material concepts, when we most certainly do not.

@Jeremy said,

We don’t have a problem with love, or marriage. Just theists bigotry towards excluding that right to certain groups of people.

 
Altering the purpose of marriage from a necessary thing to a purely sentimental thing - which same-sex “marriage” does - is essentially the same as saying it’s no longer necessary.  You can call Christians whatever you want, but I don’t know how you can expect them to buy into that, especially when the reasons that society should expect a man and a woman to make a public commitment to each other before they begin an intimate relationship are as real and valid as they ever were.
 

The only thing that makes marriage “necessary”(to use the term very loosely), is the legal structures that have been built around it by the state.

 
I don’t know that that applies everywhere for the entire history of marriage.  It doesn’t even apply to our own country for the first half of its existence.  Or are you claiming that Americans considered marriage unnecessary back then?

@Kevin

“Altering the purpose of marriage from a necessary thing to a purely sentimental thing - which same-sex “marriage” does…”

Except that it doesn’t. Same sex marriage advocates are overwhelmingly trying to get the same equal rights as hetero marriages. Civil unions haven’t provided that. Nothing is altering the purpose of marriage. It’s about one legitimate relationship being treated as equally as another. I’m sorry your religion doesn’t allow you to consider it a legitimate relationship, but that’s a problem with the institution of religion, not of marriage, and not of the state.

It doesn’t matter whether it applies to the entire history of marriage. That’s what it has evolved into today. Same sex marriage wouldn’t be an issue at all if it didn’t carry all the legal implications that it does in our society today. Google “why civil unions aren’t enough” to see examples of how marriage is entrenched in our society.

This source cites 1138 rights and responsibilities that our government ties to marriage.

http://jointheimpactchicago.com/civil_unions_arent_enough

This mountain of rights is what same sex couples are after, and the equal treatment and recognition of that relationship universally.

Others have responded quite well to Mark, but I’d like to respond myself as well.

“What is “truth” or “morality” or “love” or “beauty” in such a state? On WHAT foundation are such matters based?”

Truth is the objective reality that is independent of our minds. Reality simply is, and is in itself the foundation of everything. If God exists then he’s part of reality, and if he doesn’t, then he’s not part of it.
Morality is a system of conduct based on notions of right and wrong, most often having to do with interactions with other people. Moral codes of conduct are founded upon values. Values vary, and as such people’s moral codes do, but in general humans have certain instinctive values due to our shared evolutionary history - as social animals, having some degree of shared values, and thus shared morals, is important to the existence of a sufficiently harmonious society. Without them civilization of any level would not be possible.
Love, and all emotions, are properties of a mind. Human love is a property of a human mind. A mind is, as far as we can tell, an emergent property of a brain. By emergent property, I mean something that comes about as a result of the particular arrangement of matter. Think of a house - all of the individual components of a house (wood, metal, glass, etc.) don’t have a property of “houseness” to them. “House” or even just “shelter” is simply what you get when you arrange those things correctly.
Beauty, as mentioned by others, is an attribute we might put onto certain things based on our perceptions of reality. The basis of this kind of perception, again as mentioned by others, may be due to certain types of environments being good places to live or other members of the species being good to mate with, etc. However, our brains have evolved to a degree of complexity that goes beyond merely survival and beauty can get applied to lots of things.

In regards to the latter two subjects, you might find my answers to be insufficient - I am also unsatisfied, but not because I think I’m wrong that these things are likely the result of the physical. To the contrary, I am in awe of the idea that such incredible things could possibly emerge from a universe that seems to be entirely indifferent. No, my dissatisfation comes from the fact that our language simply does not have the words needed to communicate what I feel about these concepts. Fortunately, since most of us humans have a degree of similarity in our perceptions we simply know that we’re talking about roughly the same feeling.

“What I am saying is that those principles (“truth” and “morality” and “love” and “beauty”) would not exist in reality if there were no God.”

We get that you say it, but as I said you are simply making an assertion without providing any reason that we should believe that assertion. So WHY should we believe this?

Mark posed a challenge:

“Here is a challenge for all atheists.
Here is my explanation, in the the following thesis.
Every human who seeks God will all his (or her) body and mind and soul will find God.”

The problem with this “challenge” is that anyone who fails it you will ultimately blame for failing. Imagine if I changed your thesis to “Every human who seeks fairies with all his/her body, mind, and soul will find fairies.” Again, the problem is that you are simply making an assertion but are not providing any evidence that the assertion is true.

Also, many atheists I’ve met are former believers. They sincerely believed in God, and when they began to have doubts many of them desperately sought to find God so they wouldn’t lose their faith. They would pray, go to church, read through the Bible again and again, talk to their priests and pastors, etc. - in other words, they took your challenge, but ultimately were unable to find God. Based on your premise, they were simply not trying hard enough. Don’t you think that’s a bit insulting on your part?

@Jeremy said,

Except that it doesn’t [alter the purpose of marriage from a necessary thing to a purely sentimental thing].

 
So you know of reasons that we can expect two people of the same sex to make a public commitment to each other before they begin an intimate relationship, and can say that their failure to do that is likely to have a significant negative impact on society vs. them getting “married?”
 
I didn’t intend for this to turn into a debate about same-sex “marriage,” which would be a digression from the present discussion.  Acceptance of the strongest arguments against it requires nary of wit of faith.  If you want to know more I refer you to the following links and their associated comments (plus the other articles in Steven Greydanus’ series):
 
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/redefining-marriage-10
 
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/09/gop_talking_point_fail_domesti/3203/comments-2.html

The thing I noticed about the atheists’ arguments about their own experience of love is that they don’t want love to be called that which they must maintain that it is….just neural firings.  And those neural firings are just directed towards a lump of biochemistry, for that is all we are.  IF you are an atheist. There cannot be anything deeper or more meaningful to it if there is no God.

Hmm, so the atheists continue to “troll” the web and join forces in a collective fashion to enter religious dialogues?  They apparently meet weekly to discuss strategies, compare notes, and developed counter arguements?  For folks who aren’t worried about God, you sure act as if you do. Almost eerily cultic!

@ Post by Steve Greene on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 11:17 AM (EST)—

Dear Steve—

Rather than actually answer my points (Fine Tuning Argument, First Cause Argument, Modal Ontological Argument, etc) you have chosen to rant.

Ah well, so it goes for free will.

Regarding the Fine Tuning Argument, you have missed it entirely. Such who reject the Fine Tuning Argument For The Existence Of God on the ground that it is not scientific enough are really have failed Occam and others in the scientific area. Such take the highly improbably and cling thereto while rejected the highly coincidental set of facts that stare them in the face.

Regarding the Modal Ontological Argument, you have not even touched that. That is no surprise. With the likes of Kurt Godel and Alvin Plantinga doing the logic, it is no wonder because the logic simply holds true. I will have to leave to argue with Godel and Plantinga

Regarding the First Cause Argument, there again you have not answered it. That is probably because for someone who accepts causality, et al, then one simply cannot reject the First Cause Argument.

Regarding my Spiritual Experiment, which I pose above, please give it a try. If you are truly a person dedicated to science and finding the truth, then you will. If not, then not. I have to leave that to you. However, I hope you do try it.

Look, science is good. No problem there. It is nice. I explains a lot. However, it does not explain love. There is no scientific principle or rule (such as evolution, or trying to survive, or whatever) that explains altruism, for example. “If there is no God, then everything is permissible”. I am merely commenting for the skeptics and atheists “isn’t it conincidental that everyone agrees (in practice) that everything is not permissible?”. To the atheist who says “no that is not conincidental” I say “keep trying to find the truth and it will find you”..

Please try the spiritual experment, outlined above and get back to me.

Regarding the rest (Fine Tuning Argument or Modal Argument or First Cause Argument), I am afraid I will have to wait for your direct rebuttal of those or will have to disengage in a circular dance that seems to be degrading into name-calling and patronizing rehetoric from your side, to which I can only offer my prayers.

God Bless You,

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by cowalker on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 12:43 PM (EST):

Dear Cowalker—

I appreciate your kind reply.

Regarding your use of the word “instinctive”, I will point out that science has not proved such an abstract idea. It is just a theory. I am not saying that it does

not exist. I am merely pointing out that YES there are some things that science cannot prove. Yes, that is right—science simply cannot prove everything.

Regarding your statement “It is my opinion that we should cooperate to balance our wants and needs in the material world for the benefit of all”, but why for the

benefit of all? Why not for the detriment of all? Why work for survival (life)? Why not work for death? Well, I have given an answer—because the foundational

principles exist in the absolute. For the benefit of all is morally better than for the detriment of all. Life is morally better than death. Good is morally better

than evil.

Regarding your statement “I love my children and I know this because I experience it”. But why do you experience? Do you not choose to love your children rather

than hate your children? Why? I will tell you why—because imprinted on your soul is the truth that love is better than hate, that love is the morally correct

thing to do. Your conscience knows this. That is why you choose love over hate. Love of a father to his children has NOTHING to do with survival or consensus or

such matters. Love is not always easy. Love is not always risk free. The giving of love is an act of the will, accompanied by emotions, but driven by something

deeper, the will. Love is a choice, an act of the will.

I predict that you will continue to follow the path of love because you “know” it is the right thing to do. No one told you that. You know it in your soul. Why?

Because love exists IN your soul. Why? Because it was put there by God, who cannot be other than love, thus His fingerprints are on everything he creates. That is

love.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark

@ Post by John D on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 8:08 PM (EST)==

Dear John D.—

Regarding this…

Truth is the objective reality that is independent of our minds.

...that is, essentially, the Moral Argument For The Existence Of God, or at least a pre-cursor of sort to it, so I am glad we agree there.

Regarding this…

Reality simply is, and is in itself the foundation of everything

...that is, essentially, The First Cause Argument For The Existence Of God, so I am glad we agree there.

One does not have to call God by the self-same name to be talking about one and the same thing.

When you ask “why should we believe [that those principles (truth and morality and love and beauty) would not exist in reality if there were no God” my answer is that one should believe because they DO exist, and people DO, in practice though sometimes not in words, accept their existence and act along those lines. So, to believe in such a case is simply to admit what one already sees as true. To admit that a sunset is beautiful is to also believe that a sunset is beautiful. To believe that a sunset is beautiful is also to admit that it is beautiful. Either direction points to the same foundation of reality, as you say, which I call God. You do not have to actually use the term God. But, I am so happy, along with other theists, to hear it when you and others have found the “foundation of everything” because any honest theist will smile at such words and say “OK this one sees it but wants to describe it differently and that is OK of course”.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by by John D. on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 8:17 PM (EST)

Dear John D.—

I am grateful for your kind reply, both because it is excellent and because it is easy for me to answer.

Regarding this…

The problem with this challenge is that anyone who fails it you will ultimately blame for failing

...no, I will probably say one of 2 things, either “keep trying” or “you found God but did not notice yet”. Yes, that is seemingly a bit too easy. But, I say that IS the answer. I did not say that one will understand what finding God is like. I did say that if one seeks then one will find. Finding can be instantaneous but understanding is an infinite process. What did you expect, that an finite human would be able to understand an infinite God perfectly? That would be hubris, a big mistake. No, perfect understanding will never happen. But, humans can get closer and closer, asymptotically (sp?). That’s what “finding” is and I encourage all to do so. Keep trying? Yes. Always succeeding? Yes. Ever perfect? No. Always growing? Yes. Ever bored? No. Always easy? No. Always hard? No. Always worthwhile? Yes. Lasting peace? Yes. Et cetera.

Regarding this…

they took your challenge, but ultimately were unable to find God. Based on your premise, they were simply not trying hard enough. Don’t you think that’s a bit insulting on your part?

...no, I would not say they did not try hard enough. I would simply say, as above, please keep trying. Also, I would ask them why they felt the failed at finding God. What was it that made them believe God was not there? I would like to hear that answer. I have not due to circumstances. If I seek for gold in my backyard for a year and find none that does not mean that gold does not exist in my backyard, rather it simply means that I have not found any. Look in another place, how about that for an idea? Humans do, generally, often give up too soon.

Think about WHAT the definition of God must be, setting aside for a moment the matter of IF God exists. Now, you will likely come to the obvious conclusion that God is a being that “IS”, very being itself. As such, there can be no place, in all space and time and eternity that God is not. Given that, a search for such a being begins and ends everywhere. That means one cannot not find God. All that is left is not knowing that one has found God or, to put it another way, not understanding that one has found God. Too simple? Well, that is another quality of God—perfect simplicity.

It is a process. That’s what I would say. Kind of like growing up. We are always doing it. We never really stop doing it. It is sometimes a challenge. It is sometimes easy and sometimes hard. Sometimes bitter and sometimes sweet.

Ah, but “my heart is restless” the lover says to which God’s answer comes “your heart is restless until it rests in me”. So, let’s get to it.

I can make the “challenge” easier, in a way, by restating as follows—“any human that seeks to find love with all his or her heart, mind, body, and soul, with all his or her being, then that human will find love”.

Are you REALLY ready to say you have witnessed no love in your mortal life thus far? None? Zero? I find that impossible. What of the suicide case, you say? I think Peter Kreeft has it right—even the suicide knows love because he or she cannot stand to live without it.

So, “look for love and you will find it” is another challenge.

Or, “look for beauty and you will find it” is yet another challenge.

Those have not been unseated yet.

Give it a try, you might “like” it.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“But, I am so happy, along with other theists, to hear it when you and others have found the ‘foundation of everything’”.
Why is a “foundation of everything” necessary?  Perhaps there are many reasons/foundations for *everything*?

Hi Mark (Kamoski),

You wrote (12/18/2011 1:13 PM EST), “Rather than actually answer my points (Fine Tuning Argument, First Cause Argument, Modal Ontological Argument, etc) you have chosen to rant. Ah well, so it goes for free will.”

I certainly realize that theists love to play empty word games - precisely because they cannot produce good scientific research results supporting their belief in a god. Obviously as well, I did not choose to merely “rant”, as you put it. (And I say this as I’m observing the obvious double standard Christians have about this as I see the blatant ranting against atheists in a number of responses written by Christians on this page.) Free will? You’re absolutely right, everyone has the choice to arbitrarily believe whatever he feels like believing regardless of the fact that he doesn’t have good real world evidence to back up his beliefs. After all, that’s what undergirds religious belief.

You wrote, “Regarding the Fine Tuning Argument, you have missed it entirely. Such who reject the Fine Tuning Argument For The Existence Of God on the ground that it is not scientific enough are really have failed Occam and others in the scientific area. Such take the highly improbable and cling thereto while rejected the highly coincidental set of facts that stare them in the face.”

Of course, you completely ignored what I pointed out. I also find the double standard very amusing when people who ignore the need to produce scientific evidence for their beliefs and who even ignore scientific falsification of their beliefs make remarks to me about allegedly having “failed Occam and others in the scientific area”.

You wrote, “Regarding the Modal Ontological Argument, you have not even touched that. That is no surprise. With the likes of Kurt Godel and Alvin Plantinga doing the logic, it is no wonder because the logic simply holds true. I will have to leave to argue with Godel and Plantinga.”

Godel was an atheist, so go figure. Of course, it’s impossible to merely define things into existence by playing word games. Circular reasoning does not conjure things into existence. In order to verify (or falsify) your ideas about reality you have to actually examine the real world itself. You have to TEST your ideas by some process of empirical investigation. I’m well aware of the fact that religious believers disagree with this and like to play word games to try to get away from their lack of scientific evidence backing up their beliefs, which is why I’ve discussed the anti-science attitudes that are so popular among Christian believers in previous posts. The modal ontological argument, just like the ontological argument, is nothing more than an attempt to try to justify a claim that something exists without ever even trying to produce a shred of real world evidence for the claim - a tactic that permeates the rhetoric of religious belief. This is a fundamental flaw of the religious belief, not a virtue.

You wrote, “Regarding the First Cause Argument, there again you have not answered it. That is probably because for someone who accepts causality, et al, then one simply cannot reject the First Cause Argument.”

Honestly, I’ve never been very impressed by arguments that begin with self-contradiction.

You wrote, “Regarding my Spiritual Experiment, which I pose above, please give it a try. If you are truly a person dedicated to science and finding the truth, then you will. If not, then not. I have to leave that to you. However, I hope you do try it.”

Mark, you couldn’t know it, but I was a Christian for a time. I’m an atheist today because I took the advice of the apostle Paul that, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” Your so-called “spiritual experiment” has never produced good real world evidence for the existence of any god (or ghost, or angel, or demon, or leprechaun, or any other superstitious or mythical notions that people make up).

Mark, you wrote, “Look, science is good. No problem there. It is nice. It explains a lot. However, it does not explain love.”

Well, you’re just wrong. As I’ve already explained in a previous post above, our emotions are part of our psyche which is a product of our brain, which is an aspect of our interactions with and responses to the real world. That is indeed what all scientific evidence shows. You have zero scientific evidence that there’s anything else involved.

You wrote, “There is no scientific principle or rule (such as evolution, or trying to survive, or whatever) that explains altruism, for example.”

Wrong again. You should look up research directly about altruism in social species in the context of population genetics in evolutionary studies.

You wrote, “‘If there is no God, then everything is permissible’. I am merely commenting for the skeptics and atheists ‘isn’t it coincidental that everyone agrees (in practice) that everything is not permissible?’. To the atheist who says ‘no that is not coincidental’ I say ‘keep trying to find the truth and it will find you’.”

Oh, gee, it’s so mind-bogglingly coincidental that each of us has to pragmatically deal with the real world around us - which includes the cultural/social contexts we live in - and has to deal with the real world consequences of our actions.

Why is it that when we atheists ask Christians or other theists to produce good scientific evidence backing up their belief in a god, we are almost always inundated with such irrelevant red herring rhetoric?

You wrote, “Please try the spiritual experiment, outlined above and get back to me.”

Done. Still no scientific evidence for a god.

You wrote, “Regarding the rest (Fine Tuning Argument or Modal Argument or First Cause Argument), I am afraid I will have to wait for your direct rebuttal of those or will have to disengage in a circular dance that seems to be degrading into name-calling and patronizing rhetoric from your side, to which I can only offer my prayers.”

Unfortunately, the deep problem atheists have with religious believers, such as yourself apparently, is that “disengaging in a circular dance” is all you ever really want to do in the first place - and all of us, including you, know that you do this precisely because when we ask you to produce good scientific evidence to back up your belief in a god you know you can’t do it. I’m also amused when religious believers, who frequently tend to be the most masterful of patronizing on the planet (after all, they’ve fooled themselves into thinking they’re telling people what to think based on the alleged thoughts of a god), pretend to be offended by atheists supposedly having a patronizing attitude.

Again, the issue - the ONLY issue - is the real world evidence. Either you have it to back up your belief in a god, or you don’t. Your task - your SOLE task - is to start citing relevant scientific research results. Without that you have nothing. Red herring word games isn’t going to change that fact even the slightest bit. Again, all of us, including you, know that your belief in a god is a matter of religious faith, not good scientific evidence. And that’s why the rhetoric of religious believers has no traction with the vast majority of atheists, because it is precisely because of the absence of good real world evidence that most atheists are atheists in the first place.

- Steve Greene

Dear Steve (and all)—

Here is a quick follow-up.

Regarding scientific evidence, I have pointed out a lot.
For example the site http://www.Reasons.org is a good place to start.
Of course, one must actually want to find the information.

Regarding the claim to be “playing word games”, that is just a strange statement.
To claim that logic itself is a matter of “word games”, (for example The Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God), is irrational and disingenuous, at best.
If one is unwilling to accept the rules of logic, then one has little, if anything, to discuss meaningfully.

Regarding your need for evidence, I can now see this is merely a fallacy—an
“Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on silence of opponent, failing to give proof, based on ‘lack of evidence’”, etc.
There are axioms everywhere, accepted and used.
While certain “theories” posit some special case of unknowns, probablility, etc, the fact remains that
In practice, under normal conditions, humans all agree that measuring rods remain invariant as they undergo positional changes—and then we build REAL buildings that we can touch and feel based on this agreement.
In practice, under normal conditions, we DO, in fact, “define into existence” a point that has not height or width or breadth, and then, with Euclid’s help, we draw shapes in our minds, using our will, and we apply rules that fit this system, and under the axioms of geometry, we can measure for a new carpet, or build a bird house, or paint a picture of the sunset.

Etc. There are a lot of points to make here. I have no time to make them all, but I will try. Here is an old favorite.

Please consider “beauty”.
From where does it come?
Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder; rather, beauty is in the object itself.
If “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, the common misconception, then there is no need for the object itself, which is a mind-trap of pride.

If “beauty is a bio-chemical reaction to stimuli”, then humans are automatons.

And yet we DO need the object.
The object DOES play a role.
We know this to be true when we look at a sunset or a flower or a baby or the sea.

Can one “prove” the existence of “beauty”?
Yes, one can, but most do not bother because humans know “beauty”, they “see” beauty.

Beauty is an aspect of God, and therefore infinite and perfect.
Many humans who cannot accept God are that way because they want to BE God rather than find God.
God did give us proof, namely Jesus Christ, his only son.
He was true God and true man.
He walked this earth in the flesh.
He is chronicled by thousands of historians and disciples.
He has marked this moral life indelibly with his holy blood.
He stood in front of many, physically, and THEY did not believe.
Why?
Because they wanted something “more”, they did not want God.
They wanted something “different” of their own imagining, they did not want God.
They wanted to worship their own mind, their own understanding, their own will, not the will of God.

God loves us so much that he takes us seriously.
God loves us so much that he will not force us to love him.

Someone once said something like…

“In the end there are two kinds of people,
those who say to God ‘thy will be done’
and those to whom God says ‘thy will be done’”.

If one is trying to look for God, then one simply needs to open one’s eyes.
God is everywhere, in a sunset, in a tear, in our hearts, and in the hearts of others.

Ah, but we must TRY.

HTH.

Thanks and have a Merry Christmas!!!

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Yeah, Right on Monday, Dec 19, 2011 10:03 AM (EST):

Dear Poster—

Regarding this…

Why is a “foundation of everything” necessary? 
Perhaps there are many reasons/foundations for *everything*?

...this is answered in the First Cause Argument For The Existence Of God and the Contingency Argument For The Existence Of God.

In brief, we all accept that everything that comes into existence has a cause. The world is full of second causes. For something to exist, there must be something that causes it to come into existence. Now, if we keep answering with a statement like “something else caused me to come into existence” then we see that infinite regression results. At some point, there must be a starting point. If not, then the gift of existence never gets passed on down the line. As such, the universe remains unexplained. But, we DO see second causes. Therefore, there must, somewhere, be a first cause.

HTH.

Thanks and have a Merry Christmas!!!

—Mark Kamoski

“In brief, we all accept that everything that comes into existence has a cause.”

Why preclude multiple unrelated first causes?

If everything has a cause, what caused god?

Dear Mark (Kamoski),

Perhaps asking someone who is actively committed to atheism to reconsider the evidence in front of his/her eyes for God’s existence is a bit like asking a color blind person to see color.  Maybe they just don’t have the tools to perceive it -  their “cones” are damaged/defective.  Committed atheists are pretty rare - like the completely color blind.  If they want to continue to believe there is no evidence for God, despite the vast majority of humanity that readily perceives such, then there’s little or nothing one can do to help other than to pray and model God’s love to them as best we can.  For various reasons, the committed atheist’s mind and heart are currently disposed to perceive mere accidents and meaninglessness around them where almost everyone else easily perceives evidence of intelligence, purpose, order, design…and love.

Thankfully, unlike complete color blindness, the inability to see evidence for God’s existence may be temporary -  as it is for many.

God bless and Merry Christmas!

Mike,  So where is this evidence you speak of?  Is it credible?  I’d like to see it.

Mark, I really think you’re not understanding where I’m coming from here.

I said “Truth is the objective reality that is independent of our minds.”

You Said: “...that is, essentially, the Moral Argument For The Existence Of God, or at least a pre-cursor of sort to it, so I am glad we agree there.”

No, it’s not. The moral argument in its most basic form goes something like this:

1. If God does not exist, morality does not exist.
2. Morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

First off, I was speaking of reality, not morality. Second, that argument is only valid if it’s premise is valid - you can construct a perfectly sound logical argument with almost any premise, but for the argument to be true the premise must be true. For example, let’s go with this:

1. All elephants are pink.
2. Bob is an elephant.
3. Therefore Bob is pink.

Logically it’s perfectly sounds, but factually it’s not correct - elephants are not pink, so the whole argument falls apart. Until you can demonstrate your premise, giving a logical argument is rather pointless. So, even if you want to change your premise to “If God does not exist, reality does not exist” it wouldn’t matter unless you can demonstrate somehow that your premise is true.

I said: “Reality simply is, and is in itself the foundation of everything”
You said: “...that is, essentially, The First Cause Argument For The Existence Of God, so I am glad we agree there.”

No, it isn’t. The basic premise of the first cause argument is “everything that exists has a cause”. Again, the premise is undemonstrated, and even if not it’s problematic in that even if God caused the universe it doesn’t answer where God came from. If you propose the notion that God is a special exception and has always existed you may think you’ve gotten around that problem, but again you still haven’t demonstrated your premise is true. However, you’ll note that nothing in my statement says anything at all about cause - all I said is that reality is ultimately reality. Many of the details are unknown to me and so I don’t make claims about them. It could be that God exist, or on the other hand reality has always existed but is not an intelligent being of any sort, in which case calling reality God is rather pointless as the word god has certain implications that such a reality would not meet.

I said: “The problem with this challenge is that anyone who fails it you will ultimately blame for failing”
You Said: “...no, I will probably say one of 2 things, either “keep trying” or “you found God but did not notice yet”. Yes, that is seemingly a bit too easy. But, I say that IS the answer.”

You can say it’s the answer all you like, it doesn’t change why your challenge is absurd. Let’s rewrite your challenge a little - let’s say that someone on the street tells you that an invisible, ethereal being called “Snorf” exists and that if you can bring him into your life it’ll be wonderful and everything will be improved. You of course would be skeptical of such a claim, I imagine, so the man on the street gives you instructions for finding Snorf and bringing him into your life. It could be the exact same instructions you gave, or it could be hopping on one leg until you find him. Structurally it doesn’t change the challenge in any significant way. Supposing you were even willing to try it, would you find the answers “keep trying” or “you found Snorf but did not notice yet” even remotely acceptable?

You seem like a nice person and you have some idea about apologetics, but you don’t understand the counter-apologetics very well. You should try giving the Iron Chariots wiki a read.

John D,

Thanks for that Chariots wiki link.  It was quite enlightening.

Frank Cronin’s latest piece attacking the leaders of the New Atheism movement is filled with fallacious arguments and mischaracterizations.  Without properly defining his terms, Mr. Cronin ambiguously discusses issue of love yet asserts that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have not understanding of objective reality.  He then expresses his contempt for their beliefs. 

Mr. Cronin writes, “So let’s suppose you are the spouse of an atheist who believes all of life is only sensory, only material.”.  Atheism is simply a lack in the belief of a god or gods, and therefore does not necessarily pertain to any specific view on love.  Both Dawkins and Harris are scientists and do agree with a biological view of both human emotions and consciousness, but Mr. Cronin condescendingly describes their positions so they will sound overly simple and naive. 
 
In his attempt be audacious, Mr. Cronin steps over the line to an argumentum ad hominem.  Instead of dealing with the empirical evidence that does indeed provide evidence that mental processes are biochemical and electrical events in the brain, he resorts to name calling and implied character defects: “...That makes love a mere biochemical event… It not only doesn’t sound romantic, it doesn’t even sound like love. It sounds shallow and silly, and even a little sick.” 
 
Attacking the character of these men does nothing to advance his argument, but is red meat for those who also share his contempt for these men of reason.  Mr. Cronin does attempt to clarify his terms towards the end of his article by stating that “God is love”.  But by making this theological argument, he obfuscates his terms even further.

Mr. Cronin writes, “So let’s suppose you are the spouse of an atheist who believes all of life is only sensory, only material.”.  Atheism is simply a lack in the belief of a god or gods, and therefore does not necessarily pertain to any specific view on love.  Both Dawkins and Harris are scientists and do agree with a biological view of both human emotions and consciousness, but Mr. Cronin condescendingly describes their positions so they will sound overly simple and naive.
 
In his attempt be audacious, Mr. Cronin steps over the line to an argumentum ad hominem.  Instead of dealing with the empirical evidence that does indeed provide evidence that mental processes are biochemical and electrical events in the brain, he resorts to name calling and implied character defects: “...That makes love a mere biochemical event… It not only doesn’t sound romantic, it doesn’t even sound like love. It sounds shallow and silly, and even a little sick.”  Attacking the character of these men does nothing to advance his argument, but is red meat for those who also share his contempt for these men of reason.

In his attempt be audacious, Mr. Cronin steps over the line to an argumentum ad hominem.  Instead of dealing with the empirical evidence that does indeed provide evidence that mental processes are biochemical and electrical events in the brain, he resorts to name calling and implied character defects: “...That makes love a mere biochemical event… It not only doesn’t sound romantic, it doesn’t even sound like love. It sounds shallow and silly, and even a little sick.” Attacking the character of these men does nothing to advance his argument, but is red meat for those who also share his contempt for these men of reason.

With the screen name “Yeah, Right”, I have some doubt that you’re interested in seeking and genuinely understanding evidence contrary to your current opinion, but in case my impression is wrong, you can at least start with these:

“The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N.T. Wright

Here’s a series of audio tapes by Peter Kreeft on God’s existence:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god.htm

You could also read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, “The Everlasting Man” by G.K. Chesterton and “The Spirit of Catholicism” by Karl Adam.

@Mike: Can’t you articulate what you believe and why on your own, rather than pointing to books and audio tapes of others? If you can’t, then I wouldn’t disparage someone else like you’re doing. According to your Peter, you and every Christian must be prepared to provide a logical defense of your belief (1 Peter 3:15), but merely pointing to others’ defenses does not suffice.

Mike F.

Concerning my screen name….  I thought I once read somewhere about passing judgements?  Must be a case of deja vu, eh?

So are any of these books/arguments/tapes credible evidence?

Kent,  none of what you complained about is an actually ad hominem argument.  I don’t see where Cronin attacked anyone’s “character”.  Had he stated something like “Dawkins is a mental midget and a dissembler who is too cowardly to take on serious thinkers and debaters like Dr. William Lane Craig” ( see: http://randalrauser.com/2011/10/why-dawkins-says-he-wont-debate-craig/  AND ALSO   http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-explains-his-refusal-to-debate-christian-apologist-craig-58877/ ) and therefore atheism is wrong, then THAT would have been ad hominem attack.  But Cronin went after the ideas of individuals, not the individuals themselves.  That’s an important distinction.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

I’ll repeat what someone said previously to others who’ve made a similar complaint.  If you’ve ever read or seen what Hitchens, Dawkins and the other “heralds” of atheism have said about theists, then this series is very tame and respectful in comparison.  This article is written to Catholics on a Catholic website in defense against the attacks of such atheists.  You sought it out here.  If you want to read some *really* hard-hitting love and judgment, try reading some G.K. Chesterton or….Jesus Himself.

PhillyChief,

When dealing with issues this deep -  particularly in the presence of those who are committed to a polar opposite view -  I’ve found through experience that a mere combox is really not the best place to engage in a lengthy, in-depth discussion.  It regularly turns into a contest of wills and egos rather than a genuine, honest search for truth.  If you genuinely want to gain a greater understanding of God, then I invite you to read the books I mentioned and listen to the tape series.  There are also some good articles on this website about atheism that at least touch on various aspects of the issue.  But again, if you’re serious, then you should be willing to do some serious reading and listening -  more than a fast-food drive-by.

God bless.

Hi “Yeah, Right” -

You write, “So are any of these books/arguments/tapes credible evidence?”

Yes, I believe they present credible evidence.  So why not listen/read and see what you think?  Of course, it always helps to listen/read them with an open mind, rather than starting right off by thinking “how can I disprove this nonsense.”  With serious arguments, it’s best to genuinely try to fully understand *before* trying to rebut.

Peace.

Mike F., it is indeed difficult to get some people to look at the right evidence.  Very often atheists or agnostics end up arguing with a straw man that doesn’t accurately portray Catholic teaching, and may not even accurately represent typical Protestants.  For example, if you want to criticize Catholic teaching regarding temporal matters, you really have to begin with the Catechism.  But they’re often too happy twisting around what’s in the Bible to dare to go there.  Good luck!

@ Mike: I’m familiar with the arguments by those others you point to. They’re all flawed and have been addressed ad nauseam, some for decades. A simple Google search will bring you to them. I could address those flaws here, but as you said, “a mere combox is really not the best place”. ;)

Kevin -  agreed.

PhillyChief -  LOL!  Well, all joking aside, if and when you get to the point that you’re genuinely interested, my hope is that you remember the names of these books/tapes so you can read/listen to them.  Maybe we’ll have the chance to discuss them over a beer or two one day.

And now, I’m off to finish some work and to finish finding a last couple of gifts.

~ For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace! ~

God bless and Merry Christmas.

I wasn’t joking, Mike, but I’d chat over a beer any time, providing the chat and the beer was good. Well, at least the beer, anyway.

@ Post by John D on Tuesday, Dec 20, 2011 3:37 PM (EST):

Dear John—

Regarding this…

I said “Truth is the objective reality that is independent of our minds.”

...and I said it is pre-cursor to the Moral Argument For The Existence Of God because, objective and independent lead to “absolute”, and as such, it is short leap to see the absolute basis for a moral order, namely God. It really is that simple.

Regarding this…

First off, I was speaking of reality, not morality.

...it does not matter because the supposition that an “object reality” can easily be extended to the “objective truth” and on to “objective moral standard”.

Regading this…

even if you want to change your premise to “If God does not exist, reality does not exist” it wouldn’t matter unless you can demonstrate somehow that your premise is true.

...that is just it, the existence of “object reality” is YOUR premise, not mine, and I am just pointing out the soundness of that. Whether you call it objective (foundational, principle, etc) “reality” or “morality” or whatever, it leads to the same thing. Objective, stand-alone, not created, anything proves the First Cause Argument or the Moral Argument or the Design Argument or the Argument From Conscience, or etc. As soon as one says, like you have, “x exists without any creator” then God exists—you lost the argument. That “thing in itself” is the starting point, the first-cause, foundational principle, etc. That’s pretty simple. I grant that the First Cause Argument and the Moral Argument and the Argument From Design do not prove all the Bible says about God, but it proves a slice and a starting point. The other attributes of God can be proven along these lines or others. As long as one keeps trying to dodge by saying something like “there is an x that exists and is the basis for reality” or something like that, then a theist must keep bringing the conversation back to the simple beginning—“if x exists independent of creation, if x does not need a creator, if x always is, then that proves some small part of God”.

This is SO common and yet so simple. That is probably why so many bright minds miss it. Hawkings himself missed it in his recent gaff “Because these is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing”. I will be kind to him and call that gaff. or at least a hand-wave. Gee. Hawkins should know better; but, his reason is apparently clouded. That “law of gravity” part. Hello???

Regarding this…

I said: “Reality simply is, and is in itself the foundation of everything”

...yes, and, as above, that is First Cause of First Mover, either works.

Regarding this…

The basic premise of the first cause argument is “everything that exists has a cause”

...no, it is “everything that is created has a cause” or similar such wording, as one wishes but the essential distinction is required.

Regarding this…

even if God caused the universe it doesn’t answer where God came from

...that is the child’s question, “who created God?”. A “bigger” God? Funny. God by definition is the greatest conceivable being. God is. God is not created. The question “who created God?” has no answer because it is a non-sensical question. Such questions have no meaning. It is like asking “jing frambled quimble?”. Such questions are absurd.

Regarding this…

If you propose the notion that God is a special exception and has always existed you may think you’ve gotten around that problem, but again you still haven’t demonstrated your premise is true

...the premise is “everything that is created has a cause” is widely accepted already. When a reasonable human sees a copy of Hanlet, that human does not wonder if it came from “a million monkeys typing for a million years”. No, such a human wonders what “human” created it. Etc. That’s all pretty basic stuff.

Regarding this…

all I said is that reality is ultimately reality

...that is a tautology and all you have demonstrated is the identity principle. Either you had more in mind or you have nothing to write about here. I assume that since you are still writing here that you mean something more. Do you?

Regarding this…

reality has always existed but is not an intelligent being of any sort

...if one did make such a claim then a good reply to it would be—if, as the statement implies, one’s brain is the product of a non-intelligent process, then why would one trust it?
Humans do NOT live that way, though humans sometimes do not recognize that they do not live that way.

Regarding this…

let’s say that someone on the street tells you that an invisible, ethereal being called “Snorf” exists and that if you can bring him into your life it’ll be wonderful and everything will be improved

...is said being has all the properties of “God” but one chooses to call it “Snorf” then the conversation would be about one and the same things. Renaming does not change God.

Regarding this…

Supposing you were even willing to try it [the experiment to find Snorf], would you find the answers “keep trying” or “you found Snorf but did not notice yet” even remotely acceptable?

...actually, I have already completed the experiment and continue to conduct such, so I do find it acceptable.

Regarding this…

You seem like a nice person

...that is kind of you to say and I would say the same about you and, in fact, that is why I am trying to ask you to try to seek God.

Regarding this…

You should try giving the Iron Chariots wiki a read

...I took a peek and it looks OK, however, I do like the front-lines of the combox too.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Parson on Wednesday, Dec 21, 2011 1:55 AM (EST):

Dear Parson—

Regarding this…

Atheism is simply a lack in the belief of a god or gods

...one may say that the the “simply” part is easily demonstrated to be a rejection of any foundational principle, be it First Cause, or The Authority Of Conscience, of First Mover, or etc. When one sits down and orders “just no God, please give me all the love, morality, design, beauty, etc, that is not contingent upon belief in God” then the waiter returns with a “big pile of nothing”. It is all in the implications and logical extension of such.

...also, BTW, “atheism” is not “simply a lack in the belief” it is “a belief that God does not exist”, those are 2 VERY different things but what I say here in this post above applies to both connotations.

HTH.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!!!

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Mike F. on Wednesday, Dec 21, 2011 10:38 AM (EST):

Dear Mike F.—

Regarding this…

Here’s a series of audio tapes by Peter Kreeft on God’s existence: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god.htm

...I just have to say “Amen”...

...everything at http://www.PeterKreeft.com is GREAT…

...that guy is an excellent philosopher, logicial, theist, and orator….

...his work and argumentation is highly researched, baced, and cleanly presented…

...BTW, another GREAT modern-day theist philosopher is Alvin Plantinga and WELL worth the time for anyone interested.

I had been meaning to mention Dr. Peter Kreeft and I am very glad you did.

We are VERY blessed to have such minds among us.

Thanks and Merry Christmas,

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Mike F. on Tuesday, Dec 20, 2011 10:46 AM (EST):

Dear Mike F.—

Regarding this…

Perhaps asking someone who is actively committed to atheism to reconsider the evidence in front of his/her eyes for God’s existence is a bit like asking a color blind person to see color… Thankfully, unlike complete color blindness, the inability to see evidence for God’s existence may be temporary -  as it is for many.

...yes that is a good way to put it…

...and one is reminded that Jesus is a divine physician too, and has healed many a blind person, even his name is Holy…

...so one can always pray and hope and love…

...plus it is kind of fun messing around in the heat of the combox kitchen throwing spaghetti, every once in a while, some of the spaghetti might stick…

...besides this is good practice for those lunches with work-buddies or family-gatherings or other such places…

Thanks and Merry Christmas!!!

—Mark Kamoski

@ Mark Kamoski: It’s kind of rude to tell atheists what atheism is or suggest what they say is not what they really believe. I for one would not dream of lecturing you as to what Christianity really is or suggest that you are not a real Christian.

Plantinga is someone who must make his arguments overly obtuse and litter them with pejoratives lobbed at detractors to hide how flawed they are. Take his argument for the problem of Evil, for instance. The free will defense easily breaks down when you consider the lack of free will in Heaven, and the claim that natural evil (hurricanes, for example) are acts by evil spirits is simply a cop-out.

Apologists don’t offer evidence for the existence of their god (or gods, as the case may be), they only offer excuses to indulge in belief. Lewis, Kreeft, Plantinga, D’Souza, Craig, et al.

Serpico,

Mr. Cronin used the terms shallow, silly, and sick.  I call that an ad hominem argument.  What planet are you on?

@ Post by PhillyChief on Wednesday, Dec 21, 2011 3:27 PM (EST):

Regarding this…

It’s kind of rude to tell atheists what atheism is or suggest what they say is not what they really believe

...actually, the definition of atheism is quite well-understood, so while I am sorry for any offense construed I cannot admit to any intended.

However, just to be sure that I am arguing with the right folks here, let me be clear what I am addressing when I address an “atheist”, as follows.

(1). A theist believes that God does exist.

(2). An atheist believes that God does not exist.

Now, maybe I somehow got into the wrong conversation, but I am trying to speak with people who are atheists in this manner.

Is there, in fact, another “kind” of atheist?

Now, if one is saying something like “I now have no belief in God but that does not mean that I think God does not exist but rather it simply means that I currently do not posses any belief in God independent of whether or not God exists” then I would NOT call that person an atheist—some might, but not me. I would call such a person searching.

There is no fence-sitting here.

A thing cannot both “exist” and “not exist”, unless one wants to discuss attempts to unseat the Law Of Non-Contradiction, which is an odd conversation, and probably a conversation that is impossible to have meaningfully.

To say “I do not know”, the so-called “agnostic”, is another position altogether and, given that time is linear and this mortal life ends, that position will be addressed as a matter of course.

Now, if suppose one says…

I have no faith in Jim that he will show up today help me move.

...that person indeed is not saying “Jim does not exist”; but, rather, that person is saying “I know Jim exists but I do not expect him to do such-and-such”.

Are you saying THAT is an atheist, or one “kind” of atheist?

Are you saying that an atheist is a person who currently has no faith (belief) in God but who does NOT claim that God does not exist?

Well, if “yes” then that is a whole differnt kettle of fish. If “John D” or “Parson” wants to state THAT then I will say “amen” and I will know we ae on the way. But, I do not think that Parson or JohnD (or you?) are holding out any such room for the “possible” existence of God. Are you?

Of course, if one DOES hold the claim that “the existence of God is possible” then, by the Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God, God exists, given that God is a necessary being. The proof only requires that God’s existence is possible. Etc. See Plantinga et al.

So, again, no offense intended to anyone—I am just talking to “real atheists” who “believe God does not exist”.

HTH.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!!!

—Mark Kamoski

“Yes, I believe they present credible evidence.”.

Again, you’ve not provided actual evidence.  Philosophical arguments aren’t exactly evidence:)

If there were evidence obviously we wouldn’t be having this conversation:)

To Kent:

“Mr. Cronin used the terms shallow, silly, and sick.  I call that an ad hominem argument.  What planet are you on?”

I understand that you call it ad hominem, but that doesn’t make it so Kent.  Personally, I’m on the planet that defines the term “ad hominem” in this way:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm

You don’t seem to understand what an “ad hominem” argument is.  That’s why I gave the link last time.  I added another this time.  Please read them.  There’s a difference between attacking a person and attacking a person’s ideas -  as I also pointed out last time.  Cronin didn’t attack a PERSON as “silly”, “sick” or “shallow.”  He attacked certain IDEAS/PERSPECTIVES as “silly”,  “sick” and/or “shallow.” 

Follow?

Definition: If Santa Clause Exists, then Santa Clause necessarily exists.
Premise: It is possible that Santa Clause exists.
Conclusion: God exists.

Poof! Santa is real.

Yeah, Right -

I’ve heard of judging a book by it’s cover, but you can’t even be bothered by that much reading?  Wright’s book isn’t just full of philosophical proofs/argumentation - which you’d know if you even popped by a review on Amazon.com. 

So, I suppose we’ll have to conclude that you’re not one of those open-minded, truth-seeking atheists, eh?  :-)

Personally, I see no evidence, no proof to convince me that you’re something more than a chatterbot -  spouting what you must.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatterbot

PhillyChief,  you know and comprehend all the arguments made by N.T. Wright?  Really?  You know all the responses that refute him and you know enough to know that they’re valid, eh?  Gosh, I know some pretty darned bright people who’ve read it through several times and are still learning new things from it.  You must be absolutely brilliant.  :-/

@ Mark: ACTUALLY, the Christian bible is pretty clear about a number of things as well, yet there are over 2,000 sects of Christianity, and I dare say that no two Christians see their belief exactly the same so I should I be lecturing Christians what Christianity really means? Should I say you’re not a real Christian because you don’t fit my definition of what a Christian is? Well I could, but that would be rather obnoxious of me, wouldn’t it? So please, why not return the favor, ok?

Thanks and Happy Festivus!!!

- PhillyChief

Serpico,

Let me educate you.  An ad hominem argument is one made “against the man” or “against the person”.  It must be used for the purpose of undermining the opponent’s argument.  That is in fact what Mr. Cronin was doing.  Instead of calling them by name, he inserts their “view” instead.  He does not explain why his opponent’s view is “sick”, but by choosing that terminology it implies that the opponent’s character is questioned.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.

That is precisely Mr. Cronin’s argument.  However, if you still object, I will alter my criticism to labeling his comments an Appeal to Ridicule.  This is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”

@Yeah, Right said:

Definition: If Santa Clause Exists, then Santa Clause necessarily exists. Premise: It is possible that Santa Clause exists. Conclusion: God exists. Poof! Santa is real.

 
Let’s just say for a moment that Santa Claus really did exist.  Do you think that everyone would need the same type or amount of evidence to convince them of his existence?  Would there still be some people who refuse to believe he is real no matter how much evidence they are presented with?  Would someone’s willingness to accept his existence, based on a sincere hope that his ideal might be realized, have anything to do with how likely they are to find him real?  In other words, if someone finds the lessons of the legend to be true and good and noble, would they be more easily convinced of Santa’s existence than someone else who, told the same legend, found it to be merely silly or, more likely, focused so much on its implausibility that they never bothered to see that it is indeed true and good and noble?

I am an atheist.  I have no belief in any god or gods.  Why do apologists insist on limiting the definition of atheism to the belief there is no god?  Rigidly defining terms without questioning an opponent’s definition is dogmatic.  But if the apologist knows full well that the opponent defines the term differently, he is not being intellectually honest. 

I could not possibly provide definitive evidence that a thing does not exist.  No scientific evidence exists that provides evidence for the existence of god, therefore I must believe rationally that there is a low probably of a god, but I cannot be 100% certain.  That is my reasoning and definition of my atheism.

@PhillyChief said,

ACTUALLY, the Christian bible is pretty clear about a number of things as well, yet there are over 2,000 sects of Christianity, and I dare say that no two Christians see their belief exactly the same so I should I be lecturing Christians what Christianity really means?

 
Actually, since only one of those “sects” assembled the Bible, and she did it with the conscious purpose of supporting her own teachings, shouldn’t she be consulted about what she meant by the books included in the Bible before her and everyone else who claims to believe what the Bible says are dismissed simply because they don’t all agree?
 
I feel like G.K. Chesterton, who, after returning from a visit to America where he had humiliated Clarence Darrow, wrote that he had “debated a man who seemed to be arguing with his fundamentalist maiden aunt.”

@Serpico:  It’s funny you used an ad hominem, because that’s what Wright likes doing as well. Take for instance his questioning of Ehrman’s motives rather than the meat of his argument on suffering. When you have nothing else, I guess that’s all you can do, right?

Serpico,

So that’s a “no” to the evidence?  I’m not asking for a reading list. I suspect you knew as much.

@All—

Given that this discussion has sometimes been a bit “fuzzy” regarding the working definition of the term “atheist” and “atheism”, and in the interest of defining terms and in the hope to facilitate clear communication, etc, I did some research on the words “atheist” and “atheism”, as follows.

According to Wikipedia,
“Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

According to the Free Dictionary By Farlex,
an “atheist [is] someone who denies the existence of God”.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
an “atheist [is] a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods”.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist?q=atheist

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
an “atheist [is] one who believes that there is no deity”.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

According to the American Atheists organization,
“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity”.
http://www.atheists.org/atheism

According to Dictionary.com,
“atheism [is] the doctrine or belief that there is no God”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Etc, in like manner for all such significant references.

Given that, if someone has a significantly different defintion of “atheist” or “atheism”, then please do share it.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by PhillyChief on Wednesday, Dec 21, 2011 7:42 PM (EST):

Dear PhillyChief—

Regarding this…

the Christian bible is pretty clear about a number of things as well, yet there are over 2,000 sects of Christianity

...it is true that Christianity is fragmented considerably. It is sad. Unification is yet another front, an argument for another thread. I will point out, however, that Roman Catholics are quite clear about what they believe, etc, and it is well-documented in our Creeds and Catechism and Liturgy and Tradition.

However, the matter at hand here in this thread is “belief that God does exist” (monotheism) versus “belief that God does not exist” (atheism).

(Note that while I have been using the term “theist” so far in this discussion, I do think that I have been quite clear that I was using a shorthand and intended “monotheism”. If I have caused confusion, I will hearby correct that—I am talking about “monotheism”, a particular branch of “theism”. Now, let us continue.)

We can easily set aside edge-cases and nuances of “montheism” and “atheism” and still have a meaningful discussion.

In fact, such details can often clutter such a discussion as is unfolding here, so while they are important in some discussions they are not necessary for all discussion, this being one of the latter case.

As such, we have the following facts.

(1). All monotheists believe that God does exist.

(2). All atheists believe that God does not exist.

Are you saying something different about “atheism” or “monotheism” with respect to those statements?

If yes, then please do explain your position in detail.

Regarding this…

should I be lecturing Christians what Christianity really means?

...well, I suppose you could (or perhaps should) do so, especially if you have something good and true to share.

Regarding this…

Should I say you’re not a real Christian because you don’t fit my definition of what a Christian is?

...well, hold on there partner, if we start getting into “my definition” and “your definition” then we cannot really have a discussion. Without a set of common and adequately similar reference points (definitions), communication is not possible. We have dictionaries and libraries and an internet full of the common-use of the words “monotheism” and “atheism”, which are quite clear on certain axioms of those definitions, two such axioms I state above. If someone has some different “personal definition” of such then he or she had better either make up a new word and or define his or her connotations.

Please, I am trying to be very clear—here, in this thread, I am trying to reach out to people who believe that God does not exist (atheists) in an good and true discussion regarding the existence of God. That is all. I do not mean to offend or preach. I simply want to discuss the matter. Now, to discuss the matter, I must use words. As such, I have defined my terms and I admit that my defintions are not perfectly complete but I do contend that they are sufficient for the discussion at-hand. If that is not the case, then please let me know where I have not been clear and I will try to rectify that situation.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Yeah, Right on Wednesday, Dec 21, 2011 7:15 PM (EST):

Dear “Yeah, Right” [sic]—

Regarding your formulation…

Definition: If Santa Clause Exists, then Santa Clause necessarily exists.
Premise: It is possible that Santa Clause exists.
Conclusion: God exists.
Poof! Santa is real.

...please note that the Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God and the Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God only work when the sujbect is “the greatest conceiveable being” or the “greatest possible being” or some similar variant.

That is why your formulation does not hold true.

If, however, one want to rename the terms and instead of saying “God” one wishes to use the term “Santa”, then the Ontolological Argument For The Existence Of God will still hold true, provided that the term “Santa” refers to “the greatest conceivable being”.

The Ontological Argument does not hold true for “any X” rather it holds true only for “exactly 1 X”, namely the “greatest conceivable being”.

See The identity of indiscernibles.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

“The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle which states that two or more objects or entities are identical (are one and the same entity) if they have all their properties in common.”

The common layperson’s formulation goes something like this—“if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck”, which is imprecise but generally adequate.

Shakespeare’s formulation goes something like this—“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, which leads to the truth of the matter delicately, as The Bard does so well.

So, I dare suggest that here we ought to discuss “The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of Santa” some other time (or perhaps not at all) and rather here direct our energies to stay on the topic “atheism” and “monotheism”.

So, to conclude, The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God only holds true if it is for the existence of “God” not some other non-God object.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@Mark: Beliefs are personal things, including the beliefs concerning gods; therefore, it’s quite silly to address a dictionary definition rather than addressing an individual and their beliefs. For instance, I would not address a dictionary definition of a theist or more specifically, a Christian, when addressing an actual person. I’d ask for a clarification of what they believe and why, and then continue from there.

So if you REALLY are “trying to be very clear”, then that’s where you should start. You have self-described atheists here. Allow them to explain themselves rather than trying to explain to them who or what they “really” are. Who knows, you might learn something!

[H]old on there partner, if we start getting into “my definition” and “your definition” then we cannot really have a discussion.

Over 2,000 sects of Christianity define themselves as Christians. That’s at least 2,000 different “my” and “your” definitions. Within that, I’d say every person has their idea of what “god” is, so I’d need to hear specifically how they define the word and this being and address that.

So I take it you have some kind of script or sermon worked out for a specific type of audience, a narrowly defined type of atheist. Am I correct? Why don’t you just deliver it anyway? Does it require a person to directly work off of? If so, I’ll play along and be the volunteer from the audience. Try it on me. Here it goes - I don’t believe that your god exists. Now let’s see you work your magic.

“please note that the Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God and the Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God only work when the sujbect is “the greatest conceiveable being” or the “greatest possible being” or some similar variant.”

Except the Ontological Argument fails when one assigned *any* other value to the *conceivable* being aside from *greatest possible*.  Hardly a convincing argument for any form of theism.

If I were to conceive the greatest/perfect lager, wouldn’t I still be thirsty?  Why the need for a special pleading in the form of “only applies to God?”

Hi Mark (Kamoski), and everyone else:

In this post I’m going to be rather repetitious, because these are the fundamental points that religious believers so often try to evade in such discussions as these, and they bear repeating, again and again, so everyone keeps them in mind.

1. The fundamental point is the fact that religious believers don’t have any good real world evidence for whatever god they believe in as being part of the reality.

2. Therefore, the task religious believers have - the task which they avoid at every opportunity (indeed, the religious literature is permeated with all manner of attacks against the very process of scientific investigation; point #3 below)  - is to actually produce some good real world evidence of whatever god they believe in. To do this they must conduct good scientific research and publish the results of their research in the professional scientific literature.

3. However, anti-science attitudes find great popularity among theists (including very much among Christians), while in discussions such as this between Christians and skeptics like atheists we find the skeptics supporting science (the scientific process being the preeminent example of dealing with and learning about reality through empirical investigation and rational analysis) in opposition to religious sophistry. The antagonism against and denigration of science by religious believers in regard to their religious beliefs is motivated precisely because their beliefs don’t have good scientific justification for them, i.e., because of point #1 above.

It is for these reasons that I refer to such religious arguments as the “ontological argument” as mere word games. They simply aren’t science. They have nothing to do with conducting scientific investigation of the real world. They are nothing more than verbal conjuring tricks used to try to fool people into thinking that somehow magically you can make things up about the nature and aspects of reality without any real world evidence of any kind. That’s exactly what conjuring is. It’s the same kind of magical incantation thinking that shamans, priests, and other “holy persons” have been doing for thousands of years to impress gullible, superstitious people. Which gives us the next point:

4. It’s impossible to merely define things into existence by playing games with words. You can’t conjure things into existence with verbal tricks. You can’t conjure things into existence with circular reasoning. In order to verify (or falsify) your ideas about reality you have to actually examine the real world itself. You have to TEST your ideas by acquiring relevant real world data and rationally analyzing that data to see whether or not your ideas are correct, or wrong. If they’re wrong, then you modify your ideas as appropriate (in accordance with what you’ve learned from the results of your empirical research).

As I’ve mentioned, the “ontological argument” is a perfect example of how Christians and other religious believers just make up empty (non-empirical) word games to try to distract from their failure to produce good scientific evidence for the god they believe in or for other associated religious beliefs (ghosts, angels, demons, mystical spirit worlds, etc.).

Religious belief is not, of course, anything like the scientific process. Religious belief consists of saying “This is what I’m going to believe no matter what”, and then trying, if at all possible, to make such an approach seem less irrational, more credible, by coming up with “interpretations” of what we actually have learned about the real world through scientific study (not actually doing any relevant scientific research) to make it seem as if the religious belief - which was never produced by scientific research and never had anything to do with science in the first place - has some sort of scientific backing. All motivated by cognitive dissonance.

In regard to the scientific process, which by the way is simply a very prominent example of doing work to satisfy basic epistemological principles, when we make claims about reality then we have to check things out by INVESTIGATING THE REAL WORLD ITSELF to get relevant data to see whether or not a claim is correct, and if the real world data contradicts the idea then we realize that the idea is false (falsified by the real world evidence) and we reject the idea and move on. Yet this is in fact the antithesis of religious faith - as religious believers themselves are only demonstrating for us by example all the time.

Of course, because science has become so developed in our culture (and in cultures across the world as scientific practices and awareness of the nature of scientific investigation have spread glabally) and has produced an extensive track record of stunning successes and advances, religious believers trying to ward off the fundamental threat of scientific thinking have in our day created a whole subculture of religious pseudoscience rhetoric and literature, in which they try to pretend that their religious beliefs are “scientific” - despite the fact that when we actually look at the thousands and thousands of scientific research articles published in all the branches of science, in the professional peer-reviewed science literature all over the world, there is literally not any scientific results showing any evidence of any god, or ghost, or angel, or demon, or mystical spirit world, or anything of the sort. In terms of science, the empirical claims (claims about reality) of religious beliefs - primitive notions that were made up by religious people thousands of years ago and passed on into cultural traditions - are a complete and utter failure.

The young earth creationists are great example of the pernicious, nefarious nature of this modern pseudoscience bent among Christians. They have a cornucopia of specific scientific claims running the gamut of scientific fields - geology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and so on - all based on the religious doctrine built on the stories in the Bible about God creating the heavens and the earth in six days and only about a couple of thousand years before a worldwide flood (which covered the highest mountain, according to Genesis) around 4,300 years ago that wiped out the entire human population except for eight people on a giant wooden ship. The young earth creationist chronology comes directly from the ages of people when their sons were born, which is given in the Bible with precise numbers of years.

The young earth creationists - and there are literally tens of millions of them in the United States alone - have produced a huge body of pseudoscience literature (hundreds of books) filled with all sorts of scientific claims and discussion about science, all to pretend that their religious belief is scientific, YET EVERY BIT OF IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG. Nothing of their scientific claims can actually be found in scientific research articles in the professional science literature. If you look at the professional science literature, young earth creationism literally just doesn’t exist there.

I’ve gone through all that discussion about young earth creationism for the purpose of providing a well known and obvious example of our historical and social context of religious believers spouting rhetoric for the very purpose of creating a facade of their beliefs being “science” when in fact they have nothing to do with science. They do this because even while they know that in regard to my points #1 and #2 above they have failed, with the prominence and credibility that science (including some basic level of awareness of the scientific process) in our culture today, religious believers feel strongly compelled to try to pretend that their rleigious beliefs have some sort of scientific credibility. That’s exactly what religious pseudoscience is for.

But - and this is a big BUT, and this is the point - the religious pseudoscience really is nothing more than false pretension because when we look at the actual results of scientific research in the professional science literature these religious beliefs can’t be found.

However, I will acknowledge the fact that, in one sense, even while it’s done in a very misleading way and filled with misinformation, the motivation for producing all this religious pseudoscience literature is at least based on one correct fundamental point, and that is that religious believers have the task of producing some good real world evidence of whatever god they believe in, to grant it any credibility (which is the first half of my point #2 above), even while they don’t actually follow through by actually producing actual scientific research results to back up their belief. (Note by the way that this is in direct contradiction to the other argument made by so many religious believers that their beliefs don’t need any scientific justification at all, but are based on religious faith, and religious faith justifies the truth of religious claims all on its own. Such contradiction is no surprise, of course, since religious rhetoric is well known for its incoherence.)

So, again, the issue - the ONLY issue - is the real world evidence. Either you have it to back up your belief in a god, or you don’t. Your task - your SOLE task - is to cite relevant scientific research results. Without that you have nothing.

And I’ll just end this post here, for length considerations, and follow it with a subsequent post at a later time, in which I’ll specifically address your last post to me.

- Steve Greene

In this post I want to specifically and solely point out the conceptual error of the “color blindness” analogy so often used by religious believers to describe atheists.

“Mike F.” wrote (12/20/2011 10:46 AM EST), “Perhaps asking someone who is actively committed to atheism to reconsider the evidence in front of his/her eyes for God’s existence is a bit like asking a color blind person to see color. Maybe they just don’t have the tools to perceive it - their “cones” are damaged/defective. Committed atheists are pretty rare - like the completely color blind.”

The very problem, of course, as atheists keep pointing out (and religious believers keep demonstrating) is that religious believers aren’t actually seeing such color as they claim to see. It would be like a person claiming he could see radio waves (frequencies of light in the radio wavelengths). Again, if he could really do it - and here’s the point - then we could research the claim scientifically and come up with relevant evidence supporting his claim - or, contrarily, we may find that his claim is false. In the case of religious belief claims, it’s the very case that the results of relevant scientific investigation shows that the claims made by religious believers are false.

Also very fortunately, I just recently read an excellent discussion of the error of this same rhetorical analogy on another blog a few days ago, which I’ll quote here because it expresses the criticism so thoroughly. This was written by Anton Mates in a response comment to the entry “Religious Experience” by Jason Rosenhouse at his blog “Evolutionblog” (12/19/2011). All of the rest of this post is a quotation of Anton Mates’ post there.

- Steve Greene

| [W]e don’t define tone deafness and color blindness on the
| basis of differences in subjective experience, but on the
| basis of objective ability.
|
| Most people can accurately distinguish between two tuning
| forks with (significantly) different resonant frequencies,
| simply by listening to the sounds they produce. A
| tone-deaf person can’t do this task, but they can observe
| and agree that other people are successful at it.
|
| Again, if you give most people a shuffled stack of cards
| of two different hues, they can reliably sort it into two
| smaller stacks, each containing the same cards every time.
| A color-blind person can’t do this, but if the cards are
| labeled on the back or something, they’re quite capable of
| perceiving that other people do sort them the same way
| every time.
|
| Note that this sort of basic research does not require
| high technology or advanced science. You don’t need to
| build machines that can detect color or pitch. Nor do all
| subjects with “normal” senses need to agree that a
| particular stimulus corresponds to the same color/pitch
| experience. In fact, it’s fine if the experience is
| completely “inexpressible,” as many mystical experiences
| seem to be. Bats can’t talk, but we knew they had a “sixth
| sense” long before we understood anything about the
| mechanics of echolocation. Let a bat fly around a
| pitch-black room, notice that it doesn’t bump into
| anything, done.
|
| So if you’re going to draw an analogy between lack of
| religious experience and color-blindness or tone-deafness,
| then the question is: What can the person who has
| religious experiences do, that the “god-blind” person
| cannot? Are religious historians better than nonreligious
| historians at distinguishing authentic relics from frauds?
| Is the believer better than a similarly-educated
| nonbeliever at sorting religious scriptures by faith
| tradition? If you block a believer’s vision, hearing and
| sense of smell, and carry them into various churches, can
| they use their sense of the divine to identify which
| church they’re in? Does their reported experience at least
| correlate with which church they’re in? Or what?
|
| Theologians may object that religious experiences still
| tell us about “religious realities,” but are too
| infrequent, ambiguous or test-shy for this sort of
| research. Fair enough, but in that case the analogy to the
| ordinary senses is a non-starter. When you experience a
| perception which does not correlate with any detectable
| external stimulus, we normally call that a hallucination.

@Yeah

Just because you can conceive of a thing does not make it a reality.  I can conceive of greater or lessor things that simply do not exist.  Because you are left thirsty by conceiving something of something less than “the greatest conceivable being” brings us to the is/ought issue.  Because something can be reasoned and ought to be true, it is a non sequitur to assume it is true.

@Mark,

Your claims of fact do not impress.  It is an intellectually dishonest approach when one uses a narrow term definition when that person knows well that his opponent is using a different definition.  I can read as you can and have read several different definitions of atheism that differ from yours.  Your rigid definition to the term undermines your credibility on this issue.  Why do you maintain a deaf ear to the objections of your critics?

@ Post by Steve Greene on Thursday, Dec 22, 2011 12:51 PM (EST):

Dear Steve Green (and all)—

The quest for “real evidence” is not as “real” as it seems when one considers the terms and conditions and the “we can’t really explain that yets”, such as.

Dark matter, which is somewhere around 80% or more of the mass of the universe.

A point, which is a construct with no height, no width, no depth—how is that “real”? It is not, rather it is a concept.

Measuring rods remain invariant as they undergo positional changes. “Well sub-atomically they don’t”, cries the String Theorist (or whatever the theorist of the moment is these days). To which one simply replies—OK so how many pounds of bologna DID you order then at the deli? Etc.

Other minds exist, that is not “provable”, or at least has yet to be proven.

Etc, etc, etc.

There are a lot of axioms of “real science” that are simply accepted as true and not proven, as well as things that go unexplained.

I just have to quote a writer better than I, as follows…

“science can explain nothing except in terms of the laws of nature”

“laws of nature are nothing more than descriptions of the way nature operates”

“This creates a dilemma; the laws of nature cannot exist without nature itself existing but the origin of nature cannot be explained scientifically without pre-existing laws”

“The logical conclusion is that science cannot, by its very nature, explain the origin of the universe”

...etc…

http://whomadegod.org/2011/08/could-a-universe-create-itself/

...and so THAT is what science give us, a lot of little explanations and “real evidence” but, at the foundation without God.

For the atheist, that is BIG problem because while he or she claims to have explained some one thing or another he or she has actually no foundational principle without God and thereby has truly explained nothing.

Now, logic and math, those are pure and, in general, the only areas of certainty.

And, by the way, BIG parts of science rely heavily on the principles of logic and math, and thereby science inherits some credibility from

That is not to say that one ought not accept working scientific models and theories and experiments—but, one ought not bow down to them and pretend they are perfect.

So, to dismiss logic is to dismiss reason itself and, as such, thereby the very means to meaningfully discuss anything.

Logic is not ether, much to the opposite, it is foundational—if the true/false tables fail then everything fails.

HTH.

Thanks and may God be with you.

=- Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Kent on Thursday, Dec 22, 2011 2:04 PM (EST):

Dear Kent—

Regarding this…

I can read as you can and have read several different definitions of atheism that differ from yours

...wait just a minute.

The definitions I cited are from well-known, commonly-accepted sources, they are “my” definitions.

For crying out cornflakes, I quoted the “American Atheists” web site for the definition of “atheism”, so that IS a good source.

If one does not agree upon terms then discussion is not possible.

As such, I will, once again, direct my discussion to “those who believe that God does not exist”.

I do respect and know and understand that some people may not fall into that category and to that I say AMEN and I am not as worried about such people, at least they have some kind of hope, light, etc.

So, Kent, do you believe that God does not exist?

Either way, I love you and will pray for you, but it would be nice to know so that I may thereby fine-tune my love and prayer accordingly.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Steve Greene on Thursday, Dec 22, 2011 1:33 PM (EST):

Dear Steve Greene (and all)—

First, regarding this…

We don’t define tone deafness and color blindness on the basis of differences in subjective experience, but on the basis of objective ability

...I will simply reply by question—where does that “objective” part come from in science?

If it is really objective, then it is absolute, and there we are back on track to finding yet more proof for the First Cause Argument, The Fine Tuning Argument, The Argument From Conscience, etc.

If it is not really objective but only “assumed to be objective by virture of consistent results”, then it is only working theory.

Regarding this…

Theologians may object that religious experiences still tell us about “religious realities,” but are too infrequent, ambiguous or test-shy for this sort of research. Fair enough, but in that case the analogy to the | ordinary senses is a non-starter.

...I say “not so” because most analogies are not perfect, as this one is not. It is the case where Thing A is “kind of like” but at the same time “not exactly like” Thing B.

That does not make analogies unproductive. They are devices to get at the truth, signs pointing the way.

In this case, the terms are in the “spiritual world” and the the “material world”—that is why monotheists often get back to pure logic because the discussion of spirtual matters is very difficult with someone who keeps shutting his falculties for spiritual vision. However, I did pose a spirtual experiment (above) and I know that repeating that experiment is quite fruitful, I have lots of “data” on it.

But, even there, it is NOT true that such demonstration does not exist—what about The First Cause Argument?

Still no pure science person has answered this here. We have second causes galore in the real world. Sheesh, the WHOLE foundation of the scientific method DEPENDS necessiarily on the fact that one thing causes another, etc. Things have a cause, that is the whole “where is the source of X” question that science folks cry. And, before we get to the same spot again, infinite regression does NOT work because then there would be no second cause(s).

Finally, and again, without The Argument From Design, then science only explains very small things and still has not produced any evidence for the Grand Design of the universe itself, the Design Of Reality itself.

Add to that the fact (as noted above) that science can only explain reality via discovered natural laws AND at the same time natural laws can only come from observed reality, the chicken-and-egg quandary looms large for the science-only proponents.

Sorry, Steve, while the person you quote is right to point out that the analogy is not perfect, he also fails to show that it is not applicable.

HTH.

Thanks and may God let his face shine on you.

—Mark Kamoski

@Mark

Thank you for your well wishes.  As I posted earlier, my belief is that there probably is no god, but I cannot be absolutely certain.  I cannot be certain there is not a tea pot orbiting the earth either, but both seem extremely improbable.  You can label that belief any way you’d like, but that is my lack of belief in a god or gods. 

Happy Solstice and a Merry Christmas to Everyone!

Mark Kamoski,

So that is still a no on the evidence thing?  Right?

I like how you bring up *dark matter*, yet forget to include that there is actual evidence to support the theory. 

“So, to dismiss logic is to dismiss reason itself and, as such, thereby the very means to meaningfully discuss anything.”

Nice try.  Logic is studied as a means of testing the validity of arguments.  Logic limits its concern strictly to problems of validity, leaving the task of obtaining true or well-confirmed premises it leaves to other disciplines.

In other words without evidence Logic is useless as it has no bearing on reality.  Get it yet?

Hi Mark,

Regarding the criticism of the analogy religious believers use about atheists being color-blind (which is the only issue I’ll address in this post), I was not pointing out that the analogy was an imperfect fit, I was pointing out how the analogy was just plain wrong, or “inapplicable” as you state. That was exactly my point. And in your response you did not in any way whatsoever explain how the criticism I explained (and which was explained in even more detail by Anton Mates) might be wrong.

Now, I realize you wrote a whole bunch of words, but none of them dealt with the criticism in any substantive way. Indeed, your response was a great example showing how religious believers throw a whole bunch of higgledy-piggledy at something they want to disagree with to try to support their religious rhetoric without actually dealing with it in a substantive, relevant way.

Throwing “the First Cause Argument, The Fine Tuning Argument, The Argument From Conscience” at it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point (and utterly irrelevant to the fact that objective empirical observation works, such as in the example of observing the fact that people - who are not color blind - are able to correctly and consistently sort randomly shuffled colored cards into stacks of a single color). As Mates pointed out, people who are color blind observe this same fact about people who are not color blind.

Playing word games with “subjective” or “objective” or red herring rhetoric like “First Cause Argument” does not change the facts about this in the slightest. Even your comment “assumed to be objective by virture of consistent results” is wrong precisely because of the word “assumed”. Obviously if the observational facts (the evidence) are that people who are not color blind are able to correctly and consistently sort the cards, then is it not “assumed” because those are the facts.

Now, I certainly understand that religious believers are highly motivated to perform all sorts of rhetorical acrobatics to avoid just dealing with the facts, and dealing with the factual errors of the word games they play (such as pretending that atheists not “seeing” alleged scientific evidence for the existence of a god - none of which, by the way, can actually be found in any of the professional peer-reviewed science literature, but which is found only in religious apologist pseudoscience literature), precisely because they have no genuine intention of just dealing with the facts, and no intention of correcting the conceptual errors that are so pervasive in religious rhetoric (such as the “atheists are like color blind people, and religious believers are like people who can see color” analogy).

Why? It’s simple. Because religious belief isn’t a matter of science. Religious belief is not the result of scientific investigation of the real world, and it is not the result of the epistemological considerations that science is a preeminent example of taking account of. The scientific approach is that ideas must be TESTED against relevant real world evidence, and must pass the tests. And if they fail the tests, then you reject, or at least modify in a substantive way, the ideas until they correspond to the real world information that has been acquired. The approach of religious faith is the antithesis of this, where testing such believe against relevant real world evidence is not only considered completely irrelevant (we’re talking about religious faith), but the beliefs are adhered to even when there exists relevant scientific discoveries that show that the beliefs are just plain wrong. (Witness, for example, the manner in which young earth creationists, following the way of religious faith, adhere to their empirically false belief that the universe and the earth have not existed for more than about 6,000 years.)

To follow the analogy we’re discussing, religious believers would have to empirically demonstrate that they are able to “correctly and consistently sort the cards” - yet religious believers have NEVER demonstrated any such thing.

That is the fact that no religious red herring rhetoric can change. And what’s quite telling is that even when that specific fact (the inability of religious believers to “correctly and consistently sort the cards”), which is a simple and obvious fact to comprehend concerning the erroneous nature of the rhetoric of the religious “color blind atheists” analogy, is something you yet cannot bear to acknowledge in any way.

I would even say that’s another symptom of the religious mentality.

No one lacks god belief. “Lack” is not a neutral term denoting absence or without, it clearly is used to denote deficiency (ie - lack funds, lack sleep, lack time, etc). No one says they lack cancer, lack pain, lack stress, etc. So to the atheists out there, please, stop saying you lack belief. That saying was cooked up by the religious to pejoratively refer to atheists, so why help them out?

Semantics and dictionary nazis are so boring.

Kent,

What you’ve actually “educated” me (and everyone else here) on is the fact that you have difficulty admitting when you make a mistake.  By the actual definition, Cronin’s arguments were not “ad hominem”.  Period.  The definition is the definition.  What you’ve given above are rationalizations and obfuscations.

I don’t think you quite got the color blind thing, Steve.  The point is, materialist atheists look at the creation and perceive mere randomness and purposelessness.  No meaning.  No love - at least beyond the physical firing of neurons.  I think the disconnect is that, on the practical level, most all materialist atheists live their actual lives as though there really is meaning, purpose and love (beyond the mere purposeless firing of neurons).

It seems to me that, even if the theist is wrong,  he is least being consistent and rational in his error -  living in a way that makes sense according to his best understanding.  But the atheist claims to KNOW that the whole thing is basically a mirage and a sham.  There is no objective purpose.  No objective meaning.  What is, just is.  If they’re right, then what a pitiable, self-deluded lot these atheists are!  Why go along with the mass of humanity that believes in such non-existant things as objective purpose and meaning?  Love?  The whole construct of civilization, right and wrong, good and evil, the idea that humanity should even strive to survive is all just meaningless drivel spewed forth by deluded automatons.  Why aren’t you atheists all out and about trying to convince the world that it doesn’t matter what happens because the very idea of “mattering” implies purpose and meaning, which do not exist objectively.  Hitler wasn’t wrong.  He wasn’t right.  He just lost.  Objectively, it doesn’t matter whether we blow the world up with nuclear bombs or if there’s global warming. 

Personally, I think that the atheists here are naught more than somewhat advanced chatterbots, spouting what they must.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatterbot  After all, they’re just a cluster of neurons responding to local stimuli.  They only appear to “care” about this article in the way that an electron might appear to care about its nucleus because it circles it.

Phillychief -

We can all use Google.  Why not actually pick up the book instead -  The Resurrection of the Son of God - and try to honestly understand Wright’s argumentation?  What’s to lose?  Your life has no objective purpose or meaning anyway according to materialist atheism.  You might even find out that you actually do matter. 
 

As to ad hominem, of course my comment was directed at you given the context.  Are you saying you’ve actually read the book and have thoroughly studied the argumentation pro and con?  Really?

Serpico why do you have such a need for meaning and purpose? Do you suffer from depression? You sound like a drug addict trying to defend an addiction.

Yeah, Right -

As I believe that I have a purpose and my life has meaning (and therefore my time is valuable), I’m not going to waste time arguing with someone who believes he’s basically an advanced chatterbot.  Although, really, at least a chatterbot is the product of design and intelligence.  The material atheist isn’t even that much, at least according to his belief system.

For what it’s worth, I wish y’all well.  Sincerely.  But I think this combox has more than run its course.

@Mark

“...and I said it is pre-cursor to the Moral Argument For The Existence Of God because, objective and independent lead to “absolute”, and as such, it is short leap to see the absolute basis for a moral order, namely God. It really is that simple.”

Except I don’t see it as being that simple. Morality to me is a matter of how we treat each other, and I don’t find morality to be absolute, at least not in the same sense that you do. This is because moral systems are based on values, and different people hold different values. Within the framework of a certain set of values, you could certainly say that there is an objective “best” set of actions that would constitute morality in the context of that set of values, but someone holding an entirely different set of values may find at least some of those actions to be immoral. How then can you determine that there’s an absolute best set of values? What people think is the best set of values seems entirely opinion based, rather than being objective facts that apply to everyone - just because there are objective facts doesn’t mean that there’s an objectively best way for a living thing to deal with them. To assert otherwise seems to just be an assertion.

“let’s say that someone on the street tells you that an invisible, ethereal being called “Snorf” exists and that if you can bring him into your life it’ll be wonderful and everything will be improved

...is said being has all the properties of “God” but one chooses to call it “Snorf” then the conversation would be about one and the same things. Renaming does not change God.”

Ok, let’s say it’s clearly a different deity with a different mythology and even a different set of moral laws than your god has. Let’s call it Zeus. What then? How is the challenge any different from before when you apply it to a different deity? Would you keep trying then?

“You seem like a nice person

...that is kind of you to say and I would say the same about you and, in fact, that is why I am trying to ask you to try to seek God.”

Well that seems a strange reason - aren’t you supposed to get everyone to try to seek God, regardless of how nice they seem?

@Serpico

As I stated in the very first comment, most of us atheists do find there to be meaning in the universe. We just don’t find there to be an intrinsic meaning that exists outside of our minds. The meaning is a personal one. It’s not a disconnect, it’s a different way of thinking. Again, just because you can’t find any value in an existence that doesn’t have something beyond the physical doesn’t mean we have to do the same - that’s your problem, not ours.

Beautiful piece!  Wow, atheists sure like reading religious blogs, I guess. Interesting, that.

“Beautiful piece!  Wow, atheists sure like reading religious blogs, I guess. Interesting, that.”

Go figure, FRANK CRONIN figured out the formula to drive traffic.  Instead of extolling the virtues of being Catholic, attack the atheist and watch the traffic roll in.  Pure money.

“As I believe that I have a purpose and my life has meaning (and therefore my
time is valuable), I’m not going to waste time arguing with someone who
believes he’s basically an advanced chatterbot.”....

So that is a *no* on the evidence thing again?

@ Serpico: The book’s historicity addresses the rise of the BELIEF of resurrection, not the alleged resurrection itself. He claims to address the historicity of the resurrection, but he merely speculates about the motives of believers at the time and he tries to support his speculations with his research on the culture. That’s not evidence, especially when we really don’t know who actually wrote the books of the Christian new testament. To write such a long book simply to form an argument of personal incredulity (can’t imagine any other reason for people believing it happened unless it did) is amusing, but hardly evidential.

What you believers have to realize is works like his aren’t for convincing non-believers, they’re for bolstering the faith of those who already believe. Faith alone isn’t enough for most people these days, so today’s proselytizers and apologists must concoct pseudo-science, “research” and logical rationales to justify faith (or as I say, provide an excuse to indulge in faith). So offering these things up for atheists is really a waste of everyone’s time. The best thing you all can do is simply stop bothering others and be examples of good, happy people.

Lastly, choosing to believe there’s a god who provides objective meaning doesn’t make it true. Furthermore, your choice to believe that is no different than anyone else’s choice to believe any other meanings for life and everything else. I wish you religious folk would realize that, at least insofar that you’ll understand that telling atheists they have no meaning to their lives is another waste of time because we don’t think that at all.

Enjoyed the piece.  There are many layers to this onion.

To John D. ~  isn’t the point that the atheist doesn’t (and in fact, by definition, can’t) actually “find” any meaning in the universe at all, in the strict sense of the term?  “Finding” meaning would tend to imply its existence outside of the electrical activity inside the atheist’s brain, an objective reality.  To the atheist, meaning is nothing more than a personally created delusion, an epiphenomenon of purely physical, determined processes. 

Here, you essentially acknowledged that according to your belief, your life is intentionally lived in a state of self-created delusion (of course, the concepts of intentionality and sentience themselves are also problematic for materialistic atheism, but that’s another discussion).  Under this construct, you can have no intrinsic purpose, value or meaning John, regardless of what delusion you choose to create in your mind.  So why intentionally delude yourself to the contrary?  Why choose to live in the delusion of the theist while being an enlightened atheist who knows better?  Why is the group of atoms collectively known as John D. doing this?  (To that question, in keeping with atheistic principles, I would like a bio-chemical answer, please, not a philosophical one).

And theists are supposed to be the delusional ones?  Even if we’re wrong, at least we don’t intentionally live in a self-created delusion.  It doesn’t seem surprising to me that so few choose atheism. If one is going to choose to live in a self-created delusion, why choose such a depressing one?

@ Wes: When I was helping a friend clear out some of his father’s things from his workshop after he died, I cut my hand on a rusty pull tab from an old soda can (yes, they once came off rather then just pushing in the opening like today). His mom asked what happened while getting me a bandage and I showed her the tab. She took it from my hand and started weeping. I hadn’t noticed a little string tied to the ring, but she did and recognized it as the one from her first date with her now dead husband. The tab had no demonstrably intrinsic meaning, but it had a meaning for her. Would you call her “delusional” as well, Wes?

““Finding” meaning would tend to imply its existence outside of the electrical activity inside the atheist’s brain, an objective reality.”

Why?  What is this meaning that you claim to have that is objective?  If it is truly objective why then would it not hold true for all parties involved regardless of theological leanings?  Can you demonstrate the existence of this objective meaning?

“And theists ... don’t intentionally live in a self-created delusion.”

That’s ... ballsy.

@ Post by Kent on Thursday, Dec 22, 2011 5:34 PM (EST):

Dear Kent—

Regarding this…

my belief is that there probably is no god, but I cannot be absolutely certain

...that is VERY good news to me, strange as that may seem. I do believe in God and, as such, I worry the most about those who claim that it the possibility of God existing is non-existent. As

long as one holds the case open to investigation, as long as there is a chance of a chance, then there is hope. And that is good. IMHO.

Regarding this…

I cannot be certain there is not a tea pot orbiting the earth either, but both seem extremely improbable

...that is OK, “extremely improbable” sounds good to me. Not ideal, but at least there is some sliver, a crack whereby light may enter.

Regarding this…

You can label that belief any way you’d like, but that is my lack of belief in a god or gods.\

...OK, but I do not want to “label it”, rather I am just trying to understand it, etc. As such, it is very kind of you to share your explanation of your beliefs.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!!!

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Yeah, Right on Thursday, Dec 22, 2011 5:50 PM (EST):

Regarding this…

So that is still a no on the evidence thing?  Right?

...no, actually, that is a “yes” as I present as the “evidence” the aforementioned logical arguments and, in fact, the existence of reality itself. As I said, if one rejects logic then one cannot make any claims to the truth. Furthermore, the “evidence by the natural laws”, as you seem to yearn for, still leaves the universe itself unexplained because such “natural laws” are only observations of something that already exists. The observations cannot exist unless there is something to observe. And yet, the paradox that the atheist must contend with, is the fact that the “natural laws” themselves are derived from something they propose to “define”. Therein is the circular problem for the atheist. Such laws must pre-exist such a universe for them them to hold work, and yes, I say—they DO exist eternally—in the mind of God. The atheist has no answer and so he of she continues to chase his or her tail without ever admitting to the need for a foundation.

Regarding this…

I like how you bring up *dark matter*, yet forget to include that there is actual evidence to support the theory

...well, no, I do not ignore the “actual evidence” but I do point out that (1) there is currently just theory to offer a possible explanation and (2) that theory is only supported by the observations of the universe itself and, as such, the natural laws by which it formulates such a hypothesis only exist after the universe exists and thereby, as above, present only a working set of observations but do not provide an answer to how such natural laws exist before the nature which they observe. The universe depends on the natural laws of science while, at the same time in a perfect circle, the natural laws depend on first having a universe to observe. That is “support” of a kind but it is only support of a “theory”, that is all.

Regarding this…

Logic limits its concern strictly to problems of validity

...that is not quite complete and therefore not quite correct, that is we have…

In philosophy, Logic (from the Greek ?????? logik?)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/atheism-and-the-myth-of-love/

...so we must add the “correct reasoning” part and that is exactly what I am referencing when I say, above and here below, as follows…

to dismiss logic is to dismiss reason itself and, as such, thereby the very means to meaningfully discuss anything

...so, I guess we may be at an impass. I contend that we cannot really think about anything, including reality, and share said thoughts, without logic itself. It appears that you are saying something different. Perhaps you are saying that without reality we cannot use logic. You seem to be saying that reality itself is a “foundational principle”, a thing that without which there is nothing existing. That sounds familiar. OK, well, let us “go” with that idea. I like it because it harkens back to what I have said from the beginning of this thread—without a First Cause, then reality itself does not exist, which is in essence, the same is saying “without reality then nothing makes sense” or similar statements. So, again, we are back at The First Cause Argument For The Existence Of God and The Argument From Design, etc. So, “yes” I do get it.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Steve Greene on Thursday, Dec 22, 2011 6:36 PM (EST):

Dear Steve Greene—

While I do appreciate your reply, I find it a bit problematic.

First, you reject the arguments of logic and reason (First Cause Argument, Modal Ontological Argument, Argument From Design, Etc).

That is sad because they are closely tied to the “science” and “evidence” which you seek.

Second, you reject the “spiritual experiment” that I propose.

That is sad because you are asking for a material proof of a spirtual exercise.

I say—do the experiment and you will “find God” in some way and I say that this “experiment” is repeatable and verifiable by billions of people worldwide.

You say, the observations and data provided by billions of experimenters is not good enough for you.

That is VERY odd, considering that “science” relies, necessarily, on observation and data.

The problem is atheists say things like “use a ruler to measure the immaterial God” and I say that is a logical absurdity.

It is like asking one to “measure love” with a ruler.

Now, the pure science crowd may say “well we CAN measure ‘love’ via observations of chemistry and electricity” and the monotheists say “no that is incorrect because ‘love’ does not depend upon chemistry or electricity or biology”. Monotheists state that “love” can exist without chemistry or electricity or biology, but it is true that it may be expressed as such. Love is, at the core, an act of the will. It is accompanied, often but not necessarily so, by chemistry and electricity and biology and emotion and thoughts, but it is not those self-same things.

Now, the odd part is that many atheists say things like “well ‘love’ is that self-same chemical and biological and electrical things happening in a person”. And, then when the monotheist says “well is that ALL that love is to you?”, at which point the atheist often gets indignant and says something like “how dare you belittle my views of love”. That is VERY strange because the monotheist has simply restated what the atheist claim to “measure love” says, like the author of this article.

The athesist says: Love can be measured by science, chemical reactions, etc.

The monotheist says: That is sad that that is all love is to the atheist.

The atheist says: Wait a minute, love to me is much MORE and it is very meaningful beyond science.

The monotheist says: Exactly my point.

God is infinite and, as such, immeasurable—but one can experience God, get to know God, via the spiritual experiment that you propose. So, maybe the discussion comes does to the question of the existense of the soul.

So “sort the cards” you say.

OK, I can do that (along with billions of others), we do it daily—it is called “prayer”, communion with the living God, Truth itself.

But, while we can witness and come to know God, we at the same admit that it is by God’s grace itself that we pray and, as such, we must reject the hubris to think that I know and understand all of God—rather we are thankful to be given even a glimpse of a glimpse.

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Psy Monday, Dec 26, 2011 3:24 PM (EST):

Dear Psy—

Regarding this…

Serpico why do you have such a need for meaning and purpose?

...that would be a very strange question from an atheist that claims there is no meaning to anything, there is no purpose to anything.

It is easy to see that a person who truly believed there were no meaning or purpose to anything would not bother with such statements, as they are, by the given cosmology, meaningless.

That would be a strange conversation indeed, between a person that believes there is no meaning to anything and a person who does not subscribe to that view. Odd indeed.

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

“no, actually, that is a “yes” as I present as the “evidence” the aforementioned logical arguments and, in fact, the existence of reality itself. As I said, if one rejects logic then one cannot make any claims to the truth.”

Logical arguments are not evidence.  Logical arguments only by necessity have to remain internally coherent.  In the real world outside of theology logical arguments are then handed off to other disciplines for confirmation with Evidence and observation.

“That is sad because they are closely tied to the “science” and “evidence” which you seek.”

No they are not, but you seem to ignore this.  Evidence, as I ask for, is facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.  Logical Arguments by their very nature are precluded.

“Second, you reject the “spiritual experiment” that I propose.”

Because it is not a *experiment*.  It does not rely on observation or evidence.

“You say, the observations and data provided by billions of experimenters is not good enough for you.”

There is no data, or real observation with said experiment.  Simply believing hard enough doesn’t produce data, or evidence.

“That is VERY odd, considering that “science” relies, necessarily, on observation and data.”

Right.  Where is the data and observational evidence from the thousands and millions of experiments you claim?  Right, yeah, doesn’t exist does it?

“The athesist says: Love can be measured by science, chemical reactions, etc.”

The only one here that is saying this is you and your ilk.  Love is a feeling..get it yet?  Or do you feel the need to objectify all feelings?  In that case lets talk about the foundation of guilt, hate, shame, revenge?

“It is like asking one to “measure love” with a ruler.”

Or saying that Love is God and tossing away the ruler…..

“The monotheist says: That is sad that that is all love is to the atheist.”

The atheist says:  It is sad that theists have dumbed down such a complex and wonderful feeling as love to a imaginary being who’s existence is not even represented by reality.

“God is infinite and, as such, immeasurable”

So you keep claiming.  I’ll wait for the evidence though.

All Marks are elephants.
Mark Kamoski is a Mark.
Therefore Mark Kamoski is an elephant.

That’s the value of logical arguments alone as evidence. ;)

Oh, and please read up on what is a scientific theory as opposed to what we colloquially refer to as a theory, Mark.

“Logic limits its concern strictly to problems of validity

“In philosophy, Logic (from the Greek ?????? logik?)[1] is the formal
systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.”

Which has nothing to do with physical or observational evidence…by the way.

“to dismiss logic is to dismiss reason itself and, as such, thereby the very
means to meaningfully discuss anything”

Asking for evidence is not dismissing reason.  It is asking to validate it.  Nice word game though.

Mark Kamoski, yes it is strange, I can’t relate to all this doom and gloom talk. I don’t feel this hopelessness and depression that many here seem to associate with the idea of a meaningless existence without purpose. The arguments here come across as as sales pitch for a product I have no use for, aimed at people who can not accept things they can not change.

Being happy and positive seems to be part of my nature. Many of my religious friends tell me I am very spiritual and I have no idea what they mean other than having a positive outlook and after 50 some years I still see the world and life with the same wonder I saw it with as a child.

What is it that you have lost that you need a belief system and an illusion of meaning and purpose?

@ Post by John D. on Monday, Dec 26, 2011 7:12 PM (EST):

Dear John D.—

Regarding this…

What people think is the best set of values seems entirely opinion based, rather than being objective facts that apply to everyone

...ah, but then, in that case, there is no morality. What is more, there cannot be any without a moral absolute. Rather, in moral relativism, moral choice it just a matter of opinion. This is seductive talk and seems “clever” however one is very hard-pressed to find a human who actually adheres to such a cosmology. The moral relativist gets indignant when he or she should not, given that just because one person or another decides to treat the moral relativist at the whimsy of “opinion”. Conscience is a roadmap. I paraphrase Peter Kreet, as he puts it nicely—the authority of conscience is absolute, but that is not the same thing as saying conscience is infallible. That a “best” exists, in terms of moral order, does not mean that we humans would necessarily be able to know and understand it completely—however, it is the case that humans can understand it sufficiently and, as we learn, we approach it perhaps “asymptotically” in terms of understanding.

Regarding this…

just because there are objective facts doesn’t mean that there’s an objectively best way

...no, but to subscribe to the dogmatic negative is folly and presumptous. Rather, we do have a preponderance of evidence that there is a discernable and identifiable moral foundatation, via the observation of human kind. Across time and space there are many similar moral axioms. We can state many. For example, humans respect life, especially their own. This is expressed in the common desire not to be slapped in the face up to the desire to protect one’s own life. This is extended to spouse and children. No, this is not perfectly adhered to in all humans, but it is universally observable as “something very important” at least and few, if any, rational humans today invite violence on thier own person. That is one example of many.

Finally, we note that the dictatorship of moral relativism, (and relativism as a whole) is self-defeating.

“If the moral relativist states “there is no absolute morality,” he just made an absolute statement about morality which, by his own definition he is not allowed to do.”

http://www.prudentmusings.com/apologetics/moral-relativism-failure-4-self-refuting/

That is pretty much it for moral relativism.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by PhillyChief on Tuesday, Dec 27, 2011 2:48 PM (EST):

Dear PhillyChief—

Regarding this new-message of yours…

The tab [which reminded her of her late husband] had no demonstrably intrinsic meaning, but it had a meaning for her.

...that is EXACTLY the point, love has meaning outside of “evidence” and “demonstration” by the sciences.

That “meaning” has, as it root, God.

That is, love IS real beyond physical bio-chemical accompaniments.

Therefore, we quickly get to the point that love is an infinite and absolute principle, which cannot be quantified sufficiently by science at-large.

However, in your old-message, you said this…

Love, like every other thought and emotion, is a function of the brain

...which seems to imply that love IS just a matter of the bio-chemical-electric process of the flesh.

So, it is confusing now since you state this new-message and, when put side-by-side with your old-message, it seems incompatible.

Either an absolute principle, love, exists or it does not.

Are you saying love IS merely a bio-chemical reaction, a “function of the “electric meat” we call humanity?

Or, are you saying that love IS NOT just a “function of the brain” but actually something more to it?

Please do clarify.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Yeah, Right on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 9:53 AM (EST):

Dear “Yeah, Right” (sic)—

Regarding this…

Because it [the given prayer experiment] is not a *experiment*.  It does not rely on observation or evidence

...that is a false claim because it exactly and specifically relies on the observations of the person conducting the experiment. Science does this all the time, it is the golden rule of science. Observe experience. Pray and observe the experience. BTW, I did not say it would be easy to pray. It is, in fact, very hard. However, anyone can do it.

Regarding this…

There is no data, or real observation with said [prayer] experiment

...that is also false. When a person performs Action P and says afterward “while performing Action P, I observed such-and-such” that is a real observation and real data. How can it not be? One either trusts the brain (and its observations) or one does not. As has been pointed out many times, the monotheist has MUCH more firm ground here becasue, afterall, the monotheist has God as the creator of the brain, as such it can be trusted. The atheist has random chance and chaos as the source of his or her brain, but such a source makes the product unworthy of trust. But, the atheist does trust his or her brain. I believe this is because the atheist knows that there IS something more than random and chance behind the creation of the brain. Evolution is the source, the atheist says, the brain’s design comes from “evolution”. And the monotheist says that is but still more proof of the Great Designer, God. Evolution is just a “theory” by the way; but, that is a bit tangential.

Regarding this…

I’ll wait for the evidence

...it appears that if one will not accept the testimony of billions about their observations, and we must I appeal to your actual experience. To further limit the variables, I will call attention the subject of the seminal article, namely “love”. Do claim to have no experience or observation of love outside of feeling and chemistry and electricity?

There is the atheistic views of love to address. Do you claim love is one “simply having a sensation”, as Cronin notes some do? Cronin makes the matter even more stark and plain, asking “when your atheist spouse hugs you, are you just his or her favorite biochemical mass, his or her favorite pile of organic matter, his or her favorite animal in the species?”. And Cronin also asks, “When he or she says, ‘I love you’, does he or she really think this is merely an attempt to enhance survival”.

Do YOU agree or disagree with these atheistic views of love?

If it is “agree”, then perhaps we cannot then discuss “love” at all.

If it is the “disagree”, then I submit YOUR observations as “real data” and “real evidence”, and then I will ask you to explain—what do YOU find as the source and explanation of such “love”?

Please advise.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Psy on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 12:28 PM (EST):

Dear Psy—

Regarding this…

after 50 some years I still see the world and life with the same wonder I saw it with as a child

...ah, there you have it, and it begs the question—what is the SOURCE of the wonder?

Regarding this…

What is it that you have lost that you need a belief system and an illusion of meaning and purpose?

...you have presupposed that I have lost something. No, if anything, we could say I have found something, or more correctly someone. More properly speaking, however, I would need to say “someone found me”, as my mere human intelligence is not capable of finding God without His grace, both the natural light of reason and the the supernatural revelation he offers as a gift. The funny thing about gifts, however, is that one must accept them and open them. Meaning and purpose are part of that gift too.

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@Mark: I’m afraid your trouble with logic is not recognizing the importance of your premises. I thought I made that clear with my elephant example. See, if you simply assert as premises that love transcends the mind and the source of it is your god, then you can keep making your arguments but there’s no evidence to support those premises. In fact, there’s considerable evidence to the contrary, specifically that all thoughts and emotions are functions of the brain, just like there’s considerable evidence that all Marks are not elephants.

The fact that you have trouble with accepting that thoughts and emotions are products of the brain has no bearing on its truth. Denigrate that reality all you like with comments like “electric meat”, but you’re just wasting yours and everybody else’s time.

@Mark: I’m afraid your trouble with logic is not recognizing the importance of your premises. I thought I made that clear with my elephant example. See, if you simply assert as premises that love transcends the mind and the source of it is your god, then you can keep making your arguments but there’s no evidence to support those premises. In fact, there’s considerable evidence to the contrary, specifically that all thoughts and emotions are functions of the brain, just like there’s considerable evidence that all Marks are not elephants. <em><em>

The fact that you have trouble with accepting that thoughts and emotions are products of the brain has no bearing on its truth. Denigrate that reality all you like with comments like “electric meat”, but you’re just wasting yours and everybody else’s time.

@ Post by PhillyChief on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 2:32 PM (EST):

Dear PhillyChief—

Regarding your statement…

Denigrate that reality all you like with comments like “electric meat”, but you’re just wasting yours and everybody else’s time

...I thank you for making my point regarding the disresect that atheists show to the human person at-large. It is clear to all that it is the atheist, not the monotheist, who denigrates reality with its scientific theory which, by the atheist’s own admition (yours included), reduces humankind to nothing more than “electric meat”. Yes, it IS distasteful, as you also admit by your words and reaction. Which begs the question—why is it distasteful to an atheist who actually believes that humans are nothing but a mass of cells at the command of un-designed bio-chemical and electrical forces? Those are the atheist’s words, not mine. If one is going to find shock in such statements as “electric meat”, (which is a good and true reaction BTW), then I must recommend you to the atheist who holds such views. Now, if one does ardently subscribe to such a view as “humans are just electric meat” then that also begs the question—why would electric meat see such a statement as something that “denigrates”? The answer to this lead is what leads to the Moral Argument For The Existence Of God, etc.

Regarding your statement…

if you simply assert as premises that love transcends the mind and the source of it is your god, then you can keep making your arguments but there’s no evidence to support those premises

...I suggest that to get the evidence you seek, I suggest that you look to yourself and your science. Specifically, please read my post above “Post by Mark Kamoski on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 2:09 PM (EST)” wherein I conclude with the following.

There are the atheistic views of love to address. Do you claim love is one “simply having a sensation”, as Cronin notes some do? Cronin makes the matter even more stark and plain, asking “when your atheist spouse hugs you, are you just his or her favorite biochemical mass, his or her favorite pile of organic matter, his or her favorite animal in the species?”. And Cronin also asks, “When he or she says, ‘I love you’, does he or she really think this is merely an attempt to enhance survival”. Do YOU agree or disagree with these atheistic views of love? If it is “agree”, then perhaps we cannot then discuss “love” at all. If it is the “disagree”, then I submit YOUR observations as “real data” and “real evidence”, and then I will ask you to explain—what do YOU find as the source and explanation of such “love”? Please let us know what you think about that.

Finally, and yet again, I will remind you that you still have NOT countered The First Cause Argument For The Existence Of God and, much to the contrary you have bolstered the case for causality (et al) and so too the First Cause Argument. What is you answer to the First Cause Argument? There is a “reality” of “second causes”, and so. You know the “observation”, etc. What is the atheist’s comment on that?

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

=...ah, there you have it, and it begs the question—what is the SOURCE of the wonder?

Thats easy, constant use of the anterior cingulate cortex, problem solving, always trying to figure out how things work, ect. triaging the release of serotonin to the reward centers of the brain.

“Meaning and purpose are part of that gift”

Yes, you send enkephalins to your right amygdala to compensate for your emotional inadequacies. I can’t relate to what sounds like needy emotional girl talk love and meaning from my perspective nor do I expect you to understand my perspective.

The fact is both systems work and claiming that one is better than the other would be a waste of time considering the amount of fallacious arguments present in this thread.

@Post by Psy on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 3:35 PM (EST):

Dear Psy—

It appears that you subscribe to the “bio-chemistry only” explanation. Is that true?

If yes, then how do you respond to Cronin, the seminal author, when he says…

So let’s suppose you are the spouse of an atheist who believes all of life is only sensory, only material. That makes love a mere biochemical event. Well, when your atheist spouse hugs you, are you just his or her favorite biochemical mass, his or her favorite pile of organic matter, his or her favorite animal in the species?

...what is your reply?

Is “love” something “more” or is it just a bio-chemical reaction etc?

How would one such subscriber account for or explain “free will” or “free thought”? Is there such a thing? If it is just stimulus/response then does “free will” exist at all?

Please do try to explain.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

—Mark Kamoski

“Finally, and yet again, I will remind you that you still have NOT countered The First Cause Argument For The Existence Of God”

No need to.  The argument fails due to a faulty premise, and special pleadings.  Furthermore it is a logical argument, not evidence of anything.

“...that is a false claim because it exactly and specifically relies on the observations of the person conducting the experiment. Science does this all the time, it is the golden rule of science. Observe experience. Pray and observe the experience. BTW, I did not say it would be easy to pray. It is, in fact, very hard. However, anyone can do it.”

Argumentum ad populum.  And no it’s not a valid scientific experiment.  For it to be a valid experiment it must be falsifiable.  Obviously it’s not.  BTW, a single pair of hands working accomplishes more than a million hands clasped in prayer, this can be proven.

I think the larger question here is:  If your premises are true, why is there no evidence of it?  Why are we subjected to Bronze age logical arguments and crazy ad populum arguments that have no relevance outside of apologetics?

@Mark: You assign meaning to love and life one way, I another. I don’t agree with your means, but I can understand them and your reasons for choosing them. Why you’re unwilling or unable to return the favor is a mystery. <em><em>

Finally, and yet again, I will remind you that logical arguments alone are not evidence, and the fatal flaw of any logical argument is whatever premises it’s based on (ie - All Marks are elephants). With that in mind, consider the following for the first cause argument:<em>
• Why must a first cause be exempt from having a cause?
• Why must the first cause be singular?  In other words, if you can make special pleading for one thing having no cause of its own, then why can’t there be two or three or more such things?
• Why must any first cause be sentient?
• If sentient, why would it have to be benevolent or have any of the characteristics you associate with your god?
• If the first cause or causes are sentient, what makes you think it intended for this universe to exist? Perhaps it was an “accidental” result of one or more actions by these sentient beings?

“What is you answer to the First Cause Argument?”

Do you seriously want to degenerate this forum with degrading evil science?

But lets cut to the point, space / time may need no explanation for existing as its value is zero. The vacuum of space appears unstable where any given point my start to divide from zero into a -1 and a +1 then collapsing to zero again. These are quantum fluctuations demonstrated by the Casimir effect. Last spring physicist managed to produce microwave light photons from a vacuum.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15542095,00.html

@ Post by Psy on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 4:38 PM (EST):

“What is you answer to the First Cause Argument?”

Regarding your statement…

Do you seriously want to degenerate this forum with degrading evil science?

...I do not understand it and what you mean to imply by it. Please do explain.

Regarding your statement…

The vacuum of space appears unstable where any given point my start to divide from zero into a -1 and a +1 then collapsing to zero again.

...the operative word there is “appears” and, as with much (or perhaps all) of “science” it is just theory. Some of it is “working theory” and that is good but a lot of the “quantum” explanation is “theory of the week” at best. It sounds good; but, let’s admit it, those quantum science folks are a LONG way from a unified theory as they cannot yet even agree on terms. Remember when we had a whole field of red-shift/blue-shift explanations? Remember when we had a lot of steady-state explanations? Back in those days, those ideas “appeared” pretty interesting too but those ships have long since been abandoned. As it is now, they guess, and yes that is good, but let’s not pretend they have it figured out. Hawkings himself just made the obvious mistake of stating that the universe needs nothing…. oh except the law of gravity… right, nothing but the law of gravity… and etc. Paraphrase but the point is clear.

Regarding this…

Last spring physicist managed to produce microwave light photons from a vacuum

...well, I am not familiar with that “experiment”, but I can see from your description quite clearly that a “physicist managed to produce [x]”. So, it wasn’t the vacuum itself. So, there WAS an causal agent, the physicist. That is no surprise to me. However, it is curious that you would offer that as a refutation of causality, when it is actually more like proof thereof.

Science cannot step out of its sandbox.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

<blockquote>as with much (or perhaps all) of “science” it is just theory<blockquote><em><em>

That, more than anything else you’ve written, hammers home just how little you’re willing or able to understand. PLEASE do yourself and everyone else a favor and quit ignoring that there’s a difference between “theory” and “scientific theory”.

Mark Kamoski. refute was not my intention, merely stating what we have discovered so far but your are free to jump to conjecture with this information as you choose. I acknowledge there may or may not be another cause. There is also the possibility that a vacuum itself is the source of everything without further cause. I can’t justify jumping to any of the possible conclusions without further information.

Philly, theism accepts both subjective and objective meaning - a both/and.  Materialist atheism accepts only subjective meaning.  Theism accepts that the feelings you described were more than just determined biochemical reactions while materialist atheism sees these feelings as nothing more than determined biochemical reactions.

If you ever get to the point of openly wondering and need a little help to imagine a more wonderful and interesting universe without fearing it to be anti-scientific, you might consider reading “Show Me God” by science journalist Fred Heeron and “The Science of God” by Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder.

@ Post by Psy on Thursday, Dec 29, 2011 12:36 PM (EST):

Dear Psy—

Regarding your statement…

There is also the possibility that a vacuum itself is the source of everything without further cause

...then THERE you have it, the vacuum itself is the First Cause. The “vacuum” is not “nothing”, as follows (much better than I could state it but still quite understanable for all)...

[Objection]

V. Not all explanation of contingent existential claims involves the causal efficacy of entities.  For instance, one might explain why some entity exists by saying that it popped in, under the laws of nature, from the quantum vacuum.  Or one might explain existential propositions in terms of principles rather than the activity of beings — Rescher [13], for instance, insists on this possibility.

[Counter]

However, the quantum vacuum is not nothing.  It may not be an ordinary material object, but it is something governed by laws of nature, something to which causal powers are ascribed.  Nor are the laws of nature grounded in non-entities: if they are to be explanatory, they must be grounded in some underlying reality.  Finally, the notion of explaining something in terms of a principle rather than an entity is quite obscure.  If the principle is to be explanatory, it cannot be a mere accidental generalization.  Rather it must be a statement that has the further property of principlehood.  But if so, then there must be something about reality in virtue of which that statement is a principle.  And this “something about reality” must exist—we cannot speak of what is not, and certainly we cannot explain in terms of what is not.

Reference: Alexander R. Pruss; March 21, 2003; Cambridge University;

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/RPSR.html

So, I am basically agreeing with Pruss—if there IS an experiment for the observation, then that experiment IS something—so the vacuum is something, and add to that the fact that observation itself (and all parts of the experiment) rely on the laws of nature, which come from reality actually existing, so we are back to First Cause.

(BTW, I do notice, of course, that such a “First Cause” is not synonymous with everything that the Bible states as “God”—but, it is a starting point, noting the existence of a “transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being” [P.Kreeft], and that is a good starting point for discussion, IMHO.)

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@Mark: Correction, theism ASSERTS. It doesn’t accept anything. <em><em>

There’s no lack of wondering on my part, Mark. Wondering involves questioning and researching, something I hope one day you consider trying. If you need a little help, you might consider Dan Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell” or perhaps Harrison’s “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God”.

Good article!

Very nice story: 

http://www.charter.net/video/play/705045?src=video_mostpopular_daily_link1

So, I am basically agreeing with Pruss—if there IS an experiment for the observation, then that experiment IS something—so the vacuum is something, and add to that the fact that observation itself (and all parts of the experiment) rely on the laws of nature, which come from reality actually existing, so we are back to First Cause.

You’ve missed so much in jumping to your conclusion that what happens within a vacuum is the vacuum. You insist on clouding the issue with the pseudo science of philosophy and your personal bias. You seem to be demanding the universe must conform to your opinion, good luck with that.

The research is ongoing and the results may surprise both of us, I like surprises. Europe has allocated $1.6 billion to construct a laser for another experiment.

http://www.gizmocrazed.com/2011/12/worlds-most-powerful-laser-could-tear-apart-the-vacuum-of-space/

Just in case you’re in a hurry, I’ll summarize:

Atheists think that love is all about biology and other science-y stuff. That’s not very romantic! That’s not pretty! So it can’t be real.

Here’s what’s real: Love is great! Love is wonderful! It’s everywhere! I love love! Now, isn’t that better? Isn’t that more romantic. Yes, it is. So it’s real.

Now, God is love, and we’ve already figured out that love exists, so you know what that means!

Tell THAT to next atheist you meet.

Besides, if love is real it had to come from somewhere, so it came from God.

People think you’re old? That’s not very nice! That’s not pretty! So it can’t be real.
Here’s what’s real: Youth is great! Youth is wonderful! I love youth! Now isn’t that better? Yes it is. So it’s real.
Now, Peter Pan is youth, and we’ve already figured out that youth exists, so you know what that means!
Tell that to the next person who tells you you’re old.
Besides, if youth is real it had to come from somewhere, so it came from Peter Pan.

Now that I have summarized Cronin above, it looks like I’ll have to defend him, too. See, Youth didn’t come from Peter Pan; God created both Youth and Peter Pan. That’s why Youth and Peter Pan are both real.

Well since your god was created by trans-dimensional gnomes, then that means trans-dimensional gnomes are responsible for Peter Pan and love.

Look, if you want to get technical, then yes, in a secondary way, the Gn-mes are responsible for Peter Pan and love. But that really degrades the First Cause’s Cause. The Gn-mes may be Real, but once they caused God, there was no need for them to interact with anything other than God. The Deists have that much correct; they’re just wrong about Who doesn’t matter. The Gn-mes may be first, but God is all we have.

Well if the Deists are correct, then that’s precisely why we need direct interaction from the TDGs, since the god entity can’t be bothered. What, you think evolution or Lin-sanity just happen on their own, accidentally?

I think you miss my point. God loves and interacts with us. We’re His project. He makes love really real (not like that anti-real biochemical stuff). The Deists were wrong about God, but they were right about The Gn-mes (they simply conflated the two). It’s only due to great advances in spiritual reasoning (as exemplified by the above article) that we’ve come to understand the difference between God and the gnomes who created him. I doubt that the Gn-mes care whether or not we need their direct intervention. The Gn-mes might not even know we exist.
God, however, has no Deistic relationships. There is no class of being about whom God can say, “It once served a vital purpose, but we no longer have any kind of codependent, obsessive, personal relationship.” God is between us and the gnomes who created Him. God is the Lucky Pierre of the universe.
Now, I’m surprised that no atheists have tried to snare me with a logical knock-out blow like, “Well, who created The Gn[-]mes?” That, it will surprise the “reasonable” atheist to “learn,” is an easy question to “answer.” God created The Gn-mes. It was a case of mutual, reciprocal, symbiotic, buddy-system, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I, creation. There was no “before.” Besides, God is the First Cause; The Gn-mes are the First Cause’s Cause. There can BE nothing before the first two firsts.

Actually, being that they are trans-dimensional, they exist outside of time. Notions of before and after therefore have no meaning to them. They are, in many ways, like the Prophets of Bajor.

Well, The Gn-mes chose to be trans-dimensional after the reciprocal creation. “Before” that, there was no time to exist outside of, but neither was there a dimension to be trans of. I suspect they pop in and out of time every once in a while to check in on God. But then, I can only know of the Gn-mes what I am able to deduce from the nature of the universe and the popular meanings of certain English words:

1. That they exist*
2. That they created God* (see #11)
3. That they were created by God*
4. That they are trans-dimensional*+
5. That they exist outside of time, except when they want to check in on God#
6. That they are good (see footnote to #5)
7. That they either don’t think know about us or don’t care about us%
8. That we don’t need to worship them, but we do need to worship God

And from that we can also deduce:

9. Atheists are ridiculously wrong^
10. Love is real (see #11)*@
11. God is real (see #10)*@

I know nothing of the Prophets of Bajor. I suspect that they are leaders of a false religion. That should probably be #12.

* Duh!
+ It’s in their name!
# It would be rude otherwise (see #6)
% :(  (but it’s probably for the best)
^ For reasons that are known* but yet to be fully demonstrated
@ But for more discussion of this argument, see the article above