The Atheist's proof for God

Place to discuss the reasons for our faith (I Peter 3:15)

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

The Atheist's proof for God

Post by m273p15c » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:10 pm

You are reading this! Just stop to think all of the evidence embedded in the simple truth that you chose to read this!!

For some reason, you care about things that transcend life. Far greater than the animal's concern, you are not satisfied with this mere life and the security of it. The satiation of all your lusts is not enough to satisfy you. You want something more. Would an eternal existence on this earth, characterized by unlimited wealth, popularity, power, and adoration be enough for you? The very fact that you chose to read this proves that you have a hole in your heart that transcends life. How could material events cause an immaterial hole? Every sentence you read proves that you want to know if there is a God and care about His existence, thereby setting you apart from all creation, illuminating the existence of the One, who impressed you with this need (Ecclessiastes 1:8; 3:9-11).

The more the atheist struggles to find an answer for our need for God, the more he proves God's existence. He may criticize the believer's need for God, accusing him of intellectual frailty, as one who is afraid to accept his lone existence. He may use fancy psychological terms and dismiss the need for God, but why does he care!? Why does he wrestle so hard with the believer? The further the atheist ventures on his crusade to alleviate the shackles of his brother's religion, the more he persuades us that he is taking it all a little too personally.

If atheism be true, then no atheist would ever seek to understand, explain, or debate the topic. He would simply and silently pilot his lonely craft into the void, never seeking to evangelize. But, for some reason he cares about eternity and desires others to share his view.

Have an opinion? Did this infringe on your identity? Would you like to debate this? Then you are much more than animal! Open your mouth and prove the believer's case!
Last edited by m273p15c on Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Mark Shepherd
Banned
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: TX

Post by Mark Shepherd » Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:16 pm

M273p15c, I think one should be allowed to believe what they wish, without fear of another passing judgement on them or having bible verses thrown as "evidence" to forcibly convert them. I think for any christian or religious person to try to pass judgement on someone without first trying to understand their position, denotes an extreme shallowness and insecurity on the part of their own religious belief.

On a personal note, I have met many atheists who seem a lot more assured and confident in their beliefs; in their belief in nothing, in No God — than most Christians who claim to believe in theirs.
Last edited by Mark Shepherd on Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:15 pm

I am thankful for your post m273p15c and I think it was done very well. I do not think your post forces anything upon anyone, since we choose to read what we want.

The post was not accusing or judgemental, infact I think it is unfortunate that Mark Shepherd assumes that you have not taken the time to understand the atheist position. The way in which the post is written can only point to the fact that you have taken the time to concider their position.

Your post does not show a bias against ones personal free given right to choose right and wrong (which is a God given gift). God does not call us to pass judgment He calls us to discern what is right and wrong. Atheist (wrong) theist (right).

Besides I have never found one atheist who has proven that there is not a God which makes them really just agnostics. But I continue to find evidence which upholds the truth that there is a God.

So in essence I really enjoyed your approach to your post, good job.

xbc13
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:52 am

Post by xbc13 » Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:13 pm

I was just passing by and I felt I had to respond to m273p15c and JSM17. m do you assume that all atheists do is go around trying to fill a void by "satiating their lusts"? Do you honestly feel that atheists do not feel satisfied with their lives? I do not know of many atheists who "evangelize" most feel the need to take an offensive postition to the onslaught of the arrogance of some Christians. He does not struggle to find an answer to his need for God but he seeks an answer for your need to seek him out and tell him he is wrong! J I have yet to see a Christian prove there is a God does that mean that Christians are really all just agnostics as well? Maybe we should try to talk to each other as agnostics who are looking for truth not people who have found it. To be really searching for truth means that you must honestly accept that your opinion may be wrong.

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:02 pm

We did not seek you out, in fact it seems as you were passing by you sought us out.
I have yet to see a Christian prove there is a God does that mean that Christians are really all just agnostics as well?
Have you ever with an open mind and heart considered the evidences?
Maybe we should try to talk to each other as agnostics who are looking for truth not people who have found it.
Does this mean there is no real truth, to seek and never find, to have "NO KNOWLEDGE"
To be really searching for truth means that you must honestly accept that your opinion may be wrong.
If all would ponder truth in this matter as you have stated then we would continue to present evidence against what we believe, if it proves our beliefs (NOT OPINIONS) wrong then we should be open minded enough to change, which works in both directions, does it not?

So the question is have you ever really considered the evidences for the proof that there is a Higher being who has created this world including you and I?

Just remember the argument can go both ways, I have yet to find a true atheist, why, because to be a true atheist one must prove there is "NO GOD", on the other hand I have met tons of agnostics, because they have "NO KNOWLEDGE" of a GOD.

I do find that most agnostics do not give the time our heart to looking at evidences, were as most believers have looked in detail at both sides.
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

xbc13
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:52 am

Post by xbc13 » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:36 am

Quote
Have you ever with an open mind and heart considered the evidences?

I have, have you?

Quote
If all would ponder truth in this matter as you have stated then we would continue to present evidence against what we believe...

Then there is evidence contrary to your BELIEF. Just to clarify what is the definition of belief? opinion?

Quote

to be a true atheist one must prove there is "NO GOD"

So the burden of proof is on the atheist?

You assume that I am an agnostic or worse an atheist, why? Just because I choose to see things from a wider perspective? There are people who are much more learned and intelligent than I on both sides of this argument (perhaps you are one of them) and still the battle rages. I have no need to to debate the evidences you'll have to trust me I have heard and considered most if not all of them. The only point I wished to make was that to become arrogant in ones beliefs serves no one. Thanks for your time and interest.

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:16 am

It would seem that even before you came to the site you had your mind already made up. I was not accusing you of being anything I was going with what I had.

The forum is "IN SEACH OF TRUTH" Maybe you can offer some wisdom towards the truth if there is any to find.

The ultimate question is: "Is truth subjective"?

Are we all left to identify what truth is, can we not even agree on an absolute truth of anything?

I am sure that we can find one common thread that runs between us, for instance:

I am sure we can both agree that statement that "we absolutly know that there are no absolutes in truth" is an obsurd statement.

I am always intrigued to hear of the proof of beginnings of life coming from a world view that does not believe in GOD.

To say that we do not know or cannot know where we came from is not sufficient by any means.

Man has always sought out to know how we got here, we can agree that absolutly without a doubt we are here and we got here somehow. (This is absolutly true)


It is hard for me to think that people cannot see design in the earth, solar system, human beings, etc.

Do you know what the chances are that we are a gentics freak accident?

Do you know what the chances of that happening once are? Now what are the chances of that happening millions and millions of times over?

I do not want to assume anything but you have offered no insight to what you believe, as though not wanting to give any information as not to really be involved in a discussion.

I believe that you may be mistaking arrogance for zeal, those who have an assurance in the Creator have a hope that no other has! The only thing an Athiest or agnostic can hope for is death with the possiblity of no after life.

The reason we seem arrogant is because we do not agree with you, and I doubt that you have heard all the arguments and proof, if you had and concidered it really with an open mind and heart than we would not be having this conversation, and please, again that was not arrogance that is truth.


The burden is on the one who comes to the table accusing the other of something. It is most likly a burden many cannot carry anyway. As I wrote you a personal e-mail about considering some evidences, I doubt really that you would take the time to really consider them, since in your mind you have already looked at most of them, so what is left to ponder? Even if it were a conversation one "AGNOSTIC TO THE OTHER" how would that converstion go?

"I DON"T KNOW DO YOU?, NO I DON"T KNOW EITHER" (now that was me being arrogant)

Maybe that's why there are not to many agnostic forums although I have been on some atheist forums and they are done right mean and arrogant, some would even say "Christian haters". But I don not put all atheist and agnostics in the same catergory, just as you should not put all Christians and so called christians in the same group.

I have not heard all the evidences for the proof of a none existance of God, but again I am willing to look at some that you can produce right here, in fact you can start a seperate thread just for the proofs that God does not exist.

I look forward to seeing some!
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

I think you missed my point, while making it for me

Post by m273p15c » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:16 pm

I recognize that you, xbc13, did not really come to debate the point. However, I do believe you misunderstood my point.

To answer your question, I do believe your are much more than a mere animal, seeking to appease his desires. If you reread my first post, I believe you will see that was my very point. I never said atheist lives were 100% empty - just incomplete. But, the real question here is, "What do you think you are?". I do believe you have a void, which you have demonstrated by coming here. How did you find the site? They don't advertise here. So, did a friend recommend it? Or, were you using an internet-based search engine? ...

I have never met an atheist, who was consistent in his convictions. The consequences are good, but noteworthy to our discussion. If atheism, is true, we are nothing but animals. Correct? Therefore, we should abandon all sense of right, wrong, obligation, morality, and nobility, so we can live like animals. Only might should prevail - just as it does in the animal kingdom. Yet, I see atheists who are concerned about doing good. For example, I have seen them give to the homeless, give blood, abide by the civil laws - even when they are perfectly smart enough to break them and not get caught - and so on. Why?

If ever there was someone who should take advantage of the "free rider" weakness in a society built by moral individuals, it is the atheist - but, he generally does not. Why? Why does he care about right and wrong? Why does he care about others' opinion of him? ... One might could argue that there is a deep-seated fear that these things might affect him, but there are too many practical cases where there is no basis for fear of retaliation. For example, consider anonymous forum id's on the internet? Is there any fear of retaliation here, especially given that both of us chose anonymous user id's? ... It is this universal sense of recognizing and upholding a standard of right and wrong that begs a cause. Since there is no cause in the natural universe, we must look beyond the natural universe to the super-natural, i.e., God.

Just to be clear, no one is forcing anyone's conclusions on anybody here. If someone is threatening you, please tell the moderator. Or, if you think something I said was arrogant, please point it out. You would be my friend for doing so. ... You are free to believe whatever you want. God is looking for volunteers (Psalm 110:3). If you do not want to be a Christian, then who am I to supersede God and force you? Christianity grows through the persuasive power of the gospel and its associated evidences (Romans 1:16) - never, ever force (John 18:36-38; I Peter 2:21-23).

It makes no difference to me what you believe or what you think of me (I Corinthians 4:3-5); however, I am concerned when mud is thrown on a person's character (accusations of arrogance, weakness, insecurity, etc.), which may detract from the real truth. Furthermore, I also care about your ultimate, spiritual well-being; therefore, I reach out - maybe bluntly, but always in kindness and love. So, you see, I have a reason for my post - love for your well-being, because I believe we will both be judged by God one day (Acts 17:30-31), and I want you to be saved too. Why did you respond, if you think you are just an animal? If you are more than animal, then please identify a natural cause for this unnatural event. What is the cause for our sense of morality and desire to uphold it?
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

xbc13
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:52 am

Post by xbc13 » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:45 pm

Yes indeed J the forum is "In Search of Truth" not "Truth Found" You accuse me of having a closed mind or we would not be having this conversation, I am not the one claiming to have the truth, but of course only atheists need to have an open mind.

Quote:
The reason we seem arrogant is because we do not agree with you, and I doubt that you have heard all the arguments and proof, if you had and concidered it really with an open mind and heart than we would not be having this conversation, and please, again that was not arrogance that is truth.

No, I think you are mistaken, this is arrogance. As I said in my post there are more learned and intelligent people than I and, yes, even than you who have reviewed the evidence for God and rejected it and yet you feel that your evidence, when considered "with an open mind" can convince anyone. You see that is arrogance! (at any rate is not conviction the work of the Spirit)

Quote:
I DON"T KNOW DO YOU?, NO I DON"T KNOW EITHER" (now that was me being arrogant)

Again I think your wrong this is not arrogance this is .... well I will refrain from saying what this is, do you stop discussing everything you do not know about?

Does it bother you that I do not reveal my beliefs? Is it imperative that you know whether to befriend or attack? Is it inconceivable to you that I may be a Christian?
m, thanks for your post perhaps I did misread your post, if so I appologize.
Anyway I must be moving on.

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:19 pm

I doubt you will be moving on, you have an agenda just like everyone else that is why you are still here, which I am glad that you are.

Conversation helps people to learn and grow, that is what the forum is for. Remember you came to the forum, you have motives, if your motives are to only point out that we are arrogant because we claim to have some truth, instead of declaring no knowlege then there would be no reason for the forum in the first place.

We should not make things out to be what they are not, most people on this forum who have spent a lot of time here are really looking and searching and even finding. Not all will follow God, but some will deny any existence to a higher being, for some it is easy to see, for some it is not.

If you would read your e-mail on the forum you would see that there is a sincerity of people wanting to help people see what we have established through much evidence and study. This is compassion not arrogance.

Did you ever consider that you may be talking with someone who at one time did not believe in God.

Certainly there are men who are far more intelligent than you or I that believe in things that we would consider rediculous, so it is not set on mans ability to calculate at the highest degree but to logically make simple acknowlegement of simple things that even a child could understand.

I simply put forth the idea of the human body, as you can see I am trying to initiate a conversation, I am sure you have pondered the thoughts of the design of the human body, I merely offered this as a simple way to see that there is design in something that would require a designer.

It is hard to come to an understanding that we are a mere cosmic mistake, accident or we got lucky and nature stumbled upon itself in producing a living, breathing, thinking, working, healing, feeling, human being over and over and over.

I will not attack or befriend you I will state the things that I know, whether you count them as arrogant or not.

There is truth, it can be found, we can continue to search and find new truths.

What truths can you offer to this forum?
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Post by LRR » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:08 pm

In response to the original post...

The atheist might believe that we or you, through your or our religion are an infringer of individual rights, much the same as the Muslim extremist who murders the "infidels" who to you are innocent. Would you not stand against those individuals because you see them as a detriment to human life?

Long has the Religious right attempted to push its views on others "peacefully" through laws or forcibly through actions not consistent with Christ. But is not rights infringement still rights infringement whether through force of hand or force of gov't put in place to specifically take away rights through threats of jail or fines rather than to protect rights even if they do not fall in line with our own view of morality but are not infringement?

Take the business owner who makes his living off of alcohol sales. A product that has a demand, and a supply. Both integral parts of the capitalist market and way of life. However, because of the religious mans "sensitive sensibilities" he gathers a mob together in order to force this honest business owner to close his business on Saturday night or even altogether though there is still plenty of demand out there for the product he provides the consumer. A product which is completely neutral in and of itself and only subjective to individual choice as to how they use the said product.

Take a hammer for instance. A hammer is a neutral tool. The user is the subjective variable. Just because an individual uses a hammer to bludgeon his neighbor, does not make hammers evil, rather individuals who commit such actions. Should it not be those individuals who are stood against rather than the hammer dealer?

However, Christians see no issue with forcing this honest business owner to close his livelihood because they simply disagree with it. Is that not infringement? Is that not something that any capitalist would stand against and attempt to educate?

An atheist might also see young individuals who are members of "The Church" and find them to be quite miserable in their environment, but held there through guilt planted since birth. Said atheist might care for the individual, maybe have been in the same position in the past. Would it not stand to reason that he would attempt in every way he or she could to show another alternative to this belief or the 1,199 other mystical (I do not use that word to be derogative) beliefs the word over representing the major factions in religion. (Christianity, muslim etc. not considering the limbs of those trunks) The atheist, or some atheist might care for individuals, not because they are divinely created, rather because they are conscious free beings with feelings and rights no more no less.

I read in the rules not to be long winded, so I will stop there. But some atheist just might see radical Christians/ radical muslims as a threat to human rights. Because the truth of the matter is they are, unless you are on their side.

Btw, thanks for adding me to the board. I see many article names on here that I recognize quite well.
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Re: I think you missed my point, while making it for me

Post by LRR » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:16 pm

m273p15c wrote:I recognize that you, xbc13, did not really come to debate the point. However, I do believe you misunderstood my point.

To answer your question, I do believe your are much more than a mere animal, seeking to appease his desires. If you reread my first post, I believe you will see that was my very point. I never said atheist lives were 100% empty - just incomplete. But, the real question here is, "What do you think you are?". I do believe you have a void, which you have demonstrated by coming here. How did you find the site? They don't advertise here. So, did a friend recommend it? Or, were you using an internet-based search engine? ...

I have never met an atheist, who was consistent in his convictions. The consequences are good, but noteworthy to our discussion. If atheism, is true, we are nothing but animals. Correct? Therefore, we should abandon all sense of right, wrong, obligation, morality, and nobility, so we can live like animals. Only might should prevail - just as it does in the animal kingdom. Yet, I see atheists who are concerned about doing good. For example, I have seen them give to the homeless, give blood, abide by the civil laws - even when they are perfectly smart enough to break them and not get caught - and so on. Why?

If ever there was someone who should take advantage of the "free rider" weakness in a society built by moral individuals, it is the atheist - but, he generally does not. Why? Why does he care about right and wrong? Why does he care about others' opinion of him? ... One might could argue that there is a deep-seated fear that these things might affect him, but there are too many practical cases where there is no basis for fear of retaliation. For example, consider anonymous forum id's on the internet? Is there any fear of retaliation here, especially given that both of us chose anonymous user id's? ... It is this universal sense of recognizing and upholding a standard of right and wrong that begs a cause. Since there is no cause in the natural universe, we must look beyond the natural universe to the super-natural, i.e., God.

Just to be clear, no one is forcing anyone's conclusions on anybody here. If someone is threatening you, please tell the moderator. Or, if you think something I said was arrogant, please point it out. You would be my friend for doing so. ... You are free to believe whatever you want. God is looking for volunteers (Psalm 110:3). If you do not want to be a Christian, then who am I to supersede God and force you? Christianity grows through the persuasive power of the gospel and its associated evidences (Romans 1:16) - never, ever force (John 18:36-38; I Peter 2:21-23).

It makes no difference to me what you believe or what you think of me (I Corinthians 4:3-5); however, I am concerned when mud is thrown on a person's character (accusations of arrogance, weakness, insecurity, etc.), which may detract from the real truth. Furthermore, I also care about your ultimate, spiritual well-being; therefore, I reach out - maybe bluntly, but always in kindness and love. So, you see, I have a reason for my post - love for your well-being, because I believe we will both be judged by God one day (Acts 17:30-31), and I want you to be saved too. Why did you respond, if you think you are just an animal? If you are more than animal, then please identify a natural cause for this unnatural event. What is the cause for our sense of morality and desire to uphold it?
Have you never heard of Ayn Rand? Or Objectivism? I assure you, there is no reason the think that just because one believes in evolution of the body and mind, that they discount its validity and nobility. Would not the superiority in the human intellect be quite noble in and of itself? Is God not noble because he "sprang from nothing" or didn't spring at all, rather just Was? I do not find this to be consistent logic.

Individuals can be completely consistent in their views. If morality is based on individual rights rather than individual belief, I can see the individual who consistently respects the rights of others as being far more capable of being consistent in their convictions than the individual who feels that all humans have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

I think you too are making my point

Post by m273p15c » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:52 am

LRR wrote:In response to the original post...

An atheist might also see young individuals who are members of "The Church" and find them to be quite miserable in their environment, but held there through guilt planted since birth. Said atheist might care for the individual, maybe have been in the same position in the past. Would it not stand to reason that he would attempt in every way he or she could to show another alternative to this belief or the 1,199 other mystical (I do not use that word to be derogative) beliefs the word over representing the major factions in religion. (Christianity, muslim etc. not considering the limbs of those trunks) The atheist, or some atheist might care for individuals, not because they are divinely created, rather because they are conscious free beings with feelings and rights no more no less.

...

Have you never heard of Ayn Rand? Or Objectivism? I assure you, there is no reason the think that just because one believes in evolution of the body and mind, that they discount its validity and nobility. Would not the superiority in the human intellect be quite noble in and of itself? Is God not noble because he "sprang from nothing" or didn't spring at all, rather just Was? I do not find this to be consistent logic.

Individuals can be completely inconsistent in their views. If morality is based on individual rights rather than individual belief, I can see the individual who consistently respects the rights of others as being far more capable of being consistent in their convictions than the individual who feels that all humans have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
LRR, welcome to the forums. Thanks for your vantage. :-)

I believe an undetected inconsistency remains in your logic. Based on my experience, most atheists retain some vestigial organ of past spirituality, whether it be their upbringing or just living in a society that is permeated by religion. For example, why do you feel sorry for the "miserable" soul, held captive by religion? Has he taken any of your food? Has he deprived you of shelter? Has he separated you from the right to produce offspring? Certainly, you would agree that he, including me, has zero impact on your well-being, yet something in you is disturbed. Why?

You say there are alternatives. True. This web-site is devoted to not only awareness of, but open comparison of these alternatives. You want to help others see the truth. But, why do you care? Pragmatically, what does it buy you as an atheist? Spiritual people may provide a society that has spiritual laws, but could you not find a place to live without such laws? Why not move to Holland? Surely the entire world will not become entirely spiritual before your existence is extinguished. So, why do you care?

I am not only sympathetic with, but I agree with your emphasis in the rational mind. The Scriptures not only assume that one uses his mind, it encourages it ("Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD ...", Isaiah 1:18). I am persuaded that objective and rational study of the evidence leads one to faith in God and the Bible. I know you disagree, but how can you appeal to pity, nobility, and even feelings that would be classified as gallantry? This sounds all too altruistic to me, and there's the rub. Altruism can only be justified by religion. Atheism is ultimately ego-centric. I believe Rand was more consistent in her initial attraction to Niche and rejection of altruism. How can you explain the need or desire to do "good" to others, if there's no such thing as "good"?

The more atheism acts like Christianity (seeks converts, spreads propaganda, resists defection, practices closed fellowship, persuades the "lost", etc.) - the more it disproves itself.

Regarding "nobility", God's eternal nature is testament to His power and deity - not His nobility (Romans 1:18-21). Unless you define nobility as existence, there is nothing inherently noble about His eternal existence. If that is your definition, then there is nothing noble about man's mind, because it is swallowed in a rising tide of mediocre "nobility", because all things that exist are noble - dust, stars, crickets, plants, water, etc. But, that's not what you think, is it? The very fact that you elevate the mind as being noble, transcending mere existence is again proof that your origin is not in this place. Why is nobility more than existence? Why are you seeking "nobility"? Why do you seek to express it, communicate it, and help others to find and follow it?

Furthermore, what is "consciousness"? Conscious of what? Existence? No, even my dog knows it exists, because it seeks to maintain its existence. Of what are you really conscious?

In regards to your discussion relating to individual rights as a basis of law (you said "morality"), I would encourage you to start another thread. This is another interesting point, because I believe the true atheist has no consistent basis for morality or law. I think they are still operating according to the ghosts of their religious influences. The atheist who feigns patriotism and ethics, while secretly living the life of an anarchist, is the only consistent atheist. If you disagree, then we should carry that to another thread and not derail this one.
Last edited by m273p15c on Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Re: I think you too are making my point

Post by LRR » Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:19 pm

LRR, welcome to the forums. Thanks for your vantage. :-)

I believe an undetected inconsistency remains in your logic. Based on my experience, most atheists retain some vestigial organ of past spirituality, whether it be their upbringing or just living in a society that is permeated by religion. For example, why do you feel sorry for the "miserable" soul, held captive by religion? Has he taken any of your food? Has he deprived you of shelter? Has he separated you from the right to produce offspring? Certainly, you would agree that he, including me, has zero impact on your well-being, yet something in you is disturbed. Why?
That isn't very good logic right there. People hate as well, or harm, is that also some vestigial organ of past spirituality? It is quite arrogant and ill informed of you to think that all things good must have come from religion. My view is that religion came from man the same as good attributes and evil ones. Until it can be proven otherwise I will stick with it.

You make quite a few statements in this response that cause me to ask of you before I go any further and if you answer nothing else in this post I ask you to answer this: What proof or evidence could you be presented with that would cause you to not believe in God?

You say there are alternatives. True. This web-site is devoted to not only awareness of, but open comparison of these alternatives. You want to help others see the truth. But, why do you care? Pragmatically, what does it buy you as an atheist? Spiritual people may provide a society that has spiritual laws, but could you not find a place to live without such laws? Why not move to Holland? Surely the entire world will not become entirely spiritual before your existence is extinguished. So, why do you care?
This is another thing that I do not understand with Christians and other mystics. The fact that the ONLY reason you care about anything is because you think it is eternal, or because you have been instilled with a fear of he consequences of not caring.

Simply put, I am satisfied by seeing others fulfilled and happy, because I know and value what it feels like to be fulfilled and happy. It is also in my rational best interest to have others feel the same about mankind as do I. I need no other motivation.

As to a society without such laws, what do you think we have a democracy for? So that if we do not like it we just leave? Absolutely not, we attempt to pull others to our side and change it. Which is exactly what I have done with many people who used to be religious and will continue to do with others as the present progresses.
I am not only sympathetic with, but I agree with your emphasis in the rational mind. The Scriptures not only assume that one uses his mind, it encourages it ("Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD ...", Isaiah 1:18). I am persuaded that objective and rational study of the evidence leads one to faith in God and the Bible. I know you disagree, but how can you appeal to pity, nobility, and even feelings that would be classified as gallantry? This sounds all too altruistic to me, and there's the rub. Altruism can only be justified by religion. Atheism is ultimately ego-centric. I believe Rand was consistent in her initial attraction to Niche and rejection of altruism. How can you explain the need or desire to do "good" to others, if there's no such thing as "good"?
The scriptures also say "Beware the philosophies of man" as well as replace all inconsistencies with reality with "you must have faith in God."

Did some googling huh? haha Rand went through phases of life just like the rest of us. Religion justifies nice actions toward other men whether they deserve it or not through guilt and threats of hell. So if this is the type of altuism you are speaking of, then yes that is religion specific. Rand rejects this type of altruism as do I. Now, if an individual wishes to help another simply because he wants to do it, rather than being forced into doing it, then I am all for it. Same as I am all for my own writing and aiding of others in their break from Religion. I love the feeling I get when someone sends me a letter stating that I helped them throw those chains. It is highly selfish I assure you.
The more atheism acts like Christianity (seeks converts, spreads propaganda, resists defection, practices closed fellowship, persuades the "lost", etc.) - the more it disproves itself.
You are confusing Atheism with a belief system. Atheism doesn't seek to convert anything, rather a belief system that is not religious. Does your being a Deist tell me anything about you?
"Regarding "nobility", God's eternal nature is testament to His power deity - not His nobility (Romans 1:18-21). Unless you define nobility has existence, there is nothing inherently noble about His eternal existence. If that is your definition, then there is nothing noble about man's mind, because it is swallowed in a rising tide of mediocre "nobility", because all things that exist are noble - dust, stars, crickets, plants, water, etc. But, that's not what you think, is it? The very fact that you elevate the mind as being noble, transcending mere existence is again proof that your origin is not in this place. Why is nobility more than existence? Why are you seeking "nobility"? Why do you seek to express it, communicate it, and help others to find and follow it?"
And how does something have an eternal nature? How can you prove that?

You have misunderstood me. You should read some of my blogs and we will discuss further.
Furthermore, what is "consciousness"? Conscious of what? Existence? No, even my dog knows it exists, because it seeks to maintain its existence. Of what are you really conscious?
What is your point? You do not believe in consciousness either?
In regards to your discussion relating to individual rights as a basis of law (you said "morality"), I would encourage you to start another thread. This is another interesting point, because I believe the true atheist has no consistent basis for morality or law. I think they are still operating according to the ghosts of their religious influences. The atheist who feigns patriotism and ethics, while secretly living the life of an anarchist, is the only consistent atheist. If you disagree, then we should carry that to another thread and not derail this one.
Again, read my blogs in my sig. Capitalism and rational self interest is a grand basis for ethics. It makes no sense to steal if you do not wish to be stolen from. That is the beauty of a higher intellect.

I will ask again, if man in his complexity begs for a creator, why not god?
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Re: I think you too are making my point

Post by m273p15c » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:30 pm

LRR wrote:
m273p15c wrote:I believe an undetected inconsistency remains in your logic. Based on my experience, most atheists retain some vestigial organ of past spirituality, whether it be their upbringing or just living in a society that is permeated by religion. For example, why do you feel sorry for the "miserable" soul, held captive by religion? Has he taken any of your food? Has he deprived you of shelter? Has he separated you from the right to produce offspring? Certainly, you would agree that he, including me, has zero impact on your well-being, yet something in you is disturbed. Why?
That isn't very good logic right there. People hate as well, or harm, is that also some vestigial organ of past spirituality? It is quite arrogant and ill informed of you to think that all things good must have come from religion.
All truly good things come from God (James 1:17), which we are taught to do through Christianity (III John 1:11; Matthew 7:12). How do you explain altruism? If there is no God, there is no reason to be altruistic, assuming you are a properly illuminated atheist.

I can explain the source for evil very well from my framework (man was tempted and chose to sin - Genesis 3). This poses no challenge or intellectual difficulty to Christianity. Recall, the original point was to illuminate inconsistencies in your framework regarding the source of altruism. Therefore, I don't have to defend the source of evil according to your framework. That's your job. ;-)
LRR wrote:My view is that religion came from man the same as good attributes and evil ones. Until it can be proven otherwise I will stick with it.

You make quite a few statements in this response that cause me to ask of you before I go any further and if you answer nothing else in this post I ask you to answer this: What proof or evidence could you be presented with that would cause you to not believe in God?
And, you are insinuating that I am prejudiced? What if I said, "Altruism comes from religion, and until it can be proved otherwise, I will stick to it"?

You are requiring a burden that neither you nor I can bear. God cannot be "proved" because he cannot be empirically experienced, and even then, we cannot prove that our senses are infallible. Neither can we reason to His mathematical nor logical necessity, because we cannot imagine every alternative, much less eliminate them.

At this point, the atheist is probably saying, "Thank you. You have established my case!" However, we also cannot prove that God does not exist. If you have any debate experience, you know that is impossible to prove that something does not exist, because you can only come to such an unavoidable conclusion when you have peeked under every rock in the universe. Therefore, you cannot prove that God does not exist unless you empirically examine every possible place God can be and prove that He is not there. Even then, you must assume that your senses and judgment are infallible, or at least sufficient for the task. Given that we are contemplating the existence an infinite being, placing such absolute faith in our senses and judgment seems a tenuous assumption at best.

Therefore, we can only use "proof" in an accommodative sense. This question can only be settled by examining the bulk of the evidence and judging which side has the more weight.

Now, to answer the essence of your question, you can convince me simply by providing more evidence to the contrary than can be provided otherwise. You will have to answer my questions (with logic, not just words), and you will have to present a viable alternative. Furthermore, you will have to do more than just refer me to your blogs.

Currently, I believe my objection still stands: You have no basis for explaining, defending, or justifying altruism. True, some altruism can have self-seeking motivation, like the Sadduccees who prayed in front of people just to garner the accolades of others (Matthew 6:1-6). But, how do you explain good Samaritans who help others, when nobody will ever know? Fear of hell, you say? Sorry, fear will only take you so far. I trust you know the miserable failure of the Israelites, wandering through the wilderness. They complained over and over again, and they were punished with their lives, yet the fearful survivors quickly lapsed back into disobedience. Fear is short-lived and requires constant reminders to be effective, even then it generates obedience that is neither sincere nor robust. No, only true love for others can explain the ultimate sacrifices that people make for others.

I'm curious. Is there ever a reason for one to sacrifice his life for another, according to Objectivism?
LRR wrote:
m273p15c wrote:You say there are alternatives. True. This web-site is devoted to not only awareness of, but open comparison of these alternatives. You want to help others see the truth. But, why do you care? Pragmatically, what does it buy you as an atheist? Spiritual people may provide a society that has spiritual laws, but could you not find a place to live without such laws? Why not move to Holland? Surely the entire world will not become entirely spiritual before your existence is extinguished. So, why do you care?
This is another thing that I do not understand with Christians and other mystics. The fact that the ONLY reason you care about anything is because you think it is eternal, or because you have been instilled with a fear of he consequences of not caring.
Wow, you simply have not been around very many true Christians, have you? Maybe your experience was limited to hypocrites? Or, maybe you failed to grasp what they really believed? Regardless, you should know that the mature Christian operates on love, not fear (I John 4:18). Fear may factor into the decision making process, but it is love that ultimately compels the adult Christian. One bad apple does not justify throwing out the whole bunch. ;-)
LRR wrote:Simply put, I am satisfied by seeing others fulfilled and happy, because I know and value what it feels like to be fulfilled and happy. It is also in my rational best interest to have others feel the same about mankind as do I. I need no other motivation.

As to a society without such laws, what do you think we have a democracy for? So that if we do not like it we just leave? Absolutely not, we attempt to pull others to our side and change it. Which is exactly what I have done with many people who used to be religious and will continue to do with others as the present progresses.
Are you being sympathetic? Exhibiting signs of caring for other people?

Why evangelize? Could you not find greater satisfaction in a place with less restrictions and burdens? If you fight for change and succeed, what satisfaction will you receive that will warrant the sacrifice you made? What if you do not succeed, what satisfaction will you receive? You may get some ego-food, but as a well-educated atheist, you should be aware that pride is merely a vestige of a self-preservation instinct. In and of itself, it is of no value. Furthermore, your very identity is an illusion, is it not? You are just a collocation of random atoms. Your glorious "mind" is just a sporadic fluctuation of bio-electrical energy. Or, are you something more?

That is my argument! Every time you try to prove that you are more than atoms, you are proving that you are! You are proving that you are nothing like the animals - nothing like anything this universe could create.
LRR wrote:
m273p15c wrote:I am not only sympathetic with, but I agree with your emphasis in the rational mind. The Scriptures not only assume that one uses his mind, it encourages it ("Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD ...", Isaiah 1:18). I am persuaded that objective and rational study of the evidence leads one to faith in God and the Bible. I know you disagree, but how can you appeal to pity, nobility, and even feelings that would be classified as gallantry? This sounds all too altruistic to me, and there's the rub. Altruism can only be justified by religion. Atheism is ultimately ego-centric. I believe Rand was consistent in her initial attraction to Niche and rejection of altruism. How can you explain the need or desire to do "good" to others, if there's no such thing as "good"?
The scriptures also say "Beware the philosophies of man" as well as replace all inconsistencies with reality with "you must have faith in God."
I don't understand what you are saying. I kind of get the gist of it, but the last half does not make any sense. ... You have totally taken the verse out of context. Yes, the Bible proclaims to be authoritative, since it labels itself as the revealed word of God. However, no where does it ask us to turn our brains off. Faith is based on evidence. God always provided evidence to His existence and nature, before He says in essence, "Trust Me." True faith is based on evidence - neither emotions nor sheer want-to.
LRR wrote:Did some googling huh? haha Rand went through phases of life just like the rest of us. Religion justifies nice actions toward other men whether they deserve it or not through guilt and threats of hell. So if this is the type of altuism you are speaking of, then yes that is religion specific. Rand rejects this type of altruism as do I. Now, if an individual wishes to help another simply because he wants to do it, rather than being forced into doing it, then I am all for it. Same as I am all for my own writing and aiding of others in their break from Religion. I love the feeling I get when someone sends me a letter stating that I helped them throw those chains. It is highly selfish I assure you.
Why do you like it? What do you get out of it?
LRR wrote:
m273p15c wrote:The more atheism acts like Christianity (seeks converts, spreads propaganda, resists defection, practices closed fellowship, persuades the "lost", etc.) - the more it disproves itself.
You are confusing Atheism with a belief system. Atheism doesn't seek to convert anything, rather a belief system that is not religious. Does your being a Deist tell me anything about you?
You are not making any sense. I am not a Deist. I am a Christian, and I would expect that to say a lot about me. What's your point?

Beside, you can say that atheism is not a belief system, but at the end of the day, it is a religion just like any other. It operates on faith (because it can neither ultimately prove nor demonstrate its premise), and it acts like a religion (see above quote from my last post). If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...
LRR wrote:
m273p15c wrote:
LRR wrote: Would not the superiority in the human intellect be quite noble in and of itself? Is God not noble because he "sprang from nothing" or didn't spring at all, rather just Was? I do not find this to be consistent logic.
"Regarding "nobility", God's eternal nature is testament to His power deity - not His nobility (Romans 1:18-21). Unless you define nobility has existence, there is nothing inherently noble about His eternal existence. If that is your definition, then there is nothing noble about man's mind, because it is swallowed in a rising tide of mediocre "nobility", because all things that exist are noble - dust, stars, crickets, plants, water, etc. But, that's not what you think, is it? The very fact that you elevate the mind as being noble, transcending mere existence is again proof that your origin is not in this place. Why is nobility more than existence? Why are you seeking "nobility"? Why do you seek to express it, communicate it, and help others to find and follow it?"
And how does something have an eternal nature? How can you prove that?
I don't have to prove it. You granted it. See above quote. I was merely showing how my logic was consistent, despite your accusation.
LRR wrote:You have misunderstood me. You should read some of my blogs and we will discuss further.
This does not help the discussion. What if I said, "You should read the Bible"? If your blog has something that is relevant, feel free to post the relevant quotes here.

Plus, I did read your blogs. It sounds like someone trying to desperately avoid believing in God, while trying to use the tools that God has provided to bravely confront life - without giving honor to Him. It sounds like someone whistling as they walk through the graveyard...
LRR wrote:
m273p15c wrote:Furthermore, what is "consciousness"? Conscious of what? Existence? No, even my dog knows it exists, because it seeks to maintain its existence. Of what are you really conscious?
What is your point? You do not believe in consciousness either?
Yes - consciousness of good and evil. Animals are aware of life, because they seek to preserve it. That is nothing new. And, they have awareness of individuality, hence identity. They seek to preserve their lives or that of their caretakers, as opposed to just any life in general. What makes us unique is that we use words like "good", "evil", "honor", "nobility", "ought", "moral", "law", etc. Plus, we seek fulfillment beyond the grave. We are not satisfied with just this life. You manifest all the characteristics and jargon of this consciousness, but yet you deny the only plausible source. Where do these things come from? You can say "fear", but a little experience and opening of the eyes will reveal too many real world situations where people act contrary to fear and beyond fear.
LRR wrote:
m273p15c wrote:In regards to your discussion relating to individual rights as a basis of law (you said "morality"), I would encourage you to start another thread. This is another interesting point, because I believe the true atheist has no consistent basis for morality or law. I think they are still operating according to the ghosts of their religious influences. The atheist who feigns patriotism and ethics, while secretly living the life of an anarchist, is the only consistent atheist. If you disagree, then we should carry that to another thread and not derail this one.
Again, read my blogs in my sig. Capitalism and rational self interest is a grand basis for ethics. It makes no sense to steal if you do not wish to be stolen from. That is the beauty of a higher intellect.
Look, if you don't want to follow through with this discussion, please say so. Communism also offered a basis, but it failed miserably, as has capitalism and self-interest. Without altruism you cannot avoid the "free-rider" problem in both economics and law. Any system that is only based on self-interest will ultimately fail under the weight of its free-loaders.
LRR wrote:I will ask again, if man in his complexity begs for a creator, why not god?
I am not aware of you ever asking that here, but I will be happy to answer. Are you familiar with "infinity"? Do you deny its existence? We have an entire branch of math based on its definition, Calculus. We take limits to infinity. We integrate to infinity. We differentiate to infinity. We divide by, multiply by, add to, and subtract from infinity. We even have series of sums and products to infinity. All of engineering and science is dependent upon Calculus and its grand notion of limits, derivatives, integrals, and series, all of which are defined by "infinity".

Have you counted to "infinity"? How can you prove it exists? :-D

Now, here's the real rub: I am thinking of a number. Can you think of number that is bigger? ;-) Sure, just add one. X+1 is always great than X, right? Wrong! There comes a limit where this progression comes to a screeching halt. You can keep adding one and keep getting a bigger number - until you consider infinity. You cannot add one to it and get a bigger number! Nothing surpasses infinity. At infinity, the "complexity" reaches a limit!

God is infinity. He has infinite power, wisdom, intellect, presence, capacity, etc. Functioning complexity, or evidence of a design, is strong evidence that demands a designer. Every effect has a cause; however, it stands to reason that there must have been some first effect that had no cause - Aristotle's "First Mover", if you will. That First Mover neither requires nor allows a more fundamental cause, because He is infinitely complex! There is no way to "add another" to Him!

Again, why are you banging your head against mine? I act in hope. I hope that you and others may be saved, so you can go home to heaven. What hope do you have? Why do you struggle? Your answers are based in illusions through which an honest atheist would have seen long ago.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Re: I think you too are making my point

Post by LRR » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:24 pm

m273p15c wrote:... <quotes entire above post - snipped by moderator, grand_puba> ...

Again, why are you banging your head against mine? I act in hope. I hope that you and others may be saved, so you can go home to heaven. What hope do you have? Why do you struggle? Your answers are based in illusions through which an honest atheist would have seen long ago.
Wow...

Numbers are representative of actual objects. You can definitely do math equations to infinity, however as numbers apply to reality, you can only have as many numbers as you have matter or objects to match. Just because you can do infinity on the abstract scale, does not mean that there is infinite objects inside of the universe. You are not making a good argument for god there.

Have you not heard of cause and effect? And how can you have a something before there is anything? Knowledge before there is anything to know? Creation before there is anything to use to create with? Super-consciousness before there is anything to be conscious of? All of these are attributes or feats which your god that cannot be proved or disproved claims to have all attributes which are impossible according to the laws of nature. Yet, to you that is just semantics that can overlooked. Let me give you something....

It is alot of data and I attempted to crunch it as best I could without loosing the total meaning. It requires a good deal of thought and I highly recommend the book that most of the information came from: Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand -by: Leonard Peikoff. I begin quoting that after the first few paragraphs.


Asking: Prove to me that god doesn't exist, is basically like asking: Prove to me that aliens don't exist or prove to me that Jupiterian Ligers don't exist. The burden of proof doesn't lie in the hands of the those who do not believe, rather it lies in the hands of those who who have everyone believe. Prove to me that object A doesn't exist, when object A cannot be observed, measured, used and has never been observed measured or used is ridiculous, because object A should have never been a conclusion to begin with. If we were to use such logic about everything in our lives, we would have quite the time DEFENDING reality due to the fact that any possible dream not existing in reality has to be proven to not exist rather than be proven that it DOES EXIST. That line of thinking is quite flawed and definitely backwards in its logic. What logical individuals forms a conclusion before linking data and then says to everyone else, "Well prove my conclusion wrong then, if you can't then its obvious I was right." No, its obvious that you care nothing about observation and fact finding as a method of knowledge, rather you are of the mindset that wishes determine truth and it is the responsibility of everyone else to prove your fairy tales wrong. Prove to me Rumpelstiltskin couldn't spin straw into gold. Prove to me that Cinderella didn't have a faerie godmother, prove to me that snow white wasn't resurrected by a prince, prove to me that Pinocchio didn't have no strings to hold him up to tie him down etc. I mean just because every other wooden puppet in the world is controlled by a puppet master, doesn't mean that this one wasn't, so I am going to believe such until you can offer me satisfying evidence to the contrary. Prove to me that invisible unicorns do not exist above the earths atmosphere because I am of the mindset that they do, until you can give me definitive evidence that invisible unicorns don't exist, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

What it boils down to, is that it is called: Using ones mind to determine facts about the world around them.
Some do it, others refuse, rather they accept facts about the world around them based on passion for such to be true rather than supporting evidence through fact finding and proofs. What is the point in attempting to disprove something that was never proven in the first place? Why even have scientist? What is the need for a freaking scientist if our dreams determine reality? I believe that the sun is actually the home of Zeus, he lives in the center, under all of the burning souls of the dead throughout earths history. When an individual dies, their spirit rises up like a vapor and heads straight for the sun and then fuses with the burning outer core to become trapped there for eternity. Ok, now prove me wrong. If you can't Obviously you don't know what you are talking about and that just further proves my argument to be correct because it can't be proven wrong. Oh, you say that the sun is a ball of burning gases creating the element known as plasma? No, sir, you are incorrect, that is just what the Zeus' evil archenemy Suez wants you to think by tricking your senses. Just because there is no evidence in science doesn't mean that it isn't true, you are just limiting yourself to worldly observations rather than using faith to guide you. Btw, this is the only correct doctrine. Any other faith is wrong....

Smart huh? ......

I could do this for days, about anything and everything and then say that everything really isn't anything, prove that it is and so on and so forth. This isn't the logic of the intelligent. What is the point of intelligence? How is it measured? Why do we need it if our dreams bring forth reality? Wouldn't that make every retarded individual just as intelligent as the greatest scientist, due to the fact that FACTS are merely subjective to whim? How can I prove to Crazy Joe that the spirits he hears are not real? How can I prove to loose screw Tim that there is no fountain of youth?

Show me there is no fountain of youth you naysayer! Prove there is no fountain of youth! Prove it! Show me where there is no fountain of youth! You can't!? Well, then I guess you were just OWNED by my argument...Child..

There are basics truths of reason, they are referred to by Ayn Rand as Axioms. The three axioms are as follows:
Existence, Consciousness and Identification

"Axioms are "perpetual self evidences" which basically means they need no proof due to the fact that they prove themselves. Here is how it works:

Existence exists- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: That something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness; a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as a consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two- existence and consciousness- are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that IT exists and that you KNOW it."


Here is where identity comes into play:

"A third and final basic axiom is implicit in the first two. It is the law of Identity: to be is to be something, to have a nature, to possess identity. A thing is itself; or in the traditional formula, A is A. The "identity" of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics." "A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too"

"Ayn Rand offers a new formulation of this axiom: existence IS identity. She does not say "existence HAS identity" - which might suggest that identity is a feature separable from existence (as a coat of paint is separable from the house that has it) (you cant identify something which doesn't exist- LRR) The point is that to be IS to be something. Existence and identity are indivisible; either implies the other. If something EXISTS, then SOMETHING exists; and if there is a SOMETHING, then there is a something. The fundamental fact cannot be broken in two.

"existence" differentiates a thing from nothing, from the absence of the thing. This is the primary identification, on which all others depend; it is the recognition in conceptual terms that the thing IS. "Identity" indicates not that it IS, but that IT is. This differentiates one thing from another, which is a distinguishable step in cognition. The perspective here is not: it is (vs. it is not), but: it is this (vs. it is that). Thus the context and purpose of the two concepts differ, although the fact both concepts name is indivisible.

"Like existence and consciousness, identity is also a fundamental starting point of knowledge. Before one can ask What any existence is, it must be something, and one must know this. If not, then there is nothing to investigate- or to exist."

"Inherent in a man's grasp of any object is the recognition, in some form, that: there is something I am aware of. There is- existence; something- identify; I am aware of- consciousness. These three are the basic axiomatic concepts recognized by the philosophy of Objectivism."

"Witness the popular question "Who created the Universe?" -which presupposes that the Universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will. It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does (If a creator is required to explain existence, then a second creator is required to explain the first and so on). Typically, the believer will reply: "One can't ask for an explanation of God. He is an inherently necessary being. After all, one must start somewhere." Such a person does not contest the need of an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness; what he finds unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. Driven by the primacy of Consciousness ((as opposed to the primacy of existence-Existence exists and from existence comes consciousness- LRR)) a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world, which we KNOW to exist; he insists on jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing. The root of this mentality is not rational argument, but the influence of Christianity. In many respects, the West has not recovered from the middle ages."

The axioms stated above are implicit. What is meant by that is they to even argue them, they must be used.

"existence, consciousness, identity are presupposed by every statement and by every concept, including that of "disagreement." (They are presupposed even by invalid concepts such as ghost or analytic truth.) In the act of voicing objection, therefore, the objector has conceded the case. In any act of challenging or denying the three basic axioms, a man reaffirms them, no matter what the particular content of his challenge. The axioms are invulnerable."

The opponents of these axioms pose as defenders of truth, but it is only a pose. Their attack on the self evident amounts to the charge: "your belief in an idea doesn't necessarily make it true; you must prove it, because facts are what are independent of your beliefs (primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness) Every element of this charge relies on the very axioms that these people are questioning and supposedly setting aside. I quote Ayn Rand:

"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanketing out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the PROVED and UNPROVED.

When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence- when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of un-consciousness- he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both- he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.

When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn't choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he as accepted it by uttering that sentence, (HE-(existence), doesn't (consciousness) exist (identification)-LRR) that the only way to reject it is to shut ones mouth, expound no theories and die.

An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."

I promise I am getting to a point. Bear with all of this and really think about what it means:

"supernatural etymologically means that which is above or beyond nature. "Nature in turn denotes existence viewed from a certain perspective. Nature is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities governed by law; it is the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What then is a "super nature"? It would have to be a form of existence beyond existence; a thing beyond entities; a something beyond identity.

The idea of the supernatural is an assault on everything man knows about reality. It is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy (or, in the case of primitive men, a failure to grasp them)

This can be illustrated in any reference to any version of idealism, But let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God.
Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.
Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to design is not chance. It is causality.
Is God omnipotent" Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
Is God infinite? Infinite does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of NO specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of "infinity" denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition and subdivision. For Example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The ACTUAL is always finite.

Can God perform miracles? A "miracle" does not mean merely the unusual. If a woman gives birth to twins, that is unusual; if she were to give birth to elephants, that would be a miracle. A miracle is an action not possible to the entities involved by their nature; it would be a violation of identity.

Is God purely spiritual? "spiritual" means pertaining to consciousness, and consciousness is a faculty of certain living organisms, their faculty of perceiving that which exists. A consciousness transcending nature would be a faculty transcending organism and object. So far from being all-knowing, such a thing would have neither means nor content of perception; it would be non-conscious.

Every argument offered for the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy. At every point, the notion clashes with the facts of reality and with preconditions of thought.

The point is broader than religion. It is inherent in any advocacy of a transcendent dimension. Any attempt to defend or define the supernatural must necessarily collapse in fallacies. There is no logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them; there is no concept formed by observation of nature that will serve to characterize its antithesis. Inference from the natural can lead only to MORE OF THE NATURAL, i.e., to limited, finite entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. Such entities do not fulfill the requirements of "God" or even of "poltergeist." As far as reason and logic are concerned, existence exists, and ONLY existence exists.

If one is to postulate a supernatural realm, one must turn aside from reason, eschew proofs, dispense with definitions, and rely instead on faith. Such an approach shifts the discussion from metaphysics (the nature of the universe as a whole) to epistemology (the nature and means of human knowledge)

For now, I will sum up by saying: Objectivism advocates reason as man's only means of knowledge, and, therefore, it does not accept God or any variant of the supernatural. We are a-theist, as well as a-devilist, a-demonist, a-gremlinist. We reject every "spiritual" dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence. We reject idealism. To put the point positively: we accept reality and that's all"

Moving a tiny bit further to wrap this up:

"One might ask, how does one answer the opponent who says: You've demonstrated that I must accept your axioms if I am to be consistent. But that demonstration rests on your axioms, which I don't choose to accept. Tell me why I should. Why cant I contradict myself?"

"There is only one answer to this: stop the discussion. Axioms ARE self-evident; no argument can coerce a person who chooses to evade them. You can show a man that identity is inescapable, but only by first accepting the fact that A is A. You can show that existence is inescapable, but only by first accepting and referring to existence. You can show that consciousness is inescapable, but only by accepting and using your consciousness. Relying on these three axioms, you can establish their position as the foundation of all knowledge. But you cannot convince another person of this or anything until he accepts the axioms himself, on the basis of his own perception of reality. If he denies them, it is a mistake to argue about or even discuss the issue with him.

"No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality without your help, does not convince a person of the self evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further."
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

you are dodging the original and main point

Post by m273p15c » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:02 am

Summary of My Reply:
  • You have failed to sufficiently answer the original question: defend your practice of altruism and evangelism.
  • You have eliminated the possibility of God by your definitions and presumptions. Therefore, persuasion is impossible until you open up to the possibility. Your speech betrays your heart.
  • The natural world demands the supernatural. The supernatural world is a logical necessity to explain the natural world.
  • Ayn's 3 axioms fail to answer the question of Creation, because they can only relate to those things of which we are conscious, per your definition. It is impossible for us to be "conscious" of that which we cannot experience or detect - the origin of the universe. These axioms are simply not applicable to the secondary question, "Did God create the universe?"
The Details:

The original argument is that many atheists, like yourself, manifest actions that are inconsistent with their proclaimed beliefs. Specifically, you are disturbed/aggravated/angered/incensed (depending on the person) by Christians and you seek to answer/dispute/evangelize them. Why? You have:
  • Exhibited sympathy and concern for those repressed by guilt, fear, and ignorance.
  • Indicated a desire to fight for the individual rights of all conscious people.
  • Expressed a willingness to be altruistic.
You state the reasons are selfish. But, that is assuming the thing to be proven. What rational explanation could be given for these self-sacrificing actions, if all that matters is you? A wave of the hand will not suffice in this forum. It is this question that started the thread. Consequently, failure to sufficiently answer this question will still produce a failure, no matter what else you produce.

Everything else you discussed, especially your last post, is really off topic. However, I am happy to answer it nonetheless.

First, you spend a lot of time answering an argument that I not only have failed to suggest but which I have also refuted myself:
LRR wrote:Asking: Prove to me that god doesn't exist, is basically like asking: Prove to me that aliens don't exist or prove to me that Jupiterian Ligers don't exist. The burden of proof doesn't lie in the hands of the those who do not believe, rather it lies in the hands of those who who have everyone believe. ... Show me there is no fountain of youth you naysayer! Prove there is no fountain of youth! Prove it! Show me where there is no fountain of youth! You can't!? Well, then I guess you were just OWNED by my argument...Child..
I have already conceded that you cannot prove that God does not exist, and I cannot prove that God does exist. We must use "proof" in an accommodative sense. On which side does the bulk of the evidence lie? That is the question that I am seeking to answer. Anything else is a windmill or a straw man. Why?

We are finite beings that are seeking to establish if an infinite being exists and has created the universe. Therefore, we will never be able to "prove" one answer or the other, because the answer is beyond our senses, experiences, and intellect. We simply do not have the capacity to "prove" God - one way or the other, if "proof" must depend upon our personal experiences. I believe you likened this to a one trying to prove itself to a zero, while limiting itself to the definition of a zero. Like a square trying to comprehend a sphere's self-description, we are dimensionally challenged and therefore incapable of "discerning", much less "proving" God's existence. However, that does not mean we cannot settle the issue...

We cannot necessarily detect an infinite God, who desires to hide from us. However, who said He was trying to hide? The natural world cannot discover the supernatural, but the supernatural is more than able to reveal itself to the natural using signs that are sufficient for the open minded man.

For example, you assert that the universe (matter) is eternal, correct? Primacy of matter - matter before mind, you called it, I believe:
LRR wrote:"Witness the popular question "Who created the Universe?" -which presupposes that the Universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will. It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does (If a creator is required to explain existence, then a second creator is required to explain the first and so on). Typically, the believer will reply: "One can't ask for an explanation of God. He is an inherently necessary being. After all, one must start somewhere." Such a person does not contest the need of an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness; what he finds unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. Driven by the primacy of Consciousness ((as opposed to the primacy of existence-Existence exists and from existence comes consciousness- patrick)) a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world, which we KNOW to exist; he insists on jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing. The root of this mentality is not rational argument, but the influence of Christianity. In many respects, the West has not recovered from the middle ages."
Why "jump beyond" the natural to the supernatural? Simple - because the natural cannot adequately explain itself. In fact, its very laws which we "know" to be true, deny that the universe is primary or eternal:
Wikipedia wrote:The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_thermodynamics)
Whitten, Gailey, and Davis wrote:... the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

In spontaneous changes the universe tends toward a state of greater disorder.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is based on our experiences. (emphasis mine) Some examples illustrate this law in the macroscopic world. When mirrors are dropped, they shatter. When a drop of food coloring is added to a glass of water, it diffuses until a homogeneously colored solution results. When a truck drives through the wall of a building, the wall crumbles and the truck becomes more disordered.

...

A refrigerator provides a good illustration. It removes heat from inside the box (the system) and ejects that heat, plus the heat generated by the compressor, into the room (the surroundings). The entropy of the system decreases because the air molecules inside the box move more slowly. However, the increase in the entropy of the surroundings more than makes up for it, so that the entropy of the universe (refrigerator + room) increases. (General Chemistry with Qualitative Analysis, Saunders College Publishing, Third Edition, pp.449-450, 1988.)
In other words, the natural universe is running down. There is no natural explanation for its existence, unless you assume that it had infinite initial energy, and then you would be back at satisfying my previous argument. ;-)

God left "clues" or signs that force us to look beyond the natural to the supernatural. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is just one verifiable, indisputable sign that the natural world cannot stand on its own. The natural evidence drives one toward the supernatural. Not to mention the Bible, miracles, fulfilled prophecies, etc...

I realize that String Theory and other far out theories have been proposed, which can never be tested or verified. However, borrowing a line from you:
LRR wrote:a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world, which we KNOW to exist; he insists on jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing.
So, why would we abandon the verifiable, unshakable laws of Thermodynamics to adopt an unprovable, undetectable, and unverifiable system based on String Theory and alternate dimensions? Has someone started with the presupposition that God does not exist and must now come up with some reason to explain Him away, like using the Ligers of Jupiter, for example?

It is this very reason that many scientists and engineers have turned to theories regarding aliens and panspermia. They realize that what they KNOW cannot explain life as we know it, not to mention the universe. Therefore, they turn to beings outside our "system" - like aliens or cosmic germs, but yet they refuse to consider God. Why?

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/alie ... 027-1.html
LRR wrote:Numbers are representative of actual objects. You can definitely do math equations to infinity, however as numbers apply to reality, you can only have as many numbers as you have matter or objects to match. Just because you can do infinity on the abstract scale, does not mean that there is infinite objects inside of the universe. You are not making a good argument for god there.
I did not argue that the number "infinity" was proof for God's existence. Go back and look at your first jab. You claimed that God, being a primary starting point was illogical, because nothing preceded Him. I showed how it was very logical - even mathematical. The fact that there are not infinite number of objects in the universe does not matter. I am arguing for the existence of something that transcends the universe. Naturally, it would not have an exact corollary in the existence of our natural world. But, that does not mean we cannot logically conceptualize its identity outside of our framework. Calculus shows how we have historically done that very thing.

BTW, If there are not infinite number of objects (or something) in the universe, then the universe is finite and therefore not eternal. Consequently, your primal belief that the matter and the universe is primal is flawed and inconsistent by your own admission.

However, I do not believe there is an infinite anything in the universe. Infinity represents a logical abstract that cannot be realized in nature - only in the supernatural.
LRR wrote:... All of these are attributes or feats which your god that cannot be proved or disproved claims to have all attributes which are impossible according to the laws of nature. Yet, to you that is just semantics that can overlooked.
By definition of the proposition, God is supernatural, and therefore He transcends the laws of nature. That He does not follow them is essential to His definition. This is no problem. This is the original proposition, merely restated in your disbelief. I am not overlooking these issues. I am embracing them (although I reserve the right to use my own wording. ;-) )

Your so called invincible axioms are really "faiths" - things you assume but cannot prove. But, I have no contention with the assumptions that we exist, we are conscious, and we have identity. As you said, to deny them is to use them.

The problem comes from additionally assuming that matter always precedes consciousness and therefore existence. That is a deduction which has been derived from the above axioms, although it is an non sequitur process. First, again, the second law of thermodynamics (a scientific, observable, measurable, knowable, detectable law of nature) implies the impossibility of the ultimate primacy of matter. Matter is running out of steam. Therefore, it must have had a beginning point - something outside the system. But, skipping over that point, please secondly consider the common event of invention. We constantly imagine and invent things that do not exist using our own genius. In such cases, consciousness precedes existence. Therefore, even our own experience denies that consciousness always follows existence.

Again, your and Ayn's axioms are fine, until you start assuming all the properties and ordering of the axioms. In summary, that existence, consciousness, and identity are axiomatic, I would concur; however, it is an illogical, unfounded, and unnatural assumption to postulate that existence always predates consciousness. That assumption is your faith!

I'd like to look at this reasoning a little more closely with interdispersed comments:
LRR wrote:The idea of the supernatural is an assault on everything man knows about reality. It is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy (or, in the case of primitive men, a failure to grasp them).
Just to reiterate, this is entirely assertive. True science, like thermodynamics, indicates that the supernatural must exist, because the natural is not self-sustaining. Secondly, objective evidence, such as the consistency of the Bible, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, and other signs provide ample evidence that the supernatural exists and seeks communication with us.
LRR wrote:This can be illustrated in any reference to any version of idealism, But let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God.
Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.
And what is the proof for that assumption? Its proposed unaltered and unalterable truth is inconsistent with both science (2nd law of thermodynamics) and immediate experience (problem of genius and invention).
LRR wrote:Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to design is not chance. It is causality.
Huh? I think you skipped a few steps there. Did you assume that the universe is "god"? Please correct me if I misunderstood you. Otherwise, you are assuming the thing to be proven and are offering no proof but your assertion.
LRR wrote:Is God omnipotent" Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
This is correct if we limit the definition of the metaphysical to being the natural. However, God transcends nature by definition and therefore it is of no consequence to alter our perceived "nature", because it is not truly metaphysical. Christianity teaches that God created the world ex nihilo - from nothing. He is the true metaphysical, transcends all else, thereby exhibiting perceived omnipotence by definition. ... Again, you are assuming the thing to be proven by defining the metaphysical to include only the nature, thereby eliminating God and the supernatural. The problem is your definition, which reflects your assumptions.
LRR wrote:Is God infinite? Infinite does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of NO specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of "infinity" denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition and subdivision. For Example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The ACTUAL is always finite.
Again, you stretch too far to make your point, while missing the big picture. What is "ACTUAL"? It is that which exists of which you are conscious and can identify, according to your definition. Your definition is flawed and inconsistent with your own actions and language. You identify many objects without fully "accounting" them. Do you understand how a computer works? Have you counted all the transistors within its CPU? But, yet you can identify a computer, can't you? Similarly, I can identify "infinity" without having to understand it fully.

The problem here is that you have fundamentally assumed that there can be nothing supernatural. Therefore, it is impossible for me provide a finite amount of evidence to persuade you. Like you said, it's like a one trying to persuade a zero that it is one while stooping to be a zero. If you deny the definition of supernatural or its possibility, then your mind will always be closed to the evidence.

If you always assume there can be no God, then there is no logical way to persuade you that there is one. You have assumed the thing you wish to prove before I even met you.
LRR wrote:Can God perform miracles? A "miracle" does not mean merely the unusual. If a woman gives birth to twins, that is unusual; if she were to give birth to elephants, that would be a miracle. A miracle is an action not possible to the entities involved by their nature; it would be a violation of identity.
Which would require something that transcend nature? Like God, for example. Do you see how you have shut out the possibility of God by your very definition and initial assumptions? You can quote quote Ayn Rand, but your zeroth axiom is that there is nothing supernatural. Your own language and arguments manifest that stance. Therefore, nothing will persuade you.
LRR wrote:"No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality without your help, does not convince a person of the self evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further."
With this, even the Bible concurs:
David wrote:The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
It also considers the truth to be self-evident:
David wrote:The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat. (Psalm 19:1-6)
It is not intelligence upon which this debate hinges but open-mindedness - honesty with ourselves and the evidence.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
grand_puba
Moderator
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:48 pm

split thread

Post by grand_puba » Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:03 pm

Please see the following thread for a related topic, which was originally introduced here:

How to convert an Atheist? By example only or argument?
Have you read the Rules?

Post Reply