Posts by John

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

You still have not answered my questions.

You can say you don't agree with my answers, right?

Again, evil is inevitable.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Now that you've told us all about free will and zero sum could you please answer my questions by providing EXPLICIT and DIRECT answers to the questions asked?

Evil is inevitable if you want free-will.

This world is the best possible world suited to free-willed beings.

Evil is inevitable and necessary in all possible worlds.

Even in an atheistic interpretation of the world.

Evil can only be isolated (and even this is only possible by ceasing free-will). That's why Hell must exist. And that's why there's no free-will in Heaven.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Human free-will needs natural laws, total privacy in the mind and a relative hide from God.

Because the presence of God collapses permanently the free-will (there are other things that collapses the free-will too but temporarily, like beauty, for instance).

When you see (in totality) God your very nature is transformed, in a sense you cease to be a human as we know it (no man can see God and live).

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Why couldn't he do similarly for the physical/natural world?
What's the point of creating a physical/natural world where 1, 2 & 7 exist if there is another dimension in which they don't exist?
What does God get out of having these 2 dimensions of existence which have starkly different characteristics?
If you had the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do not exist versus the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do exist, which option would you chose and why?

Good questions.

First thing is about definition of God.

For my metaphysical (a branch of Philosophy) analysis I always use as definition the first premise (axiom) of the St. Anselm's ontological argument:

- God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.

AFAIK this definition of God is the most simple and elegant and I never found someone, until now, who doesn't accept it. Even Atheists must accept a definition of God in order to deny it. AFAIK this definition is accepted by every theist and atheist.

God is not a Marvel's superhero. He's bound to His very nature. From His nature comes necessary truths that are the same in all possible worlds (even in every dream of everyone) and are independent even from God's will. He can't lie and He can't be evil, for instance, because truth is greater than lie and good is greater than evil.

God using His middle knowledge or scientia media (please read about Molinism) searches all possible worlds from His nature.

Zero sum is an example of a necessary truth. Completeness and consistency is a zero sum, you must choose just one of them (the scientific method takes consistency that's why it can't be universal or complete, for instance). You can't have completeness and consistency at the same time (please read about Gödel's incompleteness).

Free-will and evil is a zero sum too.

How do we know that?

At the point God decided (using His free knowledge. See Molinism) to create free-willed beings bound (even temporarily) in a physical world He searched all possible worlds and He had to choose the best of them because it must be the greatest decision. Free-will is greater than temporary evil. So it's worth to pass through some temporary evil.

This is the best or greatest world possible in a zero sum between free-will and evil.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

I think I'd already answered them but let's do it again.

1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.

Why not? CC accepts the ToE and this theory implies death and destruction.

This is how the physical world works. Catholic faith is all about the salvation of the metaphysical soul.

2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.

Our physical bodies and some features of our minds came to existence through natural laws.

Only our immortal soul was made to be an image of God.

3.The bible really would contain prophecies that could be verified using objective historical evidence. It wouldn't be necessary to rip verses out of context and interpret ambiguous phrases to try to make details fit post hoc..

There's historical evidence that the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

In these Gospels its destruction was prophecised by Jesus to be occuring during a biblical generation (40 years).

4.The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.

This is a very subjective statement.

But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.

5.The ethics of scripture would be enlightening and uplifting without exception. It would condemn things like slavery unambiguously and champion the rights and equality of women. It would not advocate moral evils that need to be explained away with appeals to relativism and special pleading.

This statement is based on Sola Scriptura and is very subjective too.

6.Miracles would really happen - even now in the age of CCTV, smart phones and scientific enquiry. It would require stubbornness rather than healthy skepticism to deny them.

I only accept the Catholic definition of miracle. I believe miracles only happen in a Catholic context. Here are some of them:

- Our Lady of Fatima ( the miracle of the sun)

- Our Lady of Zeitoun

- the Eucharist miracles of Buenos Aires and Lanciano.

7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.

Natural disasters are inevitable consequences of natural laws. And natural laws are necessary in a world that harbors free-willed agents limited in a physical world.

8.Prayers would get answered reliably. Confirmation bias would not be necessary. The prayers of believers would have real and observable power.

This is a very subjective statement.

But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.

9.There is so much more detail I could add to this, but in summary it would be more difficult to reject the claims of christianity than to accept them. It is not too much to expect that this should be so.

(...)

I want to add that there's not a single logical argument to Atheism.

Nothing, nihil...

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

For myself, atheism isn't a belief system like religions or cults.

You're right because Atheism cannot be concluded by logical steps.

It's not a system because it's only one axiom not a set of axioms.

It's just the axiom: no theism.

This axiom like any other is taken to be true through faith.

Atheism is not a logical conclusion but a subjective starting point.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Anybody can post a link to twenty arguments for anything.

And what are the arguments from Atheism?

The new Atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. The "Four Horsemen".) only provides Scientism and Sola Scriptura mumbo-jumbo as arguments. And a huge amount of vitriol and mocking.

Your so precious problem of natural evil has some possibilities of explanations. If not 100% convincing, they are a good reason to keep the benefit of the doubt at least.

Ironically the very problem of evil is also a problem to Atheists too. Why the human mind developed the perception of evil? We are the only specie with a perception of evil. Why? What is the evolutionary advantage/pressure of it? And how it developed? Where are the traces of this feature in other species?

The 19th century atheists were way more consistent because their Atheism was not a conclusion but a starting point. Atheism was an axiom and they agreed with the non existence of God implies the non existence of meaning and morality.

Nietzsche (the most intelligent person of the 19th century IMHO), for instance, provided no argument for Atheism at all. He simply accepted Atheism as an axiom not a logical conclusion. The only argument from him was the knowledge of atheism brought joy to him, that's why he called his atheistic axiom as gay science (joyful knowledge).

When I look to the new Atheism arguments I still see men just feeling good with this joyful knowledge and not a single logical argument!

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

For your sake, I do hope that you will live on after death. Be sure to let us know what the afterlife is like and about your conversations with God.

My sake? Hope after death?

I thought your position was oblivion.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

By conscient nihl I didn't mean a conscient pursuit of nihl. I meant a sentient, perpetual and hopeless experience of nihl, taking place as a consequence of a metaphorical original sin by a couple of man and woman 6.000 ago in mesopotania. Is that your definition of hell?

Partially. Because Hell must be an intentional choice.

Please start by telling me where in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus you find that notion, so that it can clearly be lablelled "christian" - and I say this because you define your beliefs as christian.

I'm not a Sola Scriptura Christian.

It seems to me that you don't take Adam and Eve literally to be the common acestors of all makind, as per the literal reading of Genesis.

I believe this is literal.

^ Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT; Olson; Chang (September 2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7008): 562–6. Bibcode:2004Natur.431..562R. doi:10.1038/nature02842. PMID 15457259. calculate an age of 2,000 to 4,000 years based on a non-genetic, mathematical model that assumes random mating although it has taken into account important aspects of human population substructure such as assortative mating and historical geographical constraints on interbreeding. This range is consistent with the age of 3,100 years calculated for the MRCA of the JC virus, an ubiquitous human polyomavirus usually transmitted from parents to children by L. A. Shackelton et al., "JC Virus Evolution and Its Association with Human Populations" Journal of Virology, Vol. 80, No. 20 (Oct. 2006), doi:10.1128/JVI.00441-06.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

If 6.000 years ago god decided for the first time to give a soul to some random couple in mesopotamia, and many more human beings were already in existence around the globe,

Yes. Homo sapiens have been around by 200.000 years ago.

About 50.000 years ago they achieved a sophisticated mortal soul (probably by evolution).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

what do the non-descendants of that couple have to do with it all?

Probably nothing. They did not had souls so they were not conscious. They were just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

Why the burden of the original sin was imposed upon them?

They don't had immortal souls.

At what point the non-descendants of that couple began to have souls?And why? And how?

They never got souls. But some of them married the sons and daughters of Adam and their offspring received souls. They went extinct by assimilation and killing.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann