Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Ciaran0

The catholic church affirms predestination as one of it's doctrines does it not? Free will.... Predestination...... hmmmm.... Something doesn't add up here. I'm certain someone here will be able to explain it me in a very roundabout way.

The Quadratic Equation

Ciaran0 wrote: »

The catholic church affirms predestination as one of it's doctrines does it not? Free will.... Predestination...... hmmmm.... Something doesn't add up here. I'm certain someone here will be able to explain it me in a very roundabout way.

The Church does believe in predestination, so far as it is understood to mean that God knows who will choose to cooperate with his grace and be saved and who will choose to reject him and not be saved. The Church does not believe that God predestines anyone to go to hell. All are created for heaven but some will choose of their own free will to reject heaven.

Fanny Cradock

Simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't makes sense.

I gather that RCC holds to the position that predestination is in deference to freewill. So while one might be predestined to reject God, and therefore enter hell, this is seen as a free choice.

Either make a statement and back it up or ask a genuine question and listen to the response. Sarcastic posts disguised as questions aren't welcome.

Improbable

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The Church does believe in predestination, so far as it is understood to mean that God knows who will choose to cooperate with his grace and be saved and who will choose to reject him and not be saved. The Church does not believe that God predestines anyone to go to hell. All are created for heaven but some will choose of their own free will to reject heaven.

Are you not confusing predestination with omniscience in this case?

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

The catholic church affirms predestination as one of it's doctrines does it not? Free will.... Predestination...... hmmmm.... Something doesn't add up here. I'm certain someone here will be able to explain it me in a very roundabout way.

I ain't a Catholic. Is that roundabout enough for you? :rolleyes:

ISAW

Ciaran0 wrote: »

The catholic church affirms predestination as one of it's doctrines does it not?

Well we don't actually know. From where d you get this idea?

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't know who to simplify it further. You are the one making the decision to eat the apple, not God. Additionally, I've specifically rejected the idea that the multiverse (which hypothesis?) has any impact on this issue. If you do a search on the topic of freewill you then see the numerous previous debates we have had on it.

Did Adam know the consequences of eating That apple before he eat it ?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Did Adam know the consequences of eating That apple before he eat it ?

In every little detail? No.

That it would produce something very bad (death)? Yes.

pug_

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The Church does believe in predestination, so far as it is understood to mean that God knows who will choose to cooperate with his grace and be saved and who will choose to reject him and not be saved. The Church does not believe that God predestines anyone to go to hell. All are created for heaven but some will choose of their own free will to reject heaven.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't makes sense.

I gather that RCC holds to the position that predestination is in deference to freewill. So while one might be predestined to reject God, and therefore enter hell, this is seen as a free choice.

From what I'm understanding of this (and I freely admit I may still not understand what's being suggested) it all amounts to a recursive argument. You say God is only aware of our actions beforehand because he's given us the choice to make those actions, but before he gave us the choice he was aware of what actions we were going to take, but he was also aware he was going to give us the choice, but by doing so he also knew the outcome of the choice etc... Or am I still picking it up wrong?

None of this gets around the fact that before the universe existed God must have known one of the outcomes of the universe would be a planet where we exist along with every single action that has and will happen on this planet. This to my mind still denies the very idea of free will simply because God with infinite knowledge must be able to conceive of an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possible outcomes yet he choose to create this one, knowing full well all of the actions and consequences that surround us, over any other possible universe. In other words he deliberately created a universe that is as we see it knowing everything that has and will happen in it and not any other. Maybe I don't have enough imagination, but I genuinely can't see how a God that is all knowing can create a universe any other way.

For me this isn't even the real problem with any existing theism it is a problem for me sure, but there are so many others. Fanny Cradock touched on another one in the post quoted above by saying anyone who chooses to reject God is doomed to an eternity in hell. I don't get it. You could be the nicest kindest most altruistic person on the planet who either believes in the wrong God or no God at all and because of that you're damned, but if your a cruel or average person who does believe and repents at the last minute you're saved. It makes no sense. If it was a human who acted this way we'd call them a tyrant and rightly so, but for a God it's somehow okay? Not in my books it isn't I see nothing loving or forgiving in that kind of belief.

Those are just the points I've seen in the last few posts, and are based on only one form of theism, Christianity. My main sticking points are to do with theism's in general, any theism. I could compile a list but what's the point? I know I'm not imaginative enough to come up with anything that hasn't been seen here before, and I'm sure there are readily crafted answers available to any point I might raise. The problem is that I've never seen anything even remotely convincing in favour of an argument for theism. Every single religion that has ever sprung up in the history of our planet is man made. Some have spread and become popular, but doesn't the fact that there are so many religions each one with followers convinced they have the one true religion demonstrate anything?

Granted I'm in the Christianity forum now, and Ireland is predominantly a Christian country so obviously remarks here are going to be geared towards Christianity. But that provides a difficulty for anyone who is struggling to understand belief in general for the simple reason that it's very easy to make something up to fit the facts as laid down by a certain religion. Just look at the famous flying spaghetti monster, it's entirely made up yet if you were to try and disprove it an answer can be put forward for any argument you might choose to make against it, granted it doesn't have the history of any Christian based religion, so doesn't have to conform to rules that have been set down over the centuries but the principle is the same and any argument for it is all just rhetoric.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful with any of the above by the way, I'm trying to be mindful of how I phrase things as I know where I am and I'm aware that people can be sensitive about their their beliefs.

nickcave

nickcave wrote: »

you've confused atheism with tyrannical regimes whose delusions put them at odds with religious doctrine as a first. Modern atheism really has nothing to do with the Soviet Revolution. It's no wonder you're so fearful of atheism if you've confused this.

I'd like to echo something from an earlier post of mine - in light of what has been said of Kim Jong-il on other threads in this forum.

I am an atheist - I have no association of any kind with Soviet and post-Soviet dictators who exact their ugly delusions upon their people.

Please don't make this mistake - it's crude and dumb.

Ciaran0

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The Church does believe in predestination, so far as it is understood to mean that God knows who will choose to cooperate with his grace and be saved and who will choose to reject him and not be saved. The Church does not believe that God predestines anyone to go to hell. All are created for heaven but some will choose of their own free will to reject heaven.

God knows what choice we are going to make before we make it? God can't be wrong. The people who god knows are doomed to hell are going to be doomed to hell. If God knows in advance what decision I'm going to make before I make it, how am I making the decision myself? Before I even existed, God knew everything I'm going to do. If I really had a choice in the matter then there would be an almost infinite number of ways my life could play out. Yet god knows which way it will play out. God can't be wrong!

Either (a) God get's it wrong sometimes or (b) predestination can't happen.
The concepts of free will and predestination cannot be combined. It does not work.

ISAW

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Are you all there?! Atheism isn't a way of running a country. It hasn't anything to do with communism or dictatorships. It is simply the rejection of the Idea that there is a god.

A = without
Theism = The belief in god through religion
Atheism = Without religion or god

It's very simple. You do know God doesn't run our countries?

But apparently you can attack those who say God does run their countries and they have no recourse to say "that was not Christianity that was a dictatorship"? Damned if they do and damned if they don't!

But it is quite clear that while most Christians in history with very few exceptions didn't run regimes which slaughtered people claiming that Christ was central to their mission, all atheistic regimes had "There is no God" as a central tenet, and they slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and built nothing.

nickcave

ISAW wrote: »

But apparently you can attack those who say God does run their countries and they have no recourse to say "that was not Christianity that was a dictatorship"? Damned if they do and damned iof they don't!

Butit is quite clear that while most Christians in history with very few excepotions dint run regimes which slaughtered people claiming that Christ was central to their mission, all atheistic regimes had "the is no God" as a central and they slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and built noting.

'Atheist regime' is an oxymoron - that's the part we're arguing that you've missed. There is no atheist doctrine with which to rule a country.

The fact that Stalinism, Maoism etc. didn't have a religious pretext to their madness is a separate issue.

recedite

Morbert wrote: »

Occam's razor is "All other things being equal, the simplest hypothesis is the best hypothesis.". People often forget about the first part of that sentence. We have evidence for A, in great abundance: 150 years of rigorous investigation into every detail of the claim. Occam's razor would therefore compel us to pick A over B.

In addition, option B (creationism) is not even the simplest of the two. It just appears simple because all the complexity is hidden behind the phrase "God did it".
For example, compare these two explanations for the phenomenon of lightning;
A. A build up of ions in the atmosphere causes a momentary plasma bridge to appear which discharges the electrical differential.

B.Zeus got angry and zapped a mortal.

Option B seems simple, but it throws up more questions than it answers.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I don't believe so. What I reject is a particular interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

I don't see how you can reconcile Genesis with Abiogenesis. They are mutually exclusive.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

I don't see how you can reconcile Genesis with Abiogenesis. They are mutually exclusive.

Probably because we have different understanding of how Genesis was intended to be understood. Seems you think it intended to be understood as a scientific textbook. I don't.

ISAW

nickcave wrote: »

'Atheist regime' is an oxymoron -

"Atheistic" isn't!

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

State atheism is the official "promotion of atheism" by a government,

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of
atheism." - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
by a government, typically by active suppression of
religious freedom and practice."
- "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
Characteristics and Consequences,
David Kowalewski,
Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,

"An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia�s Buddhist religion:
monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
other religious sentiments were often killed.
...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
instead of the family.

About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent...

that's the part we're arguing that you've missed. There is no atheist doctrine with which to rule a country.

Again to quote Fasgnadh:

Atheist leaders of the USSR and China WERE atheists, implemented
atheist policies of propaganda and indoctrination, and ADMITTED they
were atheists.. ie they TALKED atheism.. "If it talks like an atheist..
is a perfectly logical and relevant statement..
The fact that Stalinism, Maoism etc. didn't have a religious pretext to their madness is a separate issue.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Did Adam know the consequences of eating That apple before he eat it ?

Awareness of the consequences of an action is not sufficient proof of absence of a capacity to choose that action..

ISAW

pug_ wrote: »

From what I'm understanding of this (and I freely admit I may still not understand what's being suggested) it all amounts to a recursive argument. You say God is only aware of our actions beforehand because he's given us the choice to make those actions, but before he gave us the choice he was aware of what actions we were going to take, but he was also aware he was going to give us the choice, but by doing so he also knew the outcome of the choice etc... Or am I still picking it up wrong?

No. You are correct. You dont understand. And you are going into a debate we already had here Try searching under Libnitz Theodicy and the problem of evil.

None of this gets around the fact that before the universe existed God must have known one of the outcomes of the universe would be a planet where we exist along with every single action that has and will happen on this planet.

Omnisscience does not rule out free will
http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

This to my mind still denies the very idea of free will

Because your mind isn't aware of modal fallacies?

The problem is that I've never seen anything even remotely convincing in favour of an argument for theism.

All swans are white? .....until you see a black one.

nickcave

ISAW, you haven't listened to a single thing I've said on this matter.

I don't know why I'm doing this, but in case somebody is listening:

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."

Neither I, nor any of the atheists who are attempting a rational discussion here, are Communists. Obviously I don't speak for everyone on that, so I'm open to correction. Please stop talking about this as if it holds any sort of water.

"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
by a government, typically by active suppression of
religious freedom and practice.

If that is the meaning of 'state atheism' then 'state atheism' is to be discouraged and avoided. But I'm uncomfortable with the term 'state atheism' and, as I have already said, it is an oxymoron. And please don't quote me out of context on this.

Atheist leaders of the USSR and China WERE atheists

This is not the problem.

implemented atheist policies of propaganda and indoctrination

This is the problem.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

God knows what choice we are going to make before we make it? God can't be wrong. The people who god knows are doomed to hell are going to be doomed to hell. If God knows in advance what decision I'm going to make before I make it, how am I making the decision myself? Before I even existed, God knew everything I'm going to do. If I really had a choice in the matter then there would be an almost infinite number of ways my life could play out. Yet god knows which way it will play out. God can't be wrong!

I would heartily recommend you try reading something by Brian Greene. He explains the relativity of time quite well. Science is really very interesting.

You have a choice between many options, but in the end you only choose one option. So the many options are reduced to one by your choice, nothing else determines that.

God is eternal, so there is no 'before' or 'after' with Him. If He saw Your choice 'after the event' (from your perspective) you would not see that as limiting your choice. So, just because (from your very limited perspective) He sees your choise 'before' that makes no difference. Your choice is not determined by His knowedge. His knowledge is determined by His choice.

Have you ever read 'Flatland' by Edwin Abbott? It's pretty amusing how beings in a two-dimensional world struggle to understand the concept of three dimensions. And that is really what happens when our minds (which are conditioned to Newtonian concepts of time) try to grapple with more recent science.

Either (a) God get's it wrong sometimes or (b) predestination can't happen.
The concepts of free will and predestination cannot be combined. It does not work.

Maybe you might want to read up a wee bit on how the term predestination is used in different strands of theology? Thomists, Molinists, Calvinists and Arminians all use the term in different senses.

For example, many Christians believe that God has predestined that all who choose to place their faith in Christ will be saved - rather than picking out individuals and making their choice for them.

ISAW

nickcave wrote: »

ISAW, you haven't listened to a single thing I've said on this matter.


Neither I, nor any of the atheists who are attempting a rational discussion here, are Communists. Obviously I don't speak for everyone on that, so I'm open to correction. Please stop talking about this as if it holds any sort of water.

Please try to keep up. Like others you have the logic backwards.

I pointed out atheistic regimes
Atheists say "but those are atheist regimes they are communist/totalist/dictatorships ( pick) "

I then point out the actual communist regimes (or dictator or totailist polit bureau or whatever is the case for that regime) and their central philosophy with them saying that atheism is central to that regime.

If that is the meaning of 'state atheism' then 'state atheism' is to be discouraged and avoided.

Just as State fundamentalist religion is. But very few Christian regimes have been State religions and when they were they didnt kill hundreds of millions. All atheistic regimes did

But I'm uncomfortable with the term 'state atheism' and, as I have already said, it is an oxymoron. And please don't quote me out of context on this.

You may be uncomfortable with the term byt it is clearly defined and clearly supported by reference to history. they slaughtered tens to hundreds of millions. Christians didn't!

Atheist leaders of the USSR and China WERE atheists implemented atheist policies of propaganda and indoctrination and slaughtered people with atheism as a central tenet. Niy Im haooy to admit that not all atheists at all times always committed murder, but nor did all Christians. The point that was being made was that Christianity when it comes together as an organisation and starts running schools hospitals governments etc. is regarded by the atheist posters here as bad for society. However whenever the atheistic alternative was tried it resulted in a pile of skulls. And the argument is made by Fasgnadh - an agnostic

Improbable

In the context of the recent discussion, can I get some clarification on the difference between omniscience which I personally would think of as infinite knowledge versus predestination which I would view as the idea that anything that happens, happens as a result of god's will. I certainly don't think omniscience and free will are contradictory, though it does get somewhat muddled when referring to the being in question. But for the sake of this argument, let's assume that god is excluded from this.

I do think that predestination as I see it is contrary to the concept of free will. I may be mistaken in my definition though and would be happy to be corrected.

ISAW

Improbable wrote: »

In the context of the recent discussion, can I get some clarification on the difference between omniscience which I personally would think of as infinite knowledge versus predestination which I would view as the idea that anything that happens, happens as a result of god's will. I certainly don't think omniscience and free will are contradictory, though it does get somewhat muddled when referring to the being in question. But for the sake of this argument, let's assume that god is excluded from this.

I do think that predestination as I see it is contrary to the concept of free will. I may be mistaken in my definition though and would be happy to be corrected.

This is an interesting point with reference to the current times.

The Bible tell a story that the angel Gabriel came to Mary and said "Hail Mary full of Grace the Lord is with thee" and Told her about her options to be a Mother. Now the question is could Mary have refused? If she made the choice of her own free will she must have had the option to refuse. What might have happened then we don't know since she apparently chose to have the child.

Improbable

ISAW wrote: »

This is an interesting point with reference to the current times.

The Bible tell a story that the angel Gabriel came to Mary and said "Hail Mary full of Grace the Lord is with thee" and Told her about her options to be a Mother. Now the question is could Mary have refused? If she made the choice of her own free will she must have had the option to refuse. What might have happened then we don't know since she apparently chose to have the child.

Does this really answer the question I asked?

ISAW

Improbable wrote: »

Does this really answer the question I asked?

Eh yes.
You asked "Is predestination incompatible with free will?"
The answer was "Yes" if there is only one option available but in that case there is not free will to chose. If you are saying "predestination" = "what must happen no other options available" it is a contradiction in terms.


But there are various views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#Church_Fathers_on_the_doctrine

Arminians hold that God does not predetermine, but instead infallibly knows who will believe and perseveringly be saved. This view is known as Conditional Election, because it states that election is conditional on the one who wills to have faith in God for salvation. Although God knows from the beginning of the world who will go where, the choice is still with the individual. The Dutch Calvinist theologian Franciscus Gomarus strongly opposed the views of Jacobus Arminius with his doctrine of supralapsarian predestination.

Da Shins Kelly

ISAW wrote: »

Please try to keep up. Like others you have the logic backwards.

I pointed out atheistic regimes
Atheists say "but those are atheist regimes they are communist/totalist/dictatorships ( pick) "

I then point out the actual communist regimes (or dictator or totailist polit bureau or whatever is the case for that regime) and their central philosophy with them saying that atheism is central to that regime.



Just as State fundamentalist religion is. But very few Christian regimes have been State religions and when they were they didnt kill hundreds of millions. All atheistic regimes did



You may be uncomfortable with the term byt it is clearly defined and clearly supported by reference to history. they slaughtered tens to hundreds of millions. Christians didn't!

Atheist leaders of the USSR and China WERE atheists implemented atheist policies of propaganda and indoctrination and slaughtered people with atheism as a central tenet. Niy Im haooy to admit that not all atheists at all times always committed murder, but nor did all Christians. The point that was being made was that Christianity when it comes together as an organisation and starts running schools hospitals governments etc. is regarded by the atheist posters here as bad for society. However whenever the atheistic alternative was tried it resulted in a pile of skulls. And the argument is made by Fasgnadh - an agnostic

Utter nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about history and those regimes knows that the crimes committed by those dictators were not inspired by atheism. They did not kill people because they were atheists. They killed people because they were psychopathic control-freaks. The reason those regimes were atheistic was so that the dictators could take the place of God. It wasn't because they had any sort of invested interest in atheism or secularism. They wanted to be the Gods, they wanted to be the ones who were worshipped. Look at Nazi Germany - the Hitler youth, Nuremberg, re-writing history books, radio propaganda, burning books, only publishing newspapers that supported Hitler. This was all done to create a cult of personality around Hitler and turn him into the all-powerful, all-knowing God. That's why 'atheism' is pushed in those regimes - so the dictators are not overshadowed by other Gods. It's all part of controlling every aspect of every citizen's life. It's not atheism in the real sense.

The difference then is that certain states carry out crimes because they say that God told them to, or that it's God's righteous judgement or that they're doing God's work. It's all in the name of God. Crimes committed by Communist or Fascist regimes that abolished religion were not committed in the name of atheism. They were committed in the name of power and control.

nickcave

ISAW wrote: »

You may be uncomfortable with the term byt it is clearly defined and clearly supported by reference to history.

Yet it not my position - it was/is the position of the delusional despots we've spoken about.

And yet you bring it up again...

Atheist leaders of the USSR and China WERE atheists implemented atheist policies of propaganda...

And this is how I know you haven't been listening. Or else you're obtusely refusing to deal with any of the actual claims I've made and are content with the "But Pol Pot killed millions" line of intellectualism.

If you are, please don't engage me in any of it.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Awareness of the consequences of an action is not sufficient proof of absence of a capacity to choose that action..

That is not what I asked.

ISAW

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about history and those regimes knows that the crimes committed by those dictators were not inspired by atheism. They did not kill people because they were atheists. They killed people because they were psychopathic control-freaks.

Funny ho9w the same is not applied to you in cases of religious psychopathic control freaks who happen believe in Godor are leaders of a Church. In their case it is belief that is at fault but in the case of a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen and goes about slaughtering them then it has nothing to do with atheism.

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was promoted by various regimes. FACT!

The reason those regimes were atheistic was so that the dictators could take the place of God.

LOL! The old redefining all atheistic regimes as religion switcheroo tactic!
"they were not real atheists they were in fact a religion.
In spite of the fact that they attacked religions slaughtered their priests and adherents and promoted "there is no God" as a central tenet of their political philosophy?
Give us a break.

It wasn't because they had any sort of invested interest in atheism or secularism. They wanted to be the Gods, they wanted to be the ones who were worshipped. Look at Nazi Germany - the Hitler youth, Nuremberg, re-writing history books, radio propaganda, burning books, only publishing newspapers that supported Hitler. This was all done to create a cult of personality around Hitler and turn him into the all-powerful, all-knowing God.

LOL so in doing that the Nazi's were practicing Roman Catholicism now were they?

Naziism had theosophical roots and was certainly not christian. It was anti christian - just like all the atheistic regimes.

Funny how you tell us all about regiimes who want to be treated as gods and proclaim "there is no god worship the leader instead" And brand these "ther is no God" people somehow as non atheist? I thought you defined atheism as "there is no God" people?

That's why 'atheism' is pushed in those regimes - so the dictators are not overshadowed by other Gods. It's all part of controlling every aspect of every citizen's life. It's not atheism in the real sense.

And another "only true Scotsman" emerges!
In spite of the fact of proclaiming atheism as central and "ther is no God" as central these people were not real atheists? I suppose next we are to believe they secretly followed Christianity? Give us a break!

The difference then is that certain states carry out crimes because they say that God told them to, or that it's God's righteous judgement or that they're doing God's work. It's all in the name of God.

Very few have done so and in comparison few have died because of them. Particularly in relation to Christianity which is what this group is about.

Crimes committed by Communist or Fascist regimes that abolished religion were not committed in the name of atheism. They were committed in the name of power and control.

In spite of them actually saying "atheism is an inseparable part of communism" or that "religion is a drug" to be removed from society? In spite of particular targeting of clerics and religious adherents? And in spite of the fact that when they stoppoed attacking religion and dumped the atheistic element but still kept in control their regimes were not nearly as bad?

Ciaran0

ISAW wrote: »

But it is quite clear that while most Christians in history with very few exceptions didn't run regimes which slaughtered people claiming that Christ was central to their mission, all atheistic regimes had "There is no God" as a central tenet, and they slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and built nothing.

But what has that got to do with anything? We know that forced atheism is just as bad as forced religion, which is why it isn't done in modern developed countries. Your constant referral back to the atheist regimes is (A) off topic and (B) of no consequence to what atheism actually is. Atheism doesn't have a central body governing it, it's decision made by individual who realise that there is no God. There is no atheist authority. What has the fact that some very bad people were atheist and forced it on the people they governed got to do with anything? Are you trying to say that Soviet regime's would have been better if they were on the name of God?