Comments on: Gaining knowledge about external reality http://conversationalatheist.com/2010/02/gaining-knowledge-about-external-reality/ Atheists need to make more of an effort to be heard in their daily life. Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:24:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Crown http://conversationalatheist.com/2010/02/gaining-knowledge-about-external-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-25704 Crown Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:21:00 +0000 http://conversationalatheist.com/?p=1233#comment-25704 (Coment continued) Therefore, A. There must be a cause which needed no cause, because it already was (this is not ex nihilo since it did not "come" at all). B. This cause must not be governed by laws of nature since it needed no cause and is self-sufficient (since it didn't need nature before nature came into existence), it is therefore above nature or "supernatural". C. This eternal being must also, by being self-sufficient, be above the "powers" or abilities of nature, therefore making it, by natural definition be "omnipotent". D. Since it is above nature and caused nature, it stands to reason that this supernatural, omnipotent being, wwould know everything there is to know about it's own effect or creation, therefore omniscient. E. An eternal, ominiscient, omnipotent being, matches the description of the God of scripture, therefore it is God. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('25704','Crown'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('25704','Crown','(Coment continued) \nTherefore, \nA. There must be a cause which needed no cause, because it already was (this is not ex nihilo since it did not "come" at all). \nB. This cause must not be governed by laws of nature since it needed no cause and is self-sufficient (since it didn't need nature before nature came into existence), it is therefore above nature or "supernatural". \nC. This eternal being must also, by being self-sufficient, be above the "powers" or abilities of nature, therefore making it, by natural definition be "omnipotent". \nD. Since it is above nature and caused nature, it stands to reason that this supernatural, omnipotent being, wwould know everything there is to know about it's own effect or creation, therefore omniscient. \nE. An eternal, ominiscient, omnipotent being, matches the description of the God of scripture, therefore it is God. \n \n '); return false;">Quote</a></div> (Coment continued)
Therefore,
A. There must be a cause which needed no cause, because it already was (this is not ex nihilo since it did not "come" at all).
B. This cause must not be governed by laws of nature since it needed no cause and is self-sufficient (since it didn't need nature before nature came into existence), it is therefore above nature or "supernatural".
C. This eternal being must also, by being self-sufficient, be above the "powers" or abilities of nature, therefore making it, by natural definition be "omnipotent".
D. Since it is above nature and caused nature, it stands to reason that this supernatural, omnipotent being, wwould know everything there is to know about it's own effect or creation, therefore omniscient.
E. An eternal, ominiscient, omnipotent being, matches the description of the God of scripture, therefore it is God.

Reply | Quote
]]> By: Crown http://conversationalatheist.com/2010/02/gaining-knowledge-about-external-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-25703 Crown Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:20:18 +0000 http://conversationalatheist.com/?p=1233#comment-25703 I suppose I am joining the conversation late; however, I'd like to make a correction as to what the reasoning actually is. The reasoning is this: Many people are in a search for God, the God of scripture. The God of scripture is omnipotent, Eternal, ominiscient. Eternal maning having no beginning or ending. If they can find any such substance or being it is God by definition. Scientifically, there must be something eternal, since we have never witnessed anything that came into existence from nothing. Evolution cannot be an explanation because we have not witnessed it and anything scientific must be witnessed, tested and proven. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('25703','Crown'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('25703','Crown','I suppose I am joining the conversation late; however, I'd like to make a correction as to what the reasoning actually is. The reasoning is this: \n Many people are in a search for God, the God of scripture. The God of scripture is omnipotent, Eternal, ominiscient. Eternal maning having no beginning or ending. If they can find any such substance or being it is God by definition. Scientifically, there must be something eternal, since we have never witnessed anything that came into existence from nothing. Evolution cannot be an explanation because we have not witnessed it and anything scientific must be witnessed, tested and proven. \n \n '); return false;">Quote</a></div> I suppose I am joining the conversation late; however, I'd like to make a correction as to what the reasoning actually is. The reasoning is this:
Many people are in a search for God, the God of scripture. The God of scripture is omnipotent, Eternal, ominiscient. Eternal maning having no beginning or ending. If they can find any such substance or being it is God by definition. Scientifically, there must be something eternal, since we have never witnessed anything that came into existence from nothing. Evolution cannot be an explanation because we have not witnessed it and anything scientific must be witnessed, tested and proven.

Reply | Quote
]]> By: James Tracy http://conversationalatheist.com/2010/02/gaining-knowledge-about-external-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-2309 James Tracy Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:50:40 +0000 http://conversationalatheist.com/?p=1233#comment-2309 That's why I tend to think of theology as a house of cards. You can build very elaborate theological structures based on sophisticated philosophical argumentation and reasoning, but as soon as you add in the stipulation of evidence and confirmation with the external world the entire edifice collapses in on itself. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2309','James Tracy'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2309','James Tracy','That's why I tend to think of theology as a house of cards. You can build very elaborate theological structures based on sophisticated philosophical argumentation and reasoning, but as soon as you add in the stipulation of evidence and confirmation with the external world the entire edifice collapses in on itself. '); return false;">Quote</a></div> That's why I tend to think of theology as a house of cards. You can build very elaborate theological structures based on sophisticated philosophical argumentation and reasoning, but as soon as you add in the stipulation of evidence and confirmation with the external world the entire edifice collapses in on itself.
Reply | Quote
]]> By: thoughtcounts Z http://conversationalatheist.com/2010/02/gaining-knowledge-about-external-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-2305 thoughtcounts Z Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:53:22 +0000 http://conversationalatheist.com/?p=1233#comment-2305 As a physicist married to a mathematician, I'm confident saying that this sounds like a very accurate characterization! I have no problem with the debates that theologians have about their religions, and actually find them really interesting, but I wish that they (and their readers) were more conscious of the fact that all their argumentation is implicitly prefaced with, "<em>If a deity exists</em> with properties x, y, and z...." <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2305','thoughtcounts Z'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2305','thoughtcounts Z','As a physicist married to a mathematician, I'm confident saying that this sounds like a very accurate characterization! I have no problem with the debates that theologians have about their religions, and actually find them really interesting, but I wish that they (and their readers) were more conscious of the fact that all their argumentation is implicitly prefaced with, "<em>If a deity exists<\/em> with properties x, y, and z...." '); return false;">Quote</a></div> As a physicist married to a mathematician, I'm confident saying that this sounds like a very accurate characterization! I have no problem with the debates that theologians have about their religions, and actually find them really interesting, but I wish that they (and their readers) were more conscious of the fact that all their argumentation is implicitly prefaced with, "If a deity exists with properties x, y, and z...."
Reply | Quote
]]>