"Bringing Atheists to God"

[POI]

In a recent exchange, the following quote was made, at the very bottom (viewtopic.php?t=39637&start=410):

"Someone that recently read my argument for God, emailed me and thanked me for bringing him to God."

For Debate:

What is this argument for God, and why is it so convincing?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #30]

I'm a bit disappointed but not surprised. You don't get it, but Theists usually don't. The basic rule of logical construction is 'a logical construct even if sound, is invalid if based on unsound parameters'. Starting off with godfaith, whether to start with, or waiting to leap out 'It was me all the time!'. is the invalid parameter. The speculative (and philosophy can only speculate, old chum; science validates) stuff about the nature of reality just leaves us with hypotheses and questions, and the attempts to wangle a god in there are invalid, from Anselm's idiotic 'if we can imagine something bigger than what we see, it must exist', (oh yes, it is ) to Chalmer's dualism zombies (1), based on a faulty equivalence.

This, I do maintain, pretty much nullifies all your arguments and claims that the objections to Cosmic mind apologetics are easily refuted (I'd like to see you do it) and I am not inclined to see a (probably horribly slanted and self - serving) video about how God must exist and atheists are all silly poohs. It's all reminiscent of the back to front theist - thinking of 'disprove this apologist in this video or book' and when we do it, just post another. We are up to that game.

By all means, make any particular argument as distinct from sweeping dismissals based on appeals to flawed authorities like Anselm or Aristotle, and I'll address it, but to get to topic, a way not to bring atheists to God is to spam and bamboozle them, e.g with canards such as pretending that postulating a natural origin for matter/energy, the universe and ife (one logical parameter) is somehow less probable (as distinct from the canard of that being some atheist Belief) than maintaining life, the universe and everything popping out of nowhere at the behest on an inexplicable cosmic being without origin of its' own (two logical parameters); we don't like it.

I'd still be interested, by the way, to hear how you made the Leap of faith from Cosmic Mind to Vatican - God. As I assume that's where you are. It is relevant to topic because - of course - some sorta god does not validate any particular Religion - based god.

(1) I didn't say that you did, it's an example of a flawed argument that tries to make philosophy take over the job of research -science, whether or not to smuggle God in there.

[brunumb]

If you listen to the agnostic Majesty of Reason (Joe Schmid), a philosopher discuss what he finds to be the short comings of Feser's Aristolean argument, he doesn't not say Ed Feser is illogical. In fact, he praises how well he constructs his arguments. Instead, he nick picks at some parts of it as he does with all arguments either for God or against God. He says for the same reasons other are no arguments to convince one to be atheist. You ought to be agnostic.

The effectiveness of any arguments for God will depend on one's threshold of gullibility. It is differs from person to person.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to brunumb in post #32]

That only shows me that you do not think on the level of Graham Oppy or any philosopher probably.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #32]

That only shows me that you do not think on the level of Graham Oppy or any philosopher probably.

I doubt that you do either. That said, it doesn't mean that they are right. The world is full of brilliant minds that do not buy into the arguments for God. Why is that? Oh, wait. Satan's at work.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to brunumb in post #32]

That only shows me that you do not think on the level of Graham Oppy or any philosopher probably.

I doubt that you do either. That said, it doesn't mean that they are right. The world is full of brilliant minds that do not buy into the arguments for God. Why is that? Oh, wait. Satan's at work.

I am sure there are a lot of psychological reasons. One would be after you are convinced of something for a long time, it is hard to change your mind about it because you invested so much time into it. You might feel stupid if you had to admit you had it all wrong for so long. I think this might be why some seem so upset about God because they believed a primitive idea of sky daddy god for so long that they feel bamboozled. They feel stupid for ever believing in such nonsense, and they will be damned if they ever get bamboozled again, thus they are aggressively not skeptical but cynical.

[Diagoras]

It is similar to believing that things can just pop into existence without cause. Some actually use that as if it is a counter to God. Hey, if you can accept spontaneous existence, more power to ya, but most of us cannot.

<snip>

Whatever position you take will have logical consequences. If you can live with those, even if the consequence is well, material things can subsist of themselves or sure things can just pop into existence with out [sic] cause, then you will not ever conclude God. IMO, you have concluded something far more perplexing and unbelievable.

<bolding mine>

Sounds like you’re simply saying most people don’t understand (and can’t accept) the more counter-intuitive aspects of quantum mechanics.

I agree that thinking ‘God did it’ is a much simpler and easier way of dealing with some of these ‘hard’ questions. The problem with that though, is that it doesn’t do anything to progress man’s understanding of the universe.

To me, quantum theory is more ‘perplexing’ than God, but it’s also much more believable. It has withstood much scrutiny and proved itself to be an astonishingly accurate explanation for many disparate phenomena through experimentation.

Anyone swayed by the argument mooted at the start of this thread is then simply taking the ‘easy’ path. I’m not surprised that a few do in fact find it persuasive. However, its flawed premises on the quantum nature of the universe means it’s by no means the ‘cast-iron’ proof you seem to think it is.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #32]

That only shows me that you do not think on the level of Graham Oppy or any philosopher probably.

I doubt that you do either. That said, it doesn't mean that they are right. The world is full of brilliant minds that do not buy into the arguments for God. Why is that? Oh, wait. Satan's at work.

I am sure there are a lot of psychological reasons. One would be after you are convinced of something for a long time, it is hard to change your mind about it because you invested so much time into it. You might feel stupid if you had to admit you had it all wrong for so long. I think this might be why some seem so upset about God because they believed a primitive idea of sky daddy god for so long that they feel bamboozled. They feel stupid for ever believing in such nonsense, and they will be damned if they ever get bamboozled again, thus they are aggressively not skeptical but cynical.

This is great stuff Having nothing to offer but a bunch of Flawed First Cause arguments and appeals to authority, and I already debunked one First Cause argument that tried to smuggle Intelligence (Him) in there in the argument, and i binned the 'three mistakes atheists make' talk, you play the bias card. It is not hard to see the bias that makes you argue in this way, not with overmuch intellectual honesty.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to brunumb in post #32]

That only shows me that you do not think on the level of Graham Oppy or any philosopher probably.

I doubt that you do either. That said, it doesn't mean that they are right. The world is full of brilliant minds that do not buy into the arguments for God. Why is that? Oh, wait. Satan's at work.

I am sure there are a lot of psychological reasons. One would be after you are convinced of something for a long time, it is hard to change your mind about it because you invested so much time into it. You might feel stupid if you had to admit you had it all wrong for so long. I think this might be why some seem so upset about God because they believed a primitive idea of sky daddy god for so long that they feel bamboozled. They feel stupid for ever believing in such nonsense, and they will be damned if they ever get bamboozled again, thus they are aggressively not skeptical but cynical.

This is great stuff Having nothing to offer but a bunch of Flawed First Cause arguments and appeals to authority, and I already debunked one First Cause argument that tried to smuggle Intelligence (Him) in there in the argument, and i binned the 'three mistakes atheists make' talk, you play the bias card. It is not hard to see the bias that makes you argue in this way, not with overmuch intellectual honesty.

It seems you do not understand the difference between a first cause argument and an argument form change. Can you explain in your view how you interpret say Aristotle's argument from change to the purely actual being as being a first cause argument? Can you show where he argues from first cause? You can read it free online. Aristotle's Metaphysics chapter 12.

Or you can look at Ed Feser's version of the argument in Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Can you point out where he argues from first cause?

Here is the first part of his argument in the formal version. He defends each premise at length in the book in the informal argument. But I just want you to point out where he is arguing from first cause if you will.

1. Change is a real feature of the world.
2. But change is the actualization of a potential.
3. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
9. A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A’s being purely actual.
10. If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
11. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A. 13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.

The rest of the argument goes on to demonstrate there can be only one purely actual actualizer and then goes on to demonstrate what it ought to be, that by premise 48 we have.

48. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.

Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God (p. 37). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.