Anglosaxons do not eat pig; we eat pork. “Porc” (Latin “porcus”) is the word in French for both the animal and the meat. We take the dog, not our canine companion, for a walk. We take a stroll; we do not ambulate or go on a promenade. Sometimes we prefer the harsher, less lyrical, teutonic words of Saxon. (If 60% of English is derived from Latin, the meaning of a full 40% of our bastard mother tongue, with no relation to Latin roots, is difficult for speakers of modern Latin-based languages to guess. “Tongue” is Saxon, “language” is Latin.) As an ecclesiastic (Latin), a church-man (Saxon), I studied THEOLOGY, a word of double Greek origin (“theos” and “logos”), which is more elegant, sophisticated and academic than my neologism. GODOLOGY is ugly, Saxon and Greek, but it is just as meaningless as “Theology”. Whatever you call it, it is a discourse about … NoThing, about the NoBody most people unquestioningly believe actually exists. As I have already suggested, “Fairyology” or “Hobbitology” would be far more fun and much more interesting, though about as useless as the nonsense I spent so long studying and even teaching.
One of Godology’s champions, Saint Anselm, less famous perhaps than other saintly scholars like Augustine, Albert and Aquinas, was remarkable for his invention of the ultimate in the hot air and hogwash which is God-talk. Before him, other Godologians had come up with detailed identification of the attributes of the Godhead if not the Godtail. He was, and is, and always will be, perfect. In fact, “perfect” sums Him up … perfectly. Now, opined Anselm, if we attribute perfection to Him, this must include the attribute of existence. If He were not perfect, He would not be God, and if He didn’t exist, He wouldn’t be perfect. Q.E.D. The “ontological proof” (!) is simplicity itself. The word is apt. Only simpletons, like other Godologians, could accept it.
But Frank, surely you must have learned SOMETHING during all those years studying Dogmatic Godology, Moral Godology, Sacramental Godology, Maryology, Angelology and Whateverology ! Sure I did ! I learned all anyone could ever want to know – and then some ! – about what other Godologians had dreamt up over the centuries and expressed in their corollaries to and glosses on the unfounded thesis that the deity, invented by primitive peoples and become the subject of the Sacred Writings of religions all contradicting each other, actually existed, created the world and all of us, expects that we obey – under pain of eternal punishment – the commandments concocted by their predecessors, and that we provide a living for them and a clerical caste we pay to remind us of the myths, make sure we obey the rules and join in the rituals to worship their imaginary business product and source of income who has shared with them not only inside info about how to avoid the Hell He created for His naughty children and secure a passport to Paradise for those lucky enough to be His Chosen Few, but special powers only they possess, the effects of which remain invisible like the NoBody Himself but are vital to our salvation. (It would have been good if they had also taught us to be taut in the way we write, rather than gas on like their endless monotonous monologues which their long-suffering congregations are expected to listen to docilely every week.)
When I realize the errors of my ways and revert back to believing the baloney, as some pious people pray that I do and as have a Flew (!) erstwhile atheists polluted by Pascal, I will walk around wearing a sandwich board, with, on one side, “Repent, The End Is Near !”, and on the other, “Support Your Local Godologian”.
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
Indeed, if they had taught you to write taut, and not tort(Fr.) ,you could have t’ought (in the language of your uneducated predecessors, God rest their souls) a bit more deeply and condensed the 50 lines into one,
viz: ‘There is an intelligence, greater than mine, involved in the universe.’
I now await the predictable echo, a proof to add to the Aquinas set, viz: The efficient cause of Frank always produces a final cause, the echo of Thom;
Or a 4th law to add to Newton’s 3 laws of motion; To every tort from Frank, there is an equal and predictable re-tort from Thom.
On this 17th day of March, St. Patrick must be happy to see his efforts of 1600 years ago still bearing abundant fruit in your niece and her peers, by the grace of God.
Enjoy your green Perrier and shout a Guinness for your and my copain in the pub, while discussing bumping inanimate electrons and protons producing the glory of the emerald isle and its people.
Have a grand day! I can’t meaningfully offer you the advice of Eileen’s cousin in the old sod “Watch the level of blood in your alcohol stream”.
LikeLike
Does Jim perhaps think that he is God, being able to predict the future. I must reluctantly disabuse him of that notion as I had already alerted Frank to the timing of my comment, knowing that Jim would weigh in – in the “Super Lightweight” Class.
More to the point I read recently in an issue of Scientific American that the Quantum world of atomic particles applies on much more macro scales. Like Schrödinger’s cat maybe “God” exists and doesn’t exist at the same time. The decoherence and entanglement of Quantum physics find their companion expression in the incoherence and tying in knots of Jim’s theory of “pure essences”.
The godies (those duped by Godology), in their rush to judgement and jumping to a conclusion and onto the bandwagon, have invested their immaterial entity with some very particular and peculiar human characteristics. The xenophobic monster of the Old Testament exemplifies this wonderfully and also scandalously.
Whilst I’m at it I will share with you my own version of anti-Anselm. Creation is an act of adding substance where it is lacking or of improvement where there is deficiency or of progressing towards perfection where there is imperfection. According to the classic Godology theory “God” existed in “His” perfection for an eternity before “His” creation over 6 or 7 days. This creative output is however an admission of imperfection or deficiency or improvability despite the fact that “He” considered “His” creation to be “good” or “very good” (not perfect note). Hence perfection did not exist before the creation. Hence “God” is not “God”.
Anselm would have been proud of me.
LikeLike
Have another try,Thom. You can do better. I find it hard to follow the obtuse story line, admittedly though, only half the number of lines but just as puzzling as your lead man.
But maybe it’s just me and I’m not as bright as Frank claims, and our school class was pretty dull. No wonder those poor Brothers tried so hard to belt some sense into some of us.
So ‘Heidelberg’ strikes again in no uncertain terms. So we all have our personal wave function, popping into and out of existence before anyone notices, and when we approach a hill, we sometimes go right through and pop out the other side, and when we are observed somewhere, our wave function collapses, and no one can be certain where we are if we run fast.
Come to think of it, I recall, as a science student in the 50’s, after our introduction to quantum physics, it was cool to greet each other with “How’s your wave function”? It seems Scientific American has just cottoned on.
Recently, after Frank spoke of Heidelberg and then you spoke of quantum time in your science fiction predictions of the future, I suddenly found myself humming that Student Prince song; ” When it’s quantum time for Heisenberg”.
While the blind watchmaker is figuring out where he let Fall his quantum Spring(or leap) , I’ll just keep on believing, like Aquinas, that the acorn will produce an oak tree if anything, and never a giraffe or a David Hume. Like any good empiricist, I believe in the predictable. Strike a match and a flame results, not a turnip or a nuclear reaction or fairy floss or a rabbit. No superstition, please. The Last Superstition, a refutation of the new atheism, is the title of Edward Feser’s brilliant book exposing the sophistry.
LikeLike
Perhaps my proof was a little too subtle for Jim – unlike Anselm who was pretty easy to understand if not comprehend.
The essence of my proof hinges on “God’s” perfection. You yourself, Jim, have said that “He” is either the “essence of perfection” or the “perfection of essence”, which, like Anselm, is all pretty straight forward. And we are not talking aromatherapy here.
So “God” has existed for all eternity in perfection. Perfection cannot, by definition, be added to or improved upon. So the “creation” was either NOT an act of “God” or the creator was NOT “God”. Again all pretty straight forward.
Of course if I had couched my argument in the more obscure and obscurantist jargon of the metaphysicians it might have sounded more impressive. I feel sure Feser could help.
Regarding Feser, I am confident that in 50 years time he will be remembered by few – unlike Heisenberg and Schrodinger’s cat, both of whom (or which), will still be remembered by many.
PS. Can you please elaborate on your SIX STEPS. And make it straight forward like a good chap.
LikeLike
Thom, my last seems to have crossed with your last.
This is in response to your last.
I am sure that I never used the term essence of perfection or perfection of essence. I think you are a little confused. Check back and see. I confined myself to essence and existence.
It’s getting a bit regular that you misquote me. Do be careful, credibility suffers.
Heisenberg will certainly be remembered by Frank, whenever he thinks of the Student Prince, in whatever part of eternity he will be residing in 50 years.
Do you know the name of Scroedinger’s cat and will you remember it in 50 years, especially as you have trouble remembering what I said a few weeks ago?
Feser will probably be forgotten, as he has not contributed any major new idea, but his talent is as a lucid lecturer and author, clarifying old truths.
I have never got involved with Anselm’s arguments. I believe Aquinas does a far better job, and have not seen any challenge to his logical line of reasoning from the simplest, and most obvious of starting points.
All you need to agree is that at least one thing we observe in the physical world changes. You don’t even have to believe that the universe had a beginning. You don’t even have to refute that there could have been multiple big bangs(although physicists would see this as highly improbable, based on the current entropy of the universe).
His deductions are even independent of whether there are multi universes, or if there is life outside of earth.
So, trying to drag the argument into Anselm is a red herring, and perhaps a deliberate distraction.
In the occasional objection you have raised against Aquinas, I can see that you have never really tried to understand him. E.g. “Who made God?”, which is listed objection # 1, in the most tried trump cards of those who really don’t get past his page 1.
You are probably aware that Feser spends a lot of time in discussion with quantum physicists. You realise that Catholic physicists have been at the very foundation of the quantum world.
It seems we keep going over the same ground. If you or Frank can show me where Aquinas went wrong in, say, his argument from motion, we might start getting somewhere.
Frank says that he has spent years becoming expert in all fields of philosophy and theology, so maybe he can also point out where your renowned namesake blundered, and was exposed by Frank, 7 centuries later.
LikeLike
I should have added ,Thom, your argument on perfection has a big,big hole in it and is invalid. No time to address further now. Later.
LikeLike
Thom said above:
[So “God” has existed for all eternity in perfection. Perfection cannot, by definition, be added to or improved upon. So the “creation” was either NOT an act of “God” or the creator was NOT “God”. Again all pretty straight forward.]
As eluded to, Thom, your fundamental error is assuming that if God is perfection, He could not create anything less than perfection. I’m sure after a moment’s reflection, you will gasp with horror at your school boy error. Pretty straight forward, indeed!
Over to you now: Can you claim that nothing in the universe ever changes?
I claim that some, even most, or perhaps all things change. That’s all I need to conclude that a snow flake does not cause itself to melt without some external cause, etc.,etc., to a first cause. You know the rest, perhaps. If not, Frank will help.
This is one of the many arguments of Aquinas, not the most renowned one, but easily followed by non trained philosophers. Frank would probably like the more advanced one via Essence and Existence(not perfection!).
I did notice in Frank’s book, the official catechism of all atheist agodology, that there is a photo of him seriously studying Anselm, in Paris. Perhaps he never got as far as Aquinas, before his deviation of course. Domage!
LikeLike
So Frank, echoed by Thom, prefers to avoid the stigma of that nasty ant- term, atheist and to be known as agodologists.
This is understandable, as atheists have a dismal record of being of any use to humanity, and are devoid of humour and joy.
Frank, in turn, echoes Richard Dawlins in believing in the creator, known as Blind watchmaker.
Unwittingly, Frank and Richard are expressing belief in Jesus Christ as God.
The reasoning is:
1. By definition, the blind watchmaker can make the blind watch
2. To be able to watch, one must first see.
3.Therefore, the blind watchmaker can make the blind see
4. Jesus Christ is the only person who has made the blind see.
5. Ergo, Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe, and is known to agodologists as the blind watchmaker.
6. Not only are godologists theists by another name, they are actually Christians. and it is a simple step from here to show that the Catholic Church is the authentic infallible, earthly representative of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Now come on Jim. Don’t keep us waiting.Your Six Steps are still eagerly awaited. And don’t be afraid of putting your foot in it – as you did with your last effort at explaining Frank who is inexplicable (that’s a joke Jim).
What do we want. Jim’s Six Steps. When do we want it. Now.
LikeLike
Thom wrote ,above:
[ Regarding Feser, I am confident that in 50 years time he will be remembered by few – unlike Heisenberg and Schrodinger’s cat, both of whom (or which), will still be remembered by many.], among some other references to QM proving No-God.
In turn, I referred, above, to interesting philosophical argument going on between Feser, and also Christian Craig Lane, with atheist or agnostic scientists/philosophers on evidence from QM.
It is there fore interesting to quote just a few of these exchanges. I believe there is interesting new theist support emerging, as the quantum world is being philosophically analysed.
In the interest of space, I just give one example among many.
———————————————————————————————————
From Feser website:
Atheist philosopher (a sophisticated defender of atheism) Quentin Smith comments:
[ According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science. (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325. Emphasis in blue added) ]
Edward Feser responds:
{So, if the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (which sees consciousness as that which collapses the wave function) is true, then we have a purely scientific argument for the existence of God.
In order to deny this conclusion, atheists would have to challenge the Copenhagen Interpretation (an interpretation which they endorse when criticizing the causal principle “whatever begins to exist has a cause”, because they falsely think that indeterminism posed by that interpretation implies non-causality regarding the origin of contingent substances. But this endorsement open the door to a new and independent argument for God’s existence, so atheists seem to be caught in a kind of dilemma in this point).
Truth-seekers will follow the evidence whenever it leads; hard-core atheists and naturalistic ideologues will follow the evidence except when it refutes atheism (in this case, they become highly skeptical of current scientific theories… as an example, see atheist philosopher Peter Millican’s skeptical arguments on contemporary scientific cosmology in his recent debate with William Lane Craig).}
In particular, Frank’s idea that no super-human intelligence is/was involved in the universe contradicts fellow atheist quantum philosopher, Quentin Smith.
LikeLike
It is interesting but not surprising to see that Feser, echoed by Jim, conveniently ignores the caveats in the quote from Quentin Smith.
In case you missed them – 3rd sentence “most” and “often” and 4th sentence “In this respect..”.
The quote from Quentin Smith cannot be read as an endorsement of Feser’s interpretation.
To do so is in my view a deliberate misreading of Quentin Smith. Feser’s desperate latching on to and use of the word “consciousness” (in the first sentence of the Feser quote) is surely evidence of this as Quentin Smith uses the word almost dismissively.
LikeLike
I will just add one more item in the hundreds of exchanges between Feser, and agnostic or atheist philosopher/scientists on implications of quantum behaviour, especially as Thom has alerted us to quantum effects being applicable to the macro world.
Below is one more exchange. I will not inflict more on invisible readers who may seek more variety.
Feser states:
The late agnostic physicist Euan Equires wrote in his book “The Mystery of the Quantum World” two plausible scientific arguments for God’s existence based on quantum mechanics (or more exactly, two technical ways in which God could play a role in quantum mechanics. A more formal argument in this line, and reply to potential objections, would require a more detailed philosophical-conceptual analysis, which I’ll develop in future posts).
Symptom
Squires’ first scientific argument is this:
Quantum theory offers at least two possible roles for a ‘God’, where we use this term for a being that is non-physical, nonhuman, in some sense superhuman, and is conscious. The first role is to make the ‘choices’ that are required whenever a measurement is made that selects from a quantum system one of the possible outcomes. Such a God would remove the indeterminacy from the world by taking upon himself those decisions that are not forced by the rules of physics. Although expressed in nontraditional terms, this is reasonably in accordance with the accepted role of a God. He would be very active in all aspects of the world, and would be totally omnipotent within the prescribed limits. Prediction of his behaviour from the laws of physics would be impossible (note that we are not permitting any hidden variables in this chapter), although from both the theological and the scientific viewpoint we would want to believe that there were reasons for at least some of the choices; otherwise we would be back with random behaviour and the God would not have played any part. It is interesting to note that this role might even permit ‘miracles’, if we were to regard these as events so highly unlikely that they would be effectively impossible without very specific, and unusual, ‘divine’ choice. For example, according to quantum theory, there must be a small, but non-zero, probability that if I run into a wall, then I will pass right through it. This is a special case of the potential barrier experiment and the wavefunction on the left-hand side, corresponding to transmission, is never quite zero. Then, however small the probability for transmission might be, a God would be able to select it as the outcome, if he so chose. (pp.66-67)
Feser’s comments:
According to this first argument:
1)God could intervene making the choices required each time a measurement is done in order to select an specific outcome (note that, as Squires realize, this would refute the indeterminism which is thought to be esssential to QM, at least in the standard orthodox interpretation. I think the refutation of indeterminism in this level is reasonable because, if God exists, his creation couldn’t be dependent on wholly random phenomena in the quantum level).
2)God’s essential attribute of omnipotence would be preserved (so, making full justice to the classical concept of God). Other attributes like non-physicality, consciousness, superhuman, etc. are preserved too. (Note that no one of God’s attributes implied in this argument conflicts with the classical attributes that theology posits as belonging to God).
Rather, these attributes strongly suggest that we’re not dealing with an human-like form of consciousness, but with consciousness with superlative attributes which have been typically reserved to God as the ultimate perfect being.
3)Even miracles would be possible, again vindicating the classical concept of God who intervenes, by his own decisions, in events in this world.
I think this argument could be developed in detail and in a logically rigorous way.
Squires’ second argument (which is largely independent of the first one) is this:
The second possible role for a God to play in quantum theory is more relevant to our principal topic. God might be the conscious observer who is responsible for the reduction of wavefunctions. Whether, in addtion, he also decides the outcome of his observations, as in the above paragraph, or whether this is left to chance is not important here. What is important is the fact that God must be selective-he must not reduce all wavefunctions automatically, otherwise we meet the same problem that we met when discussing modifications to the Schrodinger equation in $3.7: the reduction that is required depends on the observation that we are going to make. If, for example, a reduction to figure 16 is made, then there will be no possibility of interference, whereas a human observer might decide to do the interference experiment .It is therefore necessary that the God who reduces wave functions, and so allows things to happen in the early universe, in particular things that might be required in order for other conscious observers to exist, should know about these other observers and should know what they intend to measure. God must in some way be linked to human consciousness. (pp.67-68. Emphasis in blue added)
This argument is, in my view, stronger than the first one. But Squires doesn’t formulate it in its strongest version. In my opinion, the possible theistic implications of Squires’ second argument are more obvious when we asked for the reduction of wavefunctions of the universe as a whole (and hence, previous to the existence of human or extraterrestial (conscious) beings).
We could argue like this:
1-Concious observation is needed to the reduction of the wavefunctions in the origin of the universe.
2-Human (and alien, if they exist) conscious observers are posterior to the origin of the Universe (i.e. the concrete physical world existed before the emergence of human or alien consciousness)
3-Therefore, human (and alien) conscious observers are not the cause of the reduction of the wavefunctions in the origin of the universe (the latter is previous to the emergence of human and alien beings).
This implies that a nonhuman, non-physical consciousness is the cause of the reduction of the wavefunction of the whole universe.
It points out to a being which is:
1-Non-physical (since it is the cause of the physical world). Note that if this being were physical (embodied), then we are confronted again with the problem of which conscious observation produced the reduction of the wavefunctions necessary to the existence of his physical body.
2-Timeless (since it is the cause of the universe, and hence of physical time). Being “timeless”, it is argueably eternal, since eternity has been classically understood as either 1)Existing in each point of time; or 2)Existing independently of time (i.e. as trascendent regarding to the physical time).
3-Spaceless (since it is the cause of the universe, and hence of the physical space)
4-Conscious (otherwise, not reduction of the wavefunction would be possible).
5-Intentional (since such consciousness cannot reduce all the wavefunctions simultaneously, but only some of them selectively which implies concrete intentions. If conciousness without intention were sufficient to collapse the wave function, then the selectivity mentioned by Squieres would be inexplicable. This point seems to refute some of the versions of “universal consciousness” who see it as purely impersonal consciousness, “all are one” and other argueably unintelligible slogans common in some mystical, Hegelian, Wilberian, and new age circles).
6-Personal (given point 5), since essential to a person is the property of having ends, desires, purposes and intentions (all of the which implies selectivity regarding specific ends or purposes). It is not a purely undifferentiated or impersonal consciousness (whatever it means), but a personal consciousness. We are dealing with a non-physical being which is a person with concrete purposes and intentions.
All the above properties seem to be much like the personal God as understood in classical theism. Again, crucial to the argument is the implication that it is not mere “consciousness” in any undifferentiated, impersonal, collectivistic or mystical sense, but argueably a “personal consciousness”. And this cannot be human consciousness, since the concrete universe that we’re trying to explain preceded the emergence of humans and other conscious beings (e.g. intelligent physical aliens, if they exist).
It could be replied that perhaps multiple spirits or souls existed before the origin of the universe; and they were responsible for the creation of the universe (this is the view of L.Ron Hubbard and some others) but who argue for this polytheistic view has the burden of proof that it is the case, and moreover Occkam’s Razor suggests that positing ONE personal being (instead of an arbitrary number of particular beings) as the responsible for the origin of the physical world is more parsimonious than positing many gods or god-like entities.
So, it seems we have two plausible and very good scientific arguments for God’s existence based on quantum mechanics, being the second one far better than the first one.
————————————————————————————————————–
So thanks, Thom for raising the extra string to our bow, emerging from QM.
God continues to reveal His nature little by little.
Indeed, you are right! Heisenberg and Schroedinger, the 2 Catholic pioneers of QM may be remembered in 50 years .It’s just possible that Feser will be on the list also.
LikeLike
It sounds suspiciously like “God” is “obeying” the laws of Quantum Physics which doesn’t sound too “God”-like to me.
Perhaps Jim and Feser should look a little more deeply into the implications of decoherence and entanglement in QM where the more macro possibilities (fantasies) suggested by Jim, echoing Feser, are concerned. Otherwise we are left, as I said in an earlier post, with the incoherence and tying in knots which are the hallmarks of much of Jim’s apologetics.
Incidentally the Quantum “God” speculated about by Feser sounds a lot like the “God” of the Old Testament and “His” Son, Jesus, of the New. NOT!
LikeLike
Who do you think made the laws that God is implementing Thom?
Like Steve Hawking said: If the universe did not exist, it would have to invent itself because of the laws of physics.
You seem to be echoing him.
Who is the law maker? I hand over to the lawyer himself.
QED.
LikeLike
Last year, I was near the Physics Dept.of Sydney University, and decided to walk through the corridors, which had changed little, in search of some quantum physicist with the time and kindness, to update me a bit, in simple terms,what was new in QM in the 58 years since I had frequented the place.
I did not bump into one, but noticed some interesting diagrams and explanations on wall charts. One gave an analysis of student answers to the question: What is the value of the wave function of an electron during the 3 stages of tunnelling, viz prior to entering the barrier, during tunnelling and on re emerging. There was a wide range of answers.
I was always interested in electron tunnelling, a weird quantum belief, since the transistor, the basic component of all electronic devices we enjoy, from phones to computers to cameras to nav-aids to TVs would not work if tunnelling did not happen.
That’s pretty strong evidence for a phenomenon which seemed to defy natural laws of energy conservation.
Since Thom’s reminding me of the macro application of QM, miraculous phenomena like Jesus apparently walking through a wall, the raising of Lazarus, even the Resurrection and our final resurrection, Saints’ bilocation and levitation are all possible in the hands of an omnipotent God, without departing from the physical laws with which He created and sustains the universe.
Even Frank’s apparent random selection as the source for everything including evolution, does not necessitate belief in blind watchmakers or mindless bumping of atoms. It’s all within the sometimes miniscule probabilities of natural application, by an omnipotent source outside the confines of time and space, of natural laws.
LikeLike
You might take a look at a rational reply to an interesting question put to a scientist who is also Christian, Seiichi Ariga. It can be found by “googling” the following. “Quantum Physics as a means of leading scientists to Christianity”.
Now Jim, be a good chap and enlighten us on your six steps because as you no doubt realise the blog is essentially concerned with Religion (or its absurdity) and not Quantum Physics.
LikeLike
Religion encompasses the whole of life, including Quantum theory, which you and Frank raised and continued. Perhaps it’s becoming a little uncomfortable for you.
Read Spitzer’s “new proofs for the existence of God, with contributions from contemporary physics” for the heaps of evidence from non quantum physics for the lunacy of belief in an atheist universe.
But this is all a second string to the bow, as the rational argument for God is fro metaphysics, which does not depend on the support from physics. It is available to all people of common sense, without specific specialisation in a particular science.
We have basic and seemingly irreconcilable disagreement on the first point. I place myself in the opposite position, like you claiming 6 steps to prove atheism, based on an acorn producing a giraffe, or a blind watchmaker creating the entire universe, as your first step.
Therefore, I will begin with steps 4 to 6 and then work down to our irreconcilable first step.
If there are any readers, other than the echoing couplet, and occasionaly Finian, will you please identify yourself(selves)? Merci, thanks, gracias, danker, grazie….
I don’t want to go to all the trouble for a couple of firmly closed minds.
Watch this space!
LikeLike
Uncomfortable for me (us)? I think you’re having yourself on Jim.
The test of a truly open mind is that it is open to wherever genuine inquiry leads it.
Aquinas, Feser, Haddad and a litany of Catholic apologists with you following obediently in their footsteps have all had an agenda in their supposed open-minded enquiries. Their objective has been decided in advance of their speculations. To this extent their impartiality is compromised even corrupted.
I have no doubt that scientific advances will continue to reveal ever more extraordinary things about the fascinating universe of which we are such an insignificant part. I am equally confident that they will not reveal your “God”.
You clearly believe otherwise. But you, like your predecessors, have decided in advance that your “God” exists. That is your right but it is absurd to claim that either Quantum Physics or Metaphysics (Heaven forbid) establish the truth of your belief.
Meanwhile back to the essential business of the blog – Religion and its absurdity. We await with trepidation your six steps.
LikeLike
Absolutely, Thom. My genuine enquiry, taking account of all evidence available to me, and testing everything, as far as can be tested, and within the limits of our human intellect, I have been firmly lead to my Catholic Faith.
You have been led to a different conclusion, in which you hold firm belief.
Feser firmly held your atheist belief until he began looking for evidence to support that belief. He became Catholic. I know Haddad’s background also, who began with a different adult belief before testing the evidence.
Both are intelligent and knowledgeable men.
LikeLike
Thom says:
The test of a truly open mind is that it is open to wherever genuine inquiry leads it.
He adds that he is ‘ certain that scientific advances will continue to reveal ever more extraordinary things about the fascinating universe of which we are such an insignificant part. I am equally confident that they will not reveal your “God” ‘.
His truly open mind seems already closed to a particular finding. He states his conclusion before the evidence has been gathered. I wonder if he reflects on his contradictory words before pronouncing them?
Jesus did comment about seeing the speck in another’s eye, but ignoring the log in one’s own.
And I continue to marvel at Thom’s judgement that Feser and Haddad had their objective firmly decided in advance, when Feser’s object was to disprove God, and Haddad was not a convinvced Catholic at his outset.
So enough of your pious pronouncements,Thom ,about openness of mind, which you clearly fail repeatedly to demonstrate.
Thom is a believer in scientism, which holds that only what can be proved by physical experiment can be known. This belief can not be proved by scientific experiment, nor does it demonstrate openness of mind.
I am open to the possibility that there is a reality beyond what is currently available to our sensual perception.
Thom should explain why he is not open to such a possibility.
The 2 philosopher/scientists, whom I quoted in dialogue with Feser on quantum phenomena, did accept the possibility of a “God” explanation, as does agnostic scientist and author, Paul Davies.
They both show ” a truly open mind”.
LikeLike
Jim says he is “open to the possibility that there is a reality beyond what is currently available to our sensory perception”.
But is he open to the possibility that there is NOT a reality beyond what is currently available to our sensory perception?
Now more seriously, Jim, your SIX STEPS in whatever order you happen to arrange them. We are waiting – patiently – and praying that you honour your promise.
LikeLike
Give me your proof, Thom, that there is no such reality and I will judge it on its merit or lack there of.
I think you have given yourself quite a task. By comparison, my 6 steps, awaiting evidence of a few of the claimed open, invisible readers, is a cinch.
LikeLike
Come to think of it, Thom, I’m not sure that I can judge your claim without using my intellect, which is outside sensory perception. Hmmm!
LikeLike
Maybe not outside sensory perception but certainly beyond comprehension.
I have suggested to Frank that you might be eligible for instant excommunication if you persist in being naughty and withholding your first steps. Six of the best for you, my good chap.
LikeLike
Six of the best invisible readers in exchange for my 6 steps is the deal.
LikeLike
I would suggest that you are in no position to dictate terms. Unconditional surrender or banishment to eternal silence are your only options I imagine.
LikeLike
Well, unless an invisible reader or two come forth, and without myself, it will be just Frank and Thom agreeing that atheistic life is becoming gloomier and more pointless as time ebbs away. A pretty exhilarating blog!
I will give you 6 reasons but do hope you can produce an unseen reader who may be interested.
Will you solicit some of the 25 whom Frank mentioned ?
LikeLike
Australians have an acute sensitivity to what the British call “Fair Play” and we call a “Fair Go”. Blatant inaccuracy or exaggeration, hypocrisy and manipulation are unacceptable. Failure to respect the rules can lead to rupture, even between people who call themselves “mates”.
Jim-called “invisible”, that is, as I have pointed out, “silent” readers of the preceding comments – if any (I suspect that many read the articles I post but not the DOTDs, (Dialogues of the Deaf) underneath them) – have surely noticed that Jim has committed the unpardonable sin. Instead of respecting his original promise to provide his “Six Steps” (a “cinch” he said), he now maliciously imposes the CONDITION that so-called “invisible” readers first identify themselves and post a comment. Clearly Jim doubts that they exist, because they are “invisible”. Worse, he dares me to violate basic editorial ethics by “soliciting some of the 25 … mentioned”.
Fortunately I don’t have to. The following have already revealed their identity in making comments on this blog, comments and commentators conveniently “forgotten” by our devious debater. Jim decrees that “six of the best invisible readers in exchange for my six steps is the deal” (a unilateral, belatedly imposed and never agreed condition for accepting the request repeated politely by Thom no less than five times). The following not six but sixteen should fit the bill and be enough to satisfy the blackest blackmailer :
1. “Regarding Religion” (Ben Simpson) : February 14
2. Steven Spielberg : February 5
3. Tom Byrnes : January 25
4. Marty Witt-Enberg : January 24
5. Ron Vernon : January 12
6. Ignostic Atheist : January 8
7. Critic of Christianity : January 8
8. Laroche : January 7
9. Rob Hamill : December 19
10. Grahame Knight : November 13
11. alhintabiah : November 9
12. hitchens 67 : November 1
13. Helen Ledwidge : October 31
14. Margaret : October 22
15. Wendy : August 8
16. Peter Evans : August 6
Jim’s comments will no longer be accepted for publication in my blog.
One of us at least is dedicated to giving the other a fair go, so I offer Jim one last comment, no longer than this one (a reasonable condition and an editorial right), as his swan-song. He has at least provided a precious example for our BOTBs (Believers on the Brink), of the intellectual dishonesty of Catholic apologists. For this we, and all the “invisible” present and future readers of blindfaithblindfolly express our gratitude.
LikeLike
Cm’on Frank, you can’t be serious. You’ve excommunicated me once before. This time I wish to plead my case. You can use your lawyer, Thom, if you wish. He has just beaten you to also threaten excommunication. Who’s in charge? He needs a Marist style reprimand, or 6 of them, from you.
In my defence, I first plead precedence :
Please check the evidence of the number of times both you and Thom ignored my request to answer if you believed that no higher intelligence than human was responsible for the universe…….
I would be surprised if my delay in responding to your request for 6 steps exceeded either of yours.
In respect to the charge of blatant inaccuracy and exaggeration, note the false references you both made to my’ belief in weeping statues’. This is not an isolated inaccuracy and exaggeration. You should examine earlier exchanges and you will find many examples. If you wish, I will dig them out. Thom is much worse than you on this count, but you are quite bad.
I don’t quite understand your indignation on references to ‘invisible’ rather than ‘silent’ readers. A bit pedantic, don’t you think?
Silent readers are what one finds, ideally, in libraries. Visible readers make themselves evident by a visible written mark. Readers who don’t write are quite accurately termed ‘invisible’, rather than silent. Again, I believe to have won the test of accuracy.
As for your charge of manipulation, you will need to tell me what you mean. I don’t own the right to excommunicate pesky contributors, or threaten such, in order to manipulate their freedom of expression. Does that border on manipulation?
Please form a jury of 12 of your invis…oops, silent readers to pronounce sentence.
I will accept their visible verdict, and at the same time, see evidence that they are in court, and if declared innocent, will immediately launch into my 6 steps.
My case rests.
Thank you, at last, for producing some names. I am surprised at your indignation at my request to solicit some of your readers to just say hello. A general request in your blog would have sufficed to trigger a response, surely?
This would satisfy us all, more than your quoting 16, largely one-off contributions over the pat 7 months. You did miss Finian’s one contribution, making it more accurately 17. But accuracy , as we see, is not a high priority.
I do acknowledge Tom Byrnes’ advice to me on how to better handle you, and I thank him for constructive advice. He and Finian are, I believe, the only ones in over a year to have responded to myself. I accept that some would possibly have responded to some of yours, that I did not follow.
I am quite happy to give my 6 steps, even if they fall on silent or deaf ears. It depends on the jury verdict.
LikeLike
Thanks for the marvelous posting! I truly enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author.I will make sure to bookmark your blog and may come back later in life. I want to encourage yourself to continue your great job, have a nice afternoon!
LikeLike