Thus, by logic and physics (the king of the sciences) then we have a proof for the existence of a supernatural entity that was the cause of the entire universe existence. you can call it God, Divine Mind, Cosmic Intelligence etc…it does not matter. What matters is non-material entity is the only valid inferential explanation of the existence of the universe.

If you dont accept that proof then you must respond by telling me how the universe began and what caused it with you evidence from modern cosmological physics. NOW, please dont dodge this or go off onto some red herring tangent because it will be obvious that you are conceding the point. Deal with it head on. Now after you have given your evidence for an alternative view for the universe’ beginning, then you must also attack and undermine the foundations of big bang theory, singularity theory, and the like. If you dont, then you will have resorted to violating your own rules of logic and intellectual honesty.

NB: By the way, in classic epistemology, sensory phenomena is NOT the only way to provide evidence. The use of pure theoretical reason (i.e. inference) is also a valid epistemological category –just ask any mathematician or trained philosopher worth their salt. I would suggest all you guys read up more on epistemology and modern cosmology before you wax eloquent about logic, science and evidence as applied to the big metaphysical questions of life, God existence etc

Why do you characterize yourself as “guiltridden”? Is it because in your heart of hearts, you wear that seat belt because a part of you fears that God’s benevolent, protective hand will not save you from grievous bodily harm in the event of a vehicular collision despite your faith in him?

And while I’m at it, isn’t it the case that whether God provides or withholds a benefit (like the rain), your faith in God will remain constant? The answer is either “yes,” or it is “no.” If the answer to my question is “yes,” then you confirm that evidence of God’s benevolence (or the absence of such evidence) has nothing to do with your faith in that benevolence. If the answer is “no,” then you have demonstrated that your relationship with God is contractual in nature — and that despite whatever words you may say, you do not believe that the God with whom you have contracted is either benevolent or trustworthy.

In the section of Summa Contra Gentiles that you quote, Aquinas argues that reason alone is insufficient to prove the existence of God. On this, although not on other points, I agree with him. But note that Aquinas shrinks away from concluding that a reasoned proof of the existence of God eliminates the necessity of faith altogether.

Aquinas stops because this demonstrates the ultimate divergence of faith and reason. The two can only walk hand in hand for so long, and then as you nicely put it, “Faith takes off were reason can go no further.” So you see, even you admit that even if they can be dovetailed together for a while, faith and reason must necessarily part ways at some point.

By the way, if you’re going to admit that your faith in God is based on something other than reason, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I love my wife, but I have no way to objectively prove it to you; love is an irrational, unreasonable emotion, incapable of measurement or objective verification. Nevertheless, I know that my love for her is very real, and very god, despite its irrationality and subjectivity. You might say that your faith in God’s existence (and his benevolence) is like that. If so, the argument ends there (and I win, because in so doing, you demonstrate that faith and reason diverge) with God’s existence being a matter of your subjective emotion rather than one susceptible of objective proof.

So keep on wearing that seat belt, dude. In an auto collision, it’s much more reasonable to rely upon the products of reason and science than to rely on the intercessory power of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God whose existence (as Aquinas eloquently pointed out, lo these many years ago) cannot be proven by logic, reason, or evidence.

Chapter 8 of the Summa Contra Gentiles, I would of course encourage you to read the entire book as I believe it will help you sleep better at night. http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/scgbk1chap1-9.htm

The relation of human reason to the truth of Faith
THE things of sense, from whence human reason takes its beginning of knowledge, retain in themselves some trace of imitation of God, inasmuch as they are, and are good; yet so imperfect is this trace that it proves wholly insufficient to declare the substance of God Himself. Since every agent acts to the producing of its own likeness, effects in their several ways bear some likeness to their causes: nevertheless the effect does not always attain to the perfect likeness of the agent that produces it. In regard then to knowledge of the truth of faith, which can only be thoroughly known to those who behold the substance of God, human reason stands so conditioned as to be able to argue some true likenesses to it: which likenesses however are not sufficient for any sort of demonstrative or intuitive comprehension of the aforesaid truth. Still it is useful for the human mind to exercise itself in such reasonings, however feeble, provided there be no presumptuous hope of perfect comprehension or demonstration. With this view the authority of Hilary agrees, who says (De Trinitate, ii, 10), speaking of such truth : “In this belief start, run, persist; and though I know that you will not reach the goal, still I shall congratulate you as I see you making progress. But intrude not into that sanctuary, and plunge not into the mystery of infinite truth; entertain no presumptuous hope of comprehending the height of intelligence, but understand that it is incomprehensible.”

Faith and reason are very much compatible. Faith takes off were reason can go no further and reason supplements and is in fact the fount of some people’s faith. Now you might have Pentecostals argue the point, but for guiltridden Thomist Catholics myself there is no chasm or imcompatability between between faith and reason, only mystery.

Your first proposition is: “It will rain in the next few days because a benevolent God will make it rain in response to my need for it.” Here, the result (rain) comes first, and then the way you get there (faith in God) is invoked to justify the result.

Your proposition assumes the existence of a benevolent God susceptible to your pleas for intercession. But rain will not come simply because you have a subjective desire for it. The proof that a benevolent God will not make it rain on the basis of necessity is found in the existence of droughts. Tell me, if it doesn’t rain, will you doubt God’s existence (or benevolence)? If the answer is “no,” then evidence has nothing to do with your belief.

Your second proposition is something like: “It is likely to rain in the next few days because a cold air front appears likely to meet with a low barometric pressure zone within a few hundred miles of my location.” Here, objective evidence can be found and a forecast can be made based on that evidence. Note that the evidence comes first, the result second. Note also that a weatherman, unlike a prophet, makes no claim to inerrancy, and speaks instead only of probabilities.

As for the millions of Christians who rely on God to protect them from accidents, if God will protect them from harm, why do they use the seat belts at all?

Dos…lots of people in history have had faith that God would send rain, or troops, or whatever, and yet ended up dying despite that. The level of belief, religious fervor, “godliness”, whatever that means other than showering regularly, or whatever measure you care to name had nothing to do with whether help arrived – it either happened or it didn’t, based on natural physical laws and chance.

And thousands of Christans get into their cars every day and end up dying because some crazy driver pulled out in front of them – they die in pretty much the same proportions as any other religion…so if the Christian God is watching out for them, he’s doing a pretty crappy job of it.

So what exactly is God doing in this picture, other than giving them a false sense of security? Absolutely nothing.

Probligo – by saying you pretty much discard the world’s religions until and unless someone provides proof makes it so no one can really tell you what to believe. Merely by applying scientific principles (which incidentally brought us from the dark ages of absolute Catholic Church control into the modern world) to everything people try to get you to believe, you can effectively make sure you are deciding for yourself what to believe, and what not to believe.

And yes, I believe science itself should always be subject to scrutiny…and it is usually…because scientists can make mistakes, and because new evidence becomes available frequently which can alter or even (rarely in well developed fields) refute existing theories. However, unlike the Intelligent Design nuts I don’t believe one or two pieces of evidence we can’t explain refutes a theory that has tens of thousands of other types of evidence that support it. Similarly, Exxon and Bush climatologists weighing in on global warming have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Faith is the assertion of the truth of a proposition in the absence of supporting evidence.

I have faith that it is going to rain sometime in the next couple of days, because the crops need rain and God won’t let my children starve. The weatherman also says it is going to rain in the next couple of days. Faith and scientific evidence are not exclusive and often work in tandum. Millions of Christians get into cars everyday having faith that God will protect them and they put on their seat belts. Sorry, you are wrong & Thomas Aquina is right.

God’s existence is incapable of being proven by objectively verifiable evidence. Doing so would render God to be another natural entity, like a human being or a beetle or an asteroid. The whole point of God is that God is supernatural, not bound by or located within the natural universe. So attempting to prove God’s existence and failing demonstrates nothing meaningful. Attempting to prove God’s existence and succeeding destroys God.

For that reason, proposing the existence of God cannot be justified through reliance on reason. It is an inherently irrational act to propose the existence of God. You might think that it’s a nice thing to do anyway. But by definition, it’s also an unreasonable thing to do.

As Takhallaus says, skepticism is not religion. It is a refusal to put faith in that which cannot be proven.

If the proposition is the existence of the supernatural, what we have is an absence of evidence. Granted, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — but in the absence of evidence, reason cannot lead us to any kind of conclusion and a hypothesis must be downgraded to a mere guess.

The proponent of a proposition is the one who bears the burden of proving its truth. It is not generally possible to prove a negative, so if an atheist offers the proposition, “God does not exist,” that results in a logical parlor game with no end — because God might be infinitely subtle, powerful, and knowledgeable, and therefore able to create and govern the universe in ways that defy the laws of physics (God being able to alter them at will) and therefore escape proof. Just as the “brain in the bottle” proposition is incapable of being disproven, so too is the existence of God. An intellectually honest atheist must admit that he cannot disprove God’s existence.

However, a failure to disprove is not the same thing as proof. An atheist’s failure to disprove the existence of God is no more meaningful than a phenomenologist’s failure to disprove Jimmy’s “brain in a bottle” theory. (By the way, if Dan *is* the only conscious entity in existence, that means Dan is God, and God is delusional. Not a very happy ending to that story, is it?) So it does no good to the debate to say that an atheist can’t disprove God’s existence. That merely means that God *might* exist; it says nothing about the likelihood of God’s existence. The proposition of God’s existence must be advanced by the theist or the debate ends there inconclusively.

So when the theist says, “God exists,” the atheist’s response should not be, “No, he doesn’t,” it should be, “What’s your proof?” If the theist’s desire is to convince the atheist, the response to that challenge should be a citation of some fact that is objectively verifiable.

If that is the response, the theist will either succeed or fail. If the theist fails to offer an objectively verifiable fact, the atheist’s response will be that there is no evidence to support the belief.

In theory, if the theist could identify objectively verifiable facts that do demonstrate the existence of God, the theist has reasoned himself out of the realm of faith entirely. I do not need faith to know that my car is painted green or that my dog has once again eaten the toilet paper. I have evidence of these facts. The problem with doing this is that it renders God subject to objectively verifiable facts and evidence, and transforms God from a supernatural to a natural entity — and thereby eliminating his divinity. So in proving God’s existence, the theist destroys God. Again, not a happy ending to the theist’s struggle.

Conversely, if the theist’s desire is to assert the true nature of religion, the theist avoids that debate entirely and replies to the atheist’s demand for proof with a statement like, “God’s existence is incapable of being proven. You just have to take it on faith.” This the atheist will refuse to do and thus ends the debate. Neither the atheist nor the theist have changed their minds because neither has offered any reason for the other to do so.

The existence of God is simply not provable by use of reason. It can only be supported by faith. Faith and reason, although they can be partially reconciled through the use of sophistry, are ultimately incompatible. Accepting the existence of God is by definition not an act of reason. One’s choice is whether to subliminate one’s reason to one’s emotional desire for God to exist, or not.

I choose “not.”

Pascal’s wager was undoubtedly clever for it’s era, but is nonsense today. If you hold that we are better off believing than not, you open a door you can not only drive a Zeus through, but a leprechaun and a unicorn as well. In effect Pascal says, “what the hell, believe whatever you want,” which would be death to science, but also, interestingly, death to Christianity and Judaism and Islam.

The idea that we will “find out the truth” when we die, is wrong. When we die – assuming death is as we atheists believe — we will learn nothing. We’ll be dead. And dead people are not known for their profound observational abilities.

Hey, I said I wasn’t against government assistance programs. My whole point was that, in a perfect world, personal charity is preferable to government charity. The closer we get to those we’re helping, the more we understand their plight and the more earnestly we can help. It’s easy to say “let the government take care of it, I’m enjoying my champagne.” The government has a role but, as a society, we should be pushing people to give personally and not just let the government handle it.

Jesus never said Caesar should take care of the poor. He said we should.

Taking the widest general application the first sentence is probably right. I do not agree that atheism is a belief in “a universal negative” in the way that you express it. It would be far more appropriate to make the comparison with the value of “zero” in mathematics and the consternation that proposition caused in the fields of formal mathematics when it was first introduced. If I pull that idea a little harder, agnosticism becomes comparable to the square root of -1. It has a “value” but no one really can express what it might be.

“…most “atheistsâ€Â? that I have talked to are generally far more convinced that the world’s religions are full of crap than they are worried about the existence or non-existence of a “supreme being,â€Â?
– Sleipner

I have to admit that was pretty much where I started from, Sleipner. After several years (perhaps some 25 or 30) of fretting about “religious validity” I began developing the impression that in fact the dogma and systems of any religion (including atheism) were no more than the “illusion” the Bhuddists attach to the universe.

To that extent “religion” could perhaps be defined as the formal collection of people holding similar faith and belief in the nature of the world and universe. That would solve Dyre’s desire to categorise atheists as another “religion”.

For myself, the very biggest attraction of atheism is that no one else can tell me what to believe or not to believe”. I can reduce my life to a small series of certainties of which the two most important and most certain are my birth and my death. I thank my parents for the first. I can only hope that someone will remember me after the second.

That having been said, postulating that an omnipotent, omnipresent being of some sort is out there, watching and manipulating everything everyone does and yet is completely undetectable in either action or communication does fall to the cutting room floor pretty quickly when Occam’s razor is applied. If any sort of “superior being” exists to humanity (granted that’s not too difficult), I would be far more likely to believe its origin was a highly advanced alien civilization than a “creator of the universe.” However, I try to remain open to the idea that, unlikely as it seems, the chanting mysics might be right and I just am too dense to detect the bits-o-god that are floating all around me all the time.

Alan – charity by choice is wonderful, and I’m sure it gives you the warm fuzzies inside (especially when it comes around to tax deduction time). However, when times are hard and charitable giving is down everywhere, are poor people supposed to just starve for a while til you can afford to give those checks to your church again? What happened to the idea that it is society’s responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves? Isn’t that a christian ideal? I remember Jesus spent a lot more time talking about that sort of thing than he did about homosexuality or abortion (i.e. not at all)

Not at all, dear chap. “Eternal life” as such is the product being sold. It is the balm for the fear of death. It is the elixir of the unknown.

I have no fear of death, it is a natural and inescapable consequence of living. There is nothing afterward. Of stardust we are made, to stardust we return.

On the question of altruism, I suspect that it be the remnant of a cooperative strategy that led to the survival (initially) and intellectual evolution of our species. Does “altruism” exist in other species? Yes, most apes have altruistic strategies, most especially the chimpanzee and bonobo. Meerkats cooperate in the raising of the young of the alpha pair, and in the protection of the ‘tribe’. Does that mean that bonobos or meerkats have a religion?