Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?

[Jesster]

1) It's equally as falsifiable as your own proposition from before. Suddenly you have a problem with your own logic now, though. I thought as much. [1]

2) Exactly why we shouldn't be defining things away like this. [2]

1) Claiming that "being-itself exists / god exists" is significantly different than claiming that "I am being-itself / I am god" (which was your claim). The former is falsifiable, I am not so sure about the latter.

2) Right. We shouldn't be defining ourselves as the creator goddess. Cheers!

1) You are claiming that this being that you claim exists is a god, so it's the same kind of logic. I am just pointing at myself instead of something that you can't even show to exist in the first place, so you have to take even more steps to buy your claim. The only other difference is that my claim is more falsifiable. I am right here and this can be tested. It sounds like you aren't understanding the meaning of a word now.

2) Right. We shouldn't be defining a god into existence "because we said so". Check and mate!

[pocaracas]

The thing being an assumption is twofold, here:
1. The being - why must the necessary creator/starter/initiator/spark/mover/etc be a being? Automatically, you are assuming consciousness, awareness, intent. [1]
2. Name it a god. God, as a word, carries a huge baggage. Since time immemorial, mankind has worshiped gods. They, the gods, have been many things, but typically, they are rulers, creators, fathers, mothers, generators of natural forces. And mankind still, to this day, retains the feeling that such god(s) need(s) us to kneel to them, as if they're petty human rulers; or grovel for their love as if they are petty human parents; or praise them as if they're petty human heroes. If there is an ultimate creator entity, it should care little for our groveling, our love, our worship, our praise. Much as you care little for an ant's groveling, love, worship or praise... you don't even see them as fit to carry out these complex tasks.
Why should an ultimate creator care for you? Oh... he created you out of the mud, you may say?... just adding more baggage, I say. [2]

1) I don't say that the necessary creator, etc. must be a being. I say that being-itself exists, and is the source of being for everything else that exists. I haven't spoken about intelligence or consciousness or intent at all in this context.

Now now... You said "necessary being". no backsies!
If you are wanting to say that it is equivalent to a "necessary creator", then that's where my problems begin.

I don't like a creator being a being.
A creator of the Universe can be many things... most of them not conscious.
Also, just because we can infer a start to our Universe, that does not mean that, if there is something beyond our Universe, it too had some sort of start and that it too requires some creator.
Are you starting to see why I mentioned "argument from ignorance", earlier?

2) That is a big leap from being-itself to worship and caring for other things. Seems a bit premature given what I've said so far.

Just below your username, it says "catholic"... I assumed you made that leap at some point in your life... so why not go there?...

[Ben Davis]

1) Right. That is what we say. God is existence, itself. God is his own existence, etc.

If it already has a label, why rename it 'God'? And how do you tie this nebulous description back to the very human descriptions of the Catholic God in the bible?

2) No, I am saying that if something exists, then existence itself must exist. If nothing exists, then existence itself doesn't exist.

Then once again, why call that 'God'? Why not simply stop at 'existence'?

3) God's necessity isn't an assumption. The reality of "necessary being" is a conclusion drawn from the datum of existence.

Seriously? I would challenge you in the strongest terms to provide even the slightest evidence to that effect. I predict that you will be incapable.

You can disagree with the conclusion...

Thank you, I just have.

...but that doesn't mean my conclusion is an assumption.

Disagreement doesn't however the fact that there can be no evidence to support such a conclusion does. There is no evidence to support your conclusion therefore it is an assumption at best.

The existence of being-itself is a conclusion drawn from the things we directly observe to exist. Being-itself, on the same logic that leads to that conclusion, is false only if nothing at all exists. It doesn't seem that controversial.

I know the bible says that but unfortunately, reality doesn't agree with it.

4) I dunno. The mere logical consistency seems to be enough. If I say that all cars have doors, that proposition is falsifiable in principle simply by the concept of a car that doesn't have doors. In principle, if you observed a car that did not have doors, you will have succeeded in demonstrating the proposition false. There is a difference in falsifiability (the principle abstract concept upon which a proposition is proved false) and the demonstration of falsity (the concrete evidence of the principle abstract concept which contradicts the proposition). 

Almost all correct except that you don't test for falsehood, you test for veracity.

5) It could be falsified in principle if nothing existed. It can't be falsified (in fact) because of the obvious fact that some things evidently exist. It is the easiest possible experiment.

Once again, you're nearly right nearly however in this case, defining falsifiability creates impossible tests: you would have to compare existence with non-existence. Since it's impossible to produce non-existence, claims reliant on such tests have to be dismissed as unfalsifiable. Instead, the requirement then becomes 'demonstrate existence' and this is something that all 'god' concepts have failed to do so-far, spectacularly.

[Ignorant]

1) You are claiming that this being that you claim exists is a god, so it's the same kind of logic. [1] I am just pointing at myself instead of something that you can't even show to exist in the first place, so you have to take even more steps to buy your claim. [2] The only other difference is that my claim is more falsifiable. I am right here and this can be tested. It sounds like you aren't understanding the meaning of a word now. [3]

2) Right. We shouldn't be defining a god into existence "because we said so". Check and mate! [4]

1) Not exactly. For me, god fundamentally means necessary being, subsistent being, etc. That you have a difficulty discussing the concept of god without associating it with divine intelligence and action seems to be your issue, not mine.

2) But if you think "divinity" when you read my use of god in this thread, I think "being-itself" when you claim to be god. These are two different propositions:

a) god exists
b) I am god

Even if I couldn't show that god exists, the god concept itself cannot be true if nothing exists at all. However, while if nothing existed, you wouldn't exist either, that doesn't tell us anything about your claimed identity as the concept of god.

3) What would falsify the specific claim that you are god?

4) I couldn't agree more. So what do you have a problem with, the concept of necessary being, or the concept that god is necessary being?

[Jesster]

Okay, look up the definition of "falsifiable" for your own use in the future. You seem lost.

Also, if we just want to throw words like "god" around while leaving the baggage behind, I will now define you as a cheese ball. Never mind what that has been used for before. That doesn't matter. You're just carrying around too many assumptions about those words and I can use them to prove whatever I want.

[Ignorant]

Now now... You said "necessary being". no backsies! : [1] 
If you are wanting to say that it is equivalent to a "necessary creator", then that's where my problems begin. [2]

I don't like a creator being a being. [3]
A creator of the Universe can be many things... most of them not conscious.
Also, just because we can infer a start to our Universe, that does not mean that, if there is something beyond our Universe, it too had some sort of start and that it too requires some creator. [4]
Are you starting to see why I mentioned "argument from ignorance", earlier? [5]

Just below your username, it says "catholic"... I assumed you made that leap at some point in your life... so why not go there?... [6]

1) Right... which is the same thing as being-itself.

2) Good, because I definitely have never wanted to say that.

3) I don't like the creator being "a" being. Instead, a creator would be "being-itself".

4) I agree. "Historical" understandings of "cosmological" arguments (tracing causality through time to a 'beginning") are dead ends.

5) Yes I do see why you mentioned that. I don't see why you think all of Thomas's arguments are such arguments. I can see the 2nd way, and maybe even the 1st, but not the 3rd 4th and 5th.

6) Because the question was about the falsifiability of the concept of god. I brought up a concept of god which is in principle falsifiable. If you want to ask, "Well what about the falsifiability of the Trinity?!?", it seems like it doesn't belong in the point of the conversation when we are still discussing the most basic concept of god at all. Why discuss the more complex issue when you haven't even begun to agree about the simpler one?

[Jesster]

Yeah, I don't think there's enough drugs in this city to get my brain in your state. I'm going to bed, but I'll try to find your dealer later. Good luck with life, Ignorant.

[Ignorant]

Okay, look up the definition of "falsifiable" for your own use in the future. You seem lost. [1]

Also, if we just want to throw words like "god" around while leaving the baggage behind, I will now define you as a cheese ball. [2] Never mind what that has been used for before. That doesn't matter. You're just carrying around too many assumptions about those words and I can use them to prove whatever I want. [3] 

1) I am pretty sure I am exactly where I am.

2) Fair enough. Call me whatever you want.

3) Well, you might go back and look at my first comments about Thomas's proofs. Actually, I'll save you the trouble:

"To be fair, none of Thomas's 5 ways individually prove that a divine being exists." -Me, HERE, emphasis added.

---

Yeah, I don't think there's enough drugs in this city to get my brain in your state. I'm going to bed, but I'll try to find your dealer later. Good luck with life, Ignorant.

Thanks! Cheers!

---

If it already has a label, why rename it 'God'? [1] And how do you tie this nebulous description back to the very human descriptions of the Catholic God in the bible? [2]

Then once again, why call that 'God'? Why not simply stop at 'existence'? [3]

Seriously? I would challenge you in the strongest terms to provide even the slightest evidence to that effect. I predict that you will be incapable. [4]

Disagreement doesn't however the fact that there can be no evidence to support such a conclusion does. [5] There is no evidence to support your conclusion therefore it is an assumption at best. [6]

Almost all correct except that you don't test for falsehood, you test for veracity. [7]

Once again, you're nearly right nearly however in this case, defining falsifiability creates impossible tests: you would have to compare existence with non-existence. Since it's impossible to produce non-existence, claims reliant on such tests have to be dismissed as unfalsifiable. [8] Instead, the requirement then becomes 'demonstrate existence' and this is something that all 'god' concepts have failed to do so-far, spectacularly. [9]

1) Because none of those things (e.g. necessary being, being-itself, goodness-itself, etc.) individually and adequately capture what god is. Even all of them understood together doesn't really get at the whole of god. So we use the word god as a place holder for the abstract and transcendent reality which we are talking about.

2) That's much more difficult (in fact impossible) to do based purely on reason. The Catholic tradition claims that this nebulous being (or whatever the hell it is) has actually spoken to and through human beings, and it has also entered a concrete relationship with humanity through the Law and the Prophets. Then, the nebulous thing united a concrete humanity to itself (in the person of Jesus) so that it could speak to us and live with us and enter into a concrete relationship with us in a concrete and human way. That is the claim, and you either trust its authenticity (through faith) in a way that doesn't directly contradict reason, or you don't. Reason alone won't get you from "being-itself" to "The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit". I readily admit that.

3) We do call god existence itself. We don't always do that because it helps avoid ambiguity.

4) Some things evidently exist on the condition that other things concurrently exist. Either everything exists on the condition that other things concurrently exist, or some things exist of themselves. Saving you the time, I find the former to be impossible, and so at least one thing must exist of itself. The mere fact that some things conditionally exist is evidence that some things must exist of themselves. Yadda yadda yadda.

5) If you agree that some things have conditional existence, then you agree that my evidence exists, you just disagree with the conclusion I draw from that.

6) See above. I don't begin with the assumption that necessary being is a thing. I conclude that from the presence of conditional being.

7) How so?

8) But non-existence is not impossible in principle. It is only practically impossible because things evidently exist. It is formally flasifiable while being practically unfalsifiable because it is logically true! =)

9) That is the thing. If anything at all conditionally exists (which they do), then that logically requires the existence of something that unconditionally exists. That is the demonstration.

[downbeatplumb]

Hi Balaco! Even as a Christian, I can always respect a position of healthy skepticism.  Tell me, have you ever considered that maybe the evidence of whether God exist or not, is the same evidence? As in, whether you choose to believe in a God (or absence of God(s)), all of the evidence will support your position. 

So in essence, it all starts with you. What do you want to believe?

There is a perfectly good method for separating preconceived ideas from fact it is called the scientific method.
That's what its for.

[pocaracas]

Now now... You said "necessary being". no backsies! : [1] 
If you are wanting to say that it is equivalent to a "necessary creator", then that's where my problems begin. [2]

I don't like a creator being a being. [3]
A creator of the Universe can be many things... most of them not conscious.
Also, just because we can infer a start to our Universe, that does not mean that, if there is something beyond our Universe, it too had some sort of start and that it too requires some creator. [4]
Are you starting to see why I mentioned "argument from ignorance", earlier? [5]

Just below your username, it says "catholic"... I assumed you made that leap at some point in your life... so why not go there?... [6]

1) Right... which is the same thing as being-itself.

2) Good, because I definitely have never wanted to say that.

3) I don't like the creator being "a" being. Instead, a creator would be "being-itself".

4) I agree. "Historical" understandings of "cosmological" arguments (tracing causality through time to a 'beginning") are dead ends.

5) Yes I do see why you mentioned that. I don't see why you think all of Thomas's arguments are such arguments. I can see the 2nd way, and maybe even the 1st, but not the 3rd 4th and 5th.

6) Because the question was about the falsifiability of the concept of god. I brought up a concept of god which is in principle falsifiable. If you want to ask, "Well what about the falsifiability of the Trinity?!?", it seems like it doesn't belong in the point of the conversation when we are still discussing the most basic concept of god at all. Why discuss the more complex issue when you haven't even begun to agree about the simpler one?

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the conversation before I jumped in.... what's this "being-itself" that you speak of?

5) Ignorance can be divided in a few categories. I'll go with two, the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns".
We know that we don't know how our Universe came into being, hence inserting a god as the kick-starter is wishful thinking, at best.
Way 3 seems to refer to the ignorance of nothingness. An ignorance which we are mostly unaware of. For one cannot claim that such a state as total philosophical nothingness ever existed. Ignorance of how the universe came into being... again!
Way 4 is just silly. Good is a concept used between humans. That which is good depends on the people involved. Some people think Brexit is good, others think it's bad. What is good, in this context? I admit that, within a single population, the "goodness" of the way people treat each other can be quite homogeneous and make it look like one can devise an ultimate goodness where every person is pleased... but in today's intermingled world that is increasingly difficult... someone will always feel treated badly.
But I leave to you the exercise of defining "good". I like it when believers realize that words have multiple meanings and it's important to know exactly which meaning you're using at each moment. I want to use the same as you. As for me, I think this works on an overall ignorance of how "good" is determined within a population.
Finally, the fifth way (oh, look.. this link has them all) stems from the ignorance of how intelligence can arise from purely deterministic bio-chemical operations. Granted, even science is mostly ignorant of the mechanism by which intelligence arises from the complexity of the human brain's neurons, but that's where it seems to reside, that's where we'll get our answers... and I seriously doubt that the answer will be "this bunch of neurons cannot possibly convey rational thought, it is clearly being bestowed, before birth, from some external, all-permeating intelligence"...