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

[GUBU]

1st way: An unmoved, prime mover of everything else that moves. "and this everyone understands to be God"
2nd way: A first/un-caused efficient cause of every other cause. "to which everyone gives the name of God"
3rd way: Necessary being which causes all other being. "This all men speak of as god"
4th way: Perfect being/goodness/truth/beauty which causes the incomplete being/goodness/truth/beauty of everything else. "and this we call god"
5th way: Intelligent and teleological being which directs natural things to their end. "and this we call god"

Ways 1 to 3 are disproven by the fact that the "necessary" being actually contradicts the original premise, the unmoved mover means that not everything needs to be moved by something else, the uncaused cause means that not everything has to be caused by something else, and so on. Thus a universe where the universe itself fulfills these roles is more plausible and probable than a universe with an outside agent which also needs to be explained.

The fourth argument is an argument from "my farts are the smelliest". It is a subjective value judgement and the there is no way to figure out whether even the opening premise has any value in reality (because it is a judgement made through the prejudice of a fallible human)

The fifth way is the teleological argument, which is the argument from design, which has long been refuted (Darwin refuted it, as stated by Paley, in his preface to On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, so that he wouldn't have to deal with the flood of creationist nonsense he knew he'd receive using the argument).

[Angrboda]

So you've just married existence with God, by definition. [1] So all you're really saying is that if something exists, something exists. [2] If nothing exists, nothing exists. That's a tautology, and you've added nothing to it by assuming God to be necessary and interchangable with existence. [3]

To be useful, it needs to be falsifiable in a way we can somehow test. [4] I can't run a test to see if stuff exists.  Obviously, it does, if I'm even here to run the test. So it can't be falsified. [5]

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

If all you're saying is that God is existence itself, all you've done is declare a synonym for existence.  We already have words that denote being itself and declaring God to be synonymous with being itself doesn't add anything to the equation.  However if you are suggesting that God has an existence that is more than being itself, that He has consciousness for example, then your claim isn't covered by your predicate.  The existence or non-existence of a consciousness associated with being itself isn't falsified by that declaration.  You've simply equivocated on the meaning of "being itself."

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

The presence or absence of things existing doesn't get you to a god that is being itself with a consciousness.  What you've uttered is what is known as a 'deepity'.  Taken one way, it's true but trivial.  Taken another way, it's extraordinary, but also false.  In attempting to capture a predicate that is profoundly true, you've failed by equivocating on the meaning of the term 'God'.

3) God's necessity isn't an assumption. The reality of "necessary being" is a conclusion drawn from the datum of existence. You can disagree with the conclusion, but that doesn't mean my conclusion is an assumption. 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.

Bollocks.  God's necessity is a thoroughly ad hoc postulation.  Regardless, you don't believe that the existence of being-itself is the same thing as God existing, so your point is moot.

[Whateverist]

---

Belief is not a choice. No one (unless they are crazy) can simply toggle their beliefs on and off. We base our beliefs, or lack of, or beliefs to the contrary, on evidence of some sort. What counts as evidence to each person, and how convincing it is, varies wildly. But each person has reasons for their beliefs. You can't make those reasons disappear because you want to believe something different. A change in belief requires new evidence, a re-assessment of the current evidence, or a revision of the methods used to assess evidence. (Screwing with your brain directly could of course alter your beliefs, for example with surgery or drugs.)

You can of course pretend to believe whatever you want.

---

And of course, as I always find myself saying, without a falsifiable definition for God, there can't even be any evidence. There are just rationalising arguments and baseless assumptions.

I think God is falsifiable.

If nothing exists, then god is false (who is necessary being).

How?!  If God is deemed to be a supernatural item while we plain old natural, how are we to know?

[bennyboy]

. . .

Anyway, the OP shouldn't "become" an atheist. He/she should just drop the Catholic bullshit. The atheism will pretty much come on its own.

[Whateverist]

So you've just married existence with God, by definition. [1] So all you're really saying is that if something exists, something exists. [2] If nothing exists, nothing exists. That's a tautology, and you've added nothing to it by assuming God to be necessary and interchangable with existence. [3]

To be useful, it needs to be falsifiable in a way we can somehow test. [4] I can't run a test to see if stuff exists.  Obviously, it does, if I'm even here to run the test. So it can't be falsified. [5]

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

But why not just say that existence is existence itself?  Then God would just be God Himself.  If you say God is existence itself you need to say a whole lot more about why you say that.  Why does existence require this additional nom?  For that matter, what exactly does following it with "itself" supposed to add?  Is this like platonic ideals, that in addition to particular beings we must have somewhere the actual essence of which every actual being is a mere facsimile?  That didn't seem very tempting when Plato said it.  And doesn't do anything more for me in this context.

[Ignorant]

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the conversation before I jumped in.... what's this "being-itself" that you speak of? [1]

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. [2]

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! [3]

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. [4]

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"... [5]

1) Another way of describing necessary being.

2) I agree.

3) So you think this conditional statement is argued from ignorance: "Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence" -T. Aquinas ?

4) Good is a transcendental quality of "being". It is the "desirable" aspect of "being", or it is the way the 'being' of objects "attracts" us. On the one hand there is the actual good or the true good of objects (you might call it the objective goodness of things), and then there is the apparent good of objects, or the way objects appear good to us (you might call it the subjective goodness of things). People disagree about the good because they are different subjects to which the goodness of things appears differently.

In so far as things are what-they-are, they have transcendental goodness. There is also a teleological goodness of things. In other words, things may also be good for obtaining some other good. E.g. Soil is good for the good of growing plants. Both of those goods appear differently to different people. Rational discourse about goodness and what is truly good, hopefully, can reconcile any disagreements. Essential goodness and teleological goodness.

Usually, we try to seek "lower" goods for the sake of obtaining "higher" goods. That is what is called "well-ordered". But if you seek lower/smaller goods (individual nutrition, reproduction, etc) for the sake of higher/greater goods (e.g. society, the common good, etc.), then that means there is a "gradation" of goods. If there is a gradation of goods, then that must mean there is some "best" thing toward which all our seeking of lesser goods is aimed. I think that is about as far as our common ground could take us in the 4th way.

5) I think you may have misunderstood the 5th way. This way never mentions intelligence arising in things. In fact, it explicitly only deals with non-intelligent things. This is the teleological argument. Teleology considers how things like tree seeds just seem to naturally obtain their "end" of becoming an adult tree. Its metaphysic understands that things are teleological. If you don't accept the teleology of things, then you've rejected the implicit premise from which the argument begins.

---

Ways 1 to 3 are disproven by the fact that the "necessary" being actually contradicts the original premise, [1] the unmoved mover means that not everything needs to be moved by something else, the uncaused cause means that not everything has to be caused by something else, and so on. Thus a universe where the universe itself fulfills these roles is more plausible and probable than a universe with an outside agent which also needs to be explained. [2]

The fourth argument is an argument from "my farts are the smelliest". It is a subjective value judgement and the there is no way to figure out whether even the opening premise has any value in reality (because it is a judgement made through the prejudice of a fallible human) [3]

The fifth way is the teleological argument, which is the argument from design, which has long been refuted (Darwin refuted it, as stated by Paley, in his preface to On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, so that he wouldn't have to deal with the flood of creationist nonsense he knew he'd receive using the argument). [4]

1) How so?

2) That is correct. It also means that the arguments are true, since all they prove is the existence of a necessary being, an unmoved mover, and an uncaused cause. If the universe is all of those things, then the proofs are true.

3) While it is true that humans make subjective judgments about goodness and truth, that doesn't mean the objects about which the judgments are made are not real or do not have actual goodness or being. Your farts may, in fact, be the smelliest. If they aren't, they may still smell. If they don't, then good for you. Even so, we have identified a gradation in reality. That is all that is required for that demonstration to proceed. It may fail at a later point in the proof, but not from the gradation in things.

4) Yes. Dawkins has also written very strongly against teleology for the same reason.

---

If all you're saying is that God is existence itself, all you've done is declare a synonym for existence.  We already have words that denote being itself and declaring God to be synonymous with being itself doesn't add anything to the equation. [1] However if you are suggesting that God has an existence that is more than being itself, that He has consciousness for example, then your claim isn't covered by your predicate. [2] The existence or non-existence of a consciousness associated with being itself isn't falsified by that declaration.  You've simply equivocated on the meaning of "being itself." 

The presence or absence of things existing doesn't get you to a god that is being itself with a consciousness. [3] What you've uttered is what is known as a 'deepity'.  Taken one way, it's true but trivial.  Taken another way, it's extraordinary, but also false.  In attempting to capture a predicate that is profoundly true, you've failed by equivocating on the meaning of the term 'God'. [4]

Bollocks.  God's necessity is a thoroughly ad hoc postulation.  Regardless, you don't believe that the existence of being-itself is the same thing as God existing, so your point is moot. [5]

1) I agree. But seeing as Thomas was writing a manual for seminarians, I don't think he was concerned about that.

2) Agreed.

3) I agree. See my original post (emphasis added) on this Thomas topic:

To be fair, none of Thomas's 5 ways individually prove that a divine being exists. Instead, they demonstrate the existence of more abstract concepts like subsisting cause, being, necessity, intelligence, etc., and THEN he simply says that, when we say the word god, we mean those things.

4) Have I? I am sitting here telling you that a demonstration of being-itself does not demonstrate divinity. I have recognized that. It was the point of my first response to Balaco. I was telling him that so that the Catholics on the other board wouldn't mislead him regarding Thomas.

5) You lost me on the last sentence.

---

How?!  If God is deemed to be a supernatural item while we plain old natural, how are we to know?

I don't understand the question?

But why not just say that existence is existence itself?  Then God would just be God Himself. [1] If you say God is existence itself you need to say a whole lot more about why you say that. [2] Why does existence require this additional nom? [3] For that matter, what exactly does following it with "itself" supposed to add?  Is this like platonic ideals, that in addition to particular beings we must have somewhere the actual essence of which every actual being is a mere facsimile? [4] That didn't seem very tempting when Plato said it.  And doesn't do anything more for me in this context. [5] 

1) We do say that.

2) I have in other places on this forum.

3) It doesn't require it, but 'existence itself' does not capture 'goodness itself' or 'truth itself' or 'being itself', etc. No single term 'gets at' the whole. No single term could get at the whole. So we surrender and just say god.

4) That is close, but not quite it. Being-itself, on that account, is the thing in which even the actual essence of things participate. The 'forms' in the 'realm of the forms' only exist through a participation in the simple and subsistent act of being-itself. God is not one-of the forms.

5) That's fair enough! Thanks for the questions!

[pocaracas]

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the conversation before I jumped in.... what's this "being-itself" that you speak of? [1]

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. [2]

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! [3]

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. [4]

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"... [5]

1) Another way of describing necessary being.

There we go again!
Are you using "being" as a verb or noun, here?
- To be necessarily? - in this case, I'd posit that existence is an axiom. Things exist. From the least tractable space-time, to billiards balls.
- A being that is necessary? - in this case, We go back to my original comment.

2) I agree.

YAY!!!

3) So you think this conditional statement is argued from ignorance: "Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence" -T. Aquinas ?

If that argument hinges on a condition, then the conclusion must necessarily be conditional, too, right?

4) Good is a transcendental quality of "being". It is the "desirable" aspect of "being", or it is the way the 'being' of objects "attracts" us. On the one hand there is the actual good or the true good of objects (you might call it the objective goodness of things), and then there is the apparent good of objects, or the way objects appear good to us (you might call it the subjective goodness of things). People disagree about the good because they are different subjects to which the goodness of things appears differently.

In so far as things are what-they-are, they have transcendental goodness. There is also a teleological goodness of things. In other words, things may also be good for obtaining some other good. E.g. Soil is good for the good of growing plants. Both of those goods appear differently to different people. Rational discourse about goodness and what is truly good, hopefully, can reconcile any disagreements. Essential goodness and teleological goodness.

Usually, we try to seek "lower" goods for the sake of obtaining "higher" goods. That is what is called "well-ordered". But if you seek lower/smaller goods (individual nutrition, reproduction, etc) for the sake of higher/greater goods (e.g. society, the common good, etc.), then that means there is a "gradation" of goods. If there is a gradation of goods, then that must mean there is some "best" thing toward which all our seeking of lesser goods is aimed. I think that is about as far as our common ground could take us in the 4th way.

Awesome definition.
But I note that it is intertwined with another common definition of "good", what you called "lower" good.

Teleological good is great! Rain is both good and bad. Good for crops and plants and replenishing water reservoirs. Bad for traffic, mobility and remaining healthy. It's good for astronomy, as it cleanses the atmosphere of dust particulates.

I honestly don't see things as on a sliding scale of goodness. Everything is good for something and bad for something else, I think...

5) I think you may have misunderstood the 5th way. This way never mentions intelligence arising in things. In fact, it explicitly only deals with non-intelligent things. This is the teleological argument. Teleology considers how things like tree seeds just seem to naturally obtain their "end" of becoming an adult tree. Its metaphysic understands that things are teleological. If you don't accept the teleology of things, then you've rejected the implicit premise from which the argument begins.

It is possible I looked at some different version which induced me in that error, yes...

So, he says that things move towards some goal... from physics, we know that this "goal" is a state of maximum entropy, or least energy.
The argument claims that this process is guided.... but there is nothing in any scientific literature that hints at the existence of such a guiding hand. No "intelligence" can be perceived behind it... it's just how things work. No intelligence required, as they always work in he same way.

[Whateverist]

Just for the record, Ignorant, I still find you an interesting thinker and appreciate your participation.  I just don't know what more to say about what strikes me as a naive viewpoint.  No offense intended but I don't see how your position isn't exactly equivalent to Plato's aside from the Christian flavoring.

[Joko]

I can speak as a formerly traditionalist Roman Catholic:

My views on politics and society revolve around the notions that we are all in this together and that everyone should be afforded respect. However, the Catholic Church mandated that I oppose things like marriage equality and access to contraceptives despite the fact that these two things can improve quality of life for people. Gay people should be free to love whomever they want to love, and condoms/birth control pills should be readily available.

I was unable to reconcile my social progressivism and religious beliefs. So I chose the former over the latter.

[robvalue]

Excellent Good for you, for standing up for what you believe in.