Skyler in Lexington, Kentucky, beautiful part of the country, hello Skyler.
Welcome aboard, you are on the air. Okay, cool.
What's your question--or, why are you an atheist? We'll ask you the questions.
Okay. Actually, I was born a Christian, raised Catholic, went to religious studies in college, and I learned
a lot about Christianity and other religions, and I just kind of--through the
history of human creation, we try to create realistic answers to things we can't
explain, and I think that's the hole that Christianity is filling right now. I mean,
Greek mythology they came up with a bunch of Gods to answer their questions,
that became not valid any longer; and as we progressed through history we just
create different religions that explain stuff we cannot. So God is sort of a wish-
projection of what we want to be, but as the the non-existence of the Greek gods
proves, the Christian God is just one more in a failed attempt at being a
divinity. Is that kind of the bottom line Skyler? Yeah, pretty much, it's
filling in the gaps when we can't. All righty. I guess, Skyler, would you ever be open
to any evidence--would you ever be open to believing in the existence of God if
sufficient evidence could be presented? If, yeah, sufficient evidence can be presented to
"there's a Mass Creator" of the whole universe,
yeah. What would that evidence look like? What would that evidence be?
Like, what kind of evidence wouldbe sufficient? Well, it would have to be empirical, it'd have to be
something you could touch, feel, prove, like anything else in the body of science or something like that.
Well, why? You mean, why would that have to be the proof?
Well, yeah. So you were wondering if God exists. Now I agree with you, the gods of
Greek mythology don't exist, and in fact 2,500 years ago the Greek philosopher
Aristotle, he said those gods were just myths,
you know, they were stories with human personality traits put to
divine characters, so Aristotle rejected that; but he did believe in
something called the "prime mover," which would be kind of this unmoved mover,
complete act of being, that explains why a universe like ours exists. So when I talk
about God, I'm not talking about just a character like Zeus or Thor; God is--and I
want to make sure you and I, the word "God" meets the means the same thing, that God
is immaterial, eternal, infinite act of being, without limits of any kind, so
all-good all-knowing, or all-powerful. So would you agree
that that's the "God" you and I are talking about, wondering whether He
exists? Yeah, you're not talking about a "God" with a beard and a cane that's up on a cloud.
Right. So if God is immaterial and eternal, outside space and time, and
we're wondering if God exists, you would agree we couldn't find Him directly with
empirical evidence, like a microscope or a telescope couldn't see Him. So actually,
we're gonna have to take this--I want you to hang on, we're gonna come
back from the next break. Skyler, you still here with us? Yeah. Okay, good.
So when you and I are saying "Does God exist," I want to make sure we're on the
same page. God, you know, He's infinite, unlimited act of
being, eternal, immaterial, beyond space and time, transcends all of that,
all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, unchanging, just perfection itself,
unlimited. So when I'm talking about God, that's what I mean. Is that--and you
astutely said, "We're not talking about a man in the sky with a beard." Did I get
you right? Yeah, but you're talking about a God that's not in space and time
but that can interact in space and time. Yes. Yeah, well, a God that sustains--that is being
itself, is just existence, and so this God, if something exists, it exists because
God sustains it. So space and time exist because God sustains those created
realities. So my point is that-- But he can change the realities of space and time any time he wants to.
Sure, provided he doesn't contradict himself
or anything like that. Okay, yeah. So what I would say, then, is: so this God
he's not made of anything, he's not even located within time,
but he exists and transcends it; we can't
find God directly, right, with a telescope or a microscope. Because then whatever we
found wouldn't be him. Correct. You'd have to prove his interactions with space and time.
Okay, so we'd have to look at the effect and see if it goes
back to a divine cause. Yeah. So what kind of effect could we find that could
only be attributable to an immaterial and eternal being like God? Well, I mean, that's
kind of the problem. You'd have to eliminate all reasons of physics and reason, and then come
up with something that's internal, which is very hard to do. Well, why can't we just propose the
big--let's see, what's the biggest thing we could think of that we would
say, "Well God would be the only source that could cause that?" The biggest
thing I can think of would just be reality. Space, time, matter, and energy, all
that exists. If all that exists cannot explain its own existence, which I don't
think that it can, then it would logically follow back, there must be a
reality that explains its own existence or that just is existence, and that would
be God. Yeah, I mean, I see what you're saying, but just because you don't have the answer to why there is
existence doesn't mean that the logical conclusion is God. Maybe we just don't have the answer yet.
No, I would agree with you. But I would say--that's why I asked earlier,
if you were open-minded, what kind of evidence would convince you? Because it
seems to me I could present you with any evidence and you could say, "Well we just
haven't found the answer yet." So nothing in principle could ever convince you.
Well, I mean, I guess in that sense, but if I see the smoking gun, I'm going to believe in the
murderers hand. I'm gonna believe that guy's the murderer. I mean, it has to
be pretty substantial evidence to come to that conclusion. Same
with God, I mean, I can't just make a leap of faith about "Well, we can't
explain creation, so it has to be..." But Skyler, the
problem for me is that there is no such thing that could ever
be considered a "smoking gun" for you. You could always retreat to "Well, maybe
there's another explanation." I mean, can you think of anything hypothetical where,
if it happened, you'd say "Oh yeah, that definitely shows God exists." I mean,
I guess if Noah's ark popped up, and...I mean, I don't know. I guess that's what's hard for me,
is when I talk with other atheists, it seems, "Well, we're ready, we'll change
our mind, we want evidence," but if the bar is set so high, then
nothing can ever surpass it. So my point being that reality itself--and I'm not
saying "I don't know what explains reality; therefore, God"--I could make an
argument. I'll give you a short version of it, then we might have to move on. This
one's called the the contingency argument for God. It would go like this:
whatever exists has an explanation, either in its own nature, or in something
else. The universe doesn't explain itself. Therefore, it's explained by something
else that explains itself. The only being that can explain its own existence would
be something that is necessary, or just is existence itself; and that's what
people call "God." And so that's kind of a short argument for the existence of God.
What would you think about the universe? Does it require an explanation for
itself? I would say there's--well, no, there's an explanation to be had, we just don't have it yet.
Okay. But I mean, I think it's honest to believe
either this: the universe is...I mean, yeah, if there's the creationist then there has to be a creation,
or the existence is just unlimited, which could
be true also. Even if it is unlimited, we'd still wonder "Why is there something
rather than nothing?" Yeah, it sounds, Skyler, that unless we present a
material cause, something you can look at empirically, you will be able to squirrel
away from the answer because it's essentially spiritual and goes beyond
the limits of science itself.
Correct. You're not gonna-- yeah, if you had material evidence right now to convert me to Christianity, I mean,
then we would all be Christians, wouldn't we? Well, no, some people may choose
not to believe that, because some people have their wills. For example, I can show
to many people that eating right and exercising will make them happier and
healthier, but not everyone's going to do it, right? Yeah, that's true, but you couldn't
argue that doing that stuff wouldn't make you healthier. Oh, no, right, people could
accept it but just not choose to do it. But I think there is good
evidence; the problem for me is, I think it's important for Christians and
atheists to sit down and figure out, "Okay well, what rules of evidence are we
playing with here," and when Christians put forward an argument, I
just think it's very disingenuous for an atheist say "I'm ready to be convinced," and
cite maybe a random miracle--as Skyler said, you know, Noah's Ark appearing
somewhere--which "Actually, I think aliens, or, you know, Richard Branson could come
up with that, or David Copperfield"; but then when Christians put forward all of
reality itself needing an explanation, which is infinite--no, not infinite,
but way, way bigger than a paltry miracle on earth, suddenly "Oh, well, science will
figure that one out eventually." So I think that this is a
conversation Christians and atheists need to have on that subject, or else atheism
is completely invulnerable to disproof and it's just like the religions it
criticizes. Right, and I believe you discuss the rules of evidence in
"Answering Atheism." Yeah, I do. "What does sufficient evidence look like?"
Skyler, thanks for the call I think you'd really enjoy the book "Answering
Atheism." You can pick up a copy at Catholic.com.