13 yr olds need your help defending Christianity to atheist peers

[jinminn]

You refuse to accept that it is your failure to understand which undermines you, because if you do, then your whole fallacious argument goes down the drain with your straw-man.

I think some just aren’t satisfied with the answers. Is this a sin? You ‘refuse to accept’ apologetics of countless other faiths which you find unsatisfactory, correct? As I’ve pondered this, I can’t get away from thinking that if god knows who I am genetically and what formed me environmentally, then he appreciates that my level of satisfaction will differ from that of another.

Or, another way to think about it… god would realize that perhaps I am not intelligent enough to grasp these complex metaphysical explanations and have mercy on me nonetheless in the form of a simple explanation that I find satisfying.

At the end of the day, it comes down to satisfying, convincing answers. Some have those, others don’t. Do you disagree? I think too often in these discussions we resort to assuming that there is a flaw in one side or the other (caricaturized as either complete idiocy of believers or stubborn pig-headed pride of unbeliever). I think it is not so.

Your understanding of freewill and freedom is a straw-man that you have accepted…Once you understand Gods freedom within the context of perfection, you will see that it is your straw-man that is flawed and not the concept of God. But you do not want to understand.

Perhaps, though if we cannot define god in any humanly meaningful terms, how can we know that we’ve accurately described him? Since god is unchanging (back to your comment above about immutability and Anselm/Aquinas), if we ‘update’ our terminology to better portray revelation… what was our concept of the revelation before the update? Given that revelation is a revealing of god to humans, have we been worshiping the correct concept of god prior to this update and shift in terminology/understanding?

Most believers, to be fair, don’t think about such academic metaphysical explanations and so updates are of no consequence. One is left with two alternatives:

1. God really does exist and we’re just adapting our minds to understand him better and better even though our understandings are changing while he has remained the same
2. God does not really exist and all philosophical/theological endeavors are simply trying to keep his/her characteristics within the bounds of a logical/plausible entity

According to your strawman version of justice.

With all due respect, if we cannot define a coherent concept of justice that can be understood by humans, how do we really know we’ve defined it correctly? How do we know we’re even capable of grasping it? At this point, we really do begin to require separate words for the language of theology.

And perhaps this is the hangup… we throw around these words like the omni-max characteristics and when individuals cry ‘foul!’ because those descriptors are not manifest in the world according to their typical meanings… we’re berated and informed that it’s our concepts which are flawed, not the god being described.

You haven’t shown me anything to make me think that the concept of God is a square triangle. You have given a false representation of what educated faithful Catholic theologians believe. This is called a strawman.

Well of course the theologians won’t believe that they believe in a square-circle. It doesn’t mean no one else thinks this about them.

What you are discussing are deductive arguments against god. HERE is a summary. They may or may not succeed, but at the least fellows brighter than you and I have been considering them as legitimate and not dismissing then all as just strawmen…

 

[ManOnFire]

Think about how ironic this is: Science answers the questions of WHY by believing there must be some, any, many, one, REASON for something. If there is a reason why, then there can be an answer. Many atheist scientists exist in the world. Yet, ironically, for those who believe there is no God, they “magically” claim THERE IS NO REASON, or “the reason isn’t important” for the beginning and end of time and space! An admission of actual infinity negates the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and negates the theory of Singularity. If a godless time and space are infinite and have always been infinite, then THERE IS NO REASON for our existence, and a REASON CAN NOT EVER be assigned to answer the basic question: WHY do we exist?
Or, they claim that “we just haven’t learned it yet,” which we know is false, because if time and space had a beginning, then a Supreme Being outside the realms of time and space must be the REASON that time and space had a beginning.

Let’s call the new pre-Big Bang-theory as Theory A. One of the points of my post is that, without God, there is no logical reason to discount actual infinity of time and space. (I’m not trying to rationalize religion. I was faithful before I could reason science.) If actual infinity of time and space exists, then Theory A will be followed by Theories B,C,D, etc. INFINITELY by the next generation of scientists, each proclaiming to be smarter than the last. Each goes a little farther out on the time/space line, incapable of reaching the end since there is no end. There is no honor in claiming to be one nano-step closer to the Ultimate Truth since the Ultimate Truth is unknowable if God doesn’t exist. If the Ultimate Truth is unknowable, then no one can claim with certainty to be one step closer to the Truth than a religious person, because there is an equal likelihood that the atheist making the claim is one step farther from the Truth.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, then your perception is wrong. I did not say they are trying to “deceive”. I said that the usage is confusing.

As for the rest of your post… your “strawman” argument is meaningless. If you cannot answer the actual points, you cry “strawman”. Happens all the time.

You not interested

 

[crazydyl]

I do not have time to read all of the replies on this thread, but I am a Catholic because of scientific evidence and logic. If you want to hear what I have to say then message me or something The truth is out there but you have to know where to look - you did a good job by coming on here like I did during my research

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jinminn

“Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.”
— Any guesses?
— Adolf Hitler, 1922

This only show your gross lack of education regarding history in general and Hitler in particular. In the 1920s Hitler falsely presented himself as aChristian (a manifest lie) to get Christian votes. When he got into power in 1932, this is what he said:

Hitler

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Likwise for two more atheist tyrants.

Stalin

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao
“Religion is poison.”

So much for atheism’s pathetic track record for the first century in which it had a chance to show on a grand scale its much vaunted “moral superiority.”

Checkmate!

 

[jinminn]

So much for atheism’s pathetic track record for the first century in which it had a chance to show on a grand scale its much vaunted “moral superiority.”

Well, I for one think these are pointless discussions. Same for every D’Souza v. Hitchens debate where this becomes the focus point. Truth will not be decided via a death count tally. You took the discussion there, not me.

We can go around and around on this and it will lead nowhere. At some point, we probably will both have the answer: the other side’s monsters are not representative of what we believe our ideologies are capable of. Do you agree?

I already know the Catholic answer to this, as it must be repeated with every new bit of information and subsequent attack on the pope: the Church is a human institution and therefore when individuals go astray, they are acting humanly and not as representatives of Christ to the world.

I would say that is the mark of a psychopath to kill massive numbers (or any at all) in the name of god or to kill in the name of no gods. Neither of us would say that those who fall in this category are displaying our hope for that belief lived well.

Make sense?

You tend to come off as extremely smug and condescending which doesn’t help a discussion where emotions are rather charged to begin with. In fact, you sound like this guy:

The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You ‘refuse to accept’ apologetic of countless other faiths which you find unsatisfactory, correct?

When other religions express that which seems to me to be true and fulfilling of the human condition then i accept it in so far as they speak truth. However i approach religion according to what i call the 3 fundamentals of human fulfillment. I seek true religion only in so far as i seek objective meaning, purpose and moral value. Outside of those virtues there is no value in religion and i see no reason to exist, and neither do i have any interest in life. In fact, i see life with out these fundamentals as being an unintelligible expression of existential insanity, which we imagine as having sanity for fear of losing ourselves to madness. In other words, reality would be a contradiction to me. As a conscious honest person who doesn’t take life for granted, i would never dare bring another living being into such a reality. Some try to denigrate religious believers as cowards who only believe because they fear death. I dare say that most sane people, religious or not, take existence seriously only because we fear death and pain and in so doing we value life and we create children to give are lives purpose (and then there are those children that exist merely on the whim of sex). How careless and disgusting is that? I simply want my life to be fulfilled rather than tolerated for fear of death. I want to be morally justified in sharing the world with another living person. If there is even a small possibility that Christianity is true, then i am going to put my faith in it.

Other religions have some things to say, but Only the God of Christianity strikes me as a good alternative to suicide. Christianity strikes me personally as being the most fulfilling expression of all three fundamentals, both metaphysically and theologically. Most of all, God makes the world intelligible.

Perhaps, though if we cannot define god in any humanly meaningful terms, how can we know that we’ve accurately described him? Since god is unchanging (back to your comment above about immutability and Anselm/Aquinas),

First of all; “being” is the rule, and being is fundamentally logical. If we cannot ground potential being in an ultimate timeless being which cannot fail to exist, then potential reality should not exist. Potential being does exist and our experience of it must exist if we accept that being is fundamentally logical. If it can be logically demonstrated that in order for any potential being to exist whatsoever, there first have to be such a thing as the attributes that make up the word God, then it follows necessarily that Gods attributes are logically consistent despite any apparent contradiction; and this is because there has to be reality before there can be anything else. If ultimate reality is God then we have to accept by force of the necessity of absolute being that there are some apparent contradictions that are really not contradictions at all; but are in fact incomprehensible facts about reality. This is by no means a dodge. In order for there to be potential beings, there has to be an absolute being that precedes all potential beings. There can be no such thing as logical truth without an absolute reality; and neither is it possible that we can exist now with out an absolute reality. Absolute reality in light of potential being necessitates the attributes of God. If there is such a thing as truth, there is such a thing as logic, if there is such a thing as logic then there is such as absolute timeless reality.

Omnipotence has always meant and still means omnipotence. The fact that not all understand the logical factors involved in making that statement has no bearing on whether or not it is valid.

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: “all power”) is unlimited power.

1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[4].
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[5].
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity’s nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).*
4. Hold that it is part of a deity’s nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[6]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

Under many philosophical definitions of the term “deity”, senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However, on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held that a deity is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but the principles on which it has created the physical world. However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity’s nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so.[6]

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I would say that is the mark of a psychopath to kill massive numbers.:

Depends on the context.

 

[jinminn]

Other religions have some things to say, but Only the God of Christianity strikes me as a good alternative to suicide. Christianity strikes me personally as being the most fulfilling expression of all three fundamentals, both metaphysically and theologically. Most of all, God makes the world intelligible.

This, essentially, summarizes your main point. You wish for meaning, purpose, and moral value and without it the only valid option is suicide. Christianity provides that alternative and is the best expression of what you desire.

It probably just comes down to a disagreeing that without the concept of god I have no desire for suicide. I don’t see how it follows that if a supernatural intelligence didn’t put me here that I would have no desire to live. We would agree on many aspects of ‘descriptive evidence’ (the existence of consciousness, established moral values/systems, desire for purpose) but not on the sources of that evidence (evolved primates vs. something of spirit (name removed by moderator)ut into us).

Both seem to me to simply present a framework for choosing one’s path. You would not seem to be convinced by say, Universal Utilitarianism or Desire Utilitarianism, however they exist as intellectual propositions to be accepted or rejected. I am not convinced by the evidence presented on behalf of Christianity and therefore cannot accept it’s propositions with respect to the why behind numerous other facets of life.

Therefore, we reach a stand still. You cannot comprehend a reason for living without the deity that you believe true. I have heard the same from countless of my believing friends since my doubting in the form (typically asked after many arguments for god were presented, discussed, and left unconvincing), ‘Well… why live then? Why shouldn’t you just go commit suicide?’

This surprises me as I know nothing of that sort of conclusion. I want the truth and that’s it. If the world was not created by a supernatural entity… it just wasn’t regardless of if the rest of humanity can fathom reasons to live if that be the case.

First of all; “being” is the rule, and being is fundamentally logical. If we cannot ground potential being in an ultimate timeless being which cannot fail to exist, then potential reality should not exist… If ultimate reality is God then we have to accept by force of the necessity of absolute being that there are some apparent contradictions that are really not contradictions at all; but are in fact incomprehensible facts about reality.

I think I have to stop you there… it all breaks down for me once we start talking outside of our current experience. Our experience does indicate that ‘being’ is logical, exists, and so on. Yet causality and being only have meaning for us within time and space. The very definition of ‘cause’ is defined with respect to its ‘effect’ such that at point A in time the effect was ‘not’ and at point B in time the effect ‘was.’ Similarly for ‘being’, how is a being’s existence defined when there is nothing: no time, no space, no matter to inhabit.

Will you even concede the possibility that science may get to why the universe may have come ‘from nothing’ via scientific explanation? I find issues with applying philosophical and logical rules to realms we no nothing about. Before time, space, matter… our world; how are we sure that the same rules apply?

Similarly, we deduce god’s existence with philosophical certainty (in your case) by using definitions of causality, precedence, regress, necessary/contingent and working backward to the unmoved mover.

Why when we use the same principles of deduction with our understanding of benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence do believers cry foul on the logical problem of evil? Now we must suspend our typical tools because there’s obviously something we don’t know about in the equation. And so free will is introduced, but certainly exceptions can be found that either 1) permit intervention and removal of evil without violating free will and 2) historically demonstrate the supposed choosing of good without the need for supreme free will such as angels, Mary, and those in heaven.

Omnipotence has always meant and still means omnipotence. The fact that not all understand the logical factors involved in making that statement has no bearing on whether or not it is valid.

*Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: “all power”) is unlimited power.

1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible* for it to do.
2. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

That’s interesting. Seems like this isn’t quite worked out yet.

These questions have been going on for quite some time. The point is that as we change our definitions, how are we sure we’re worshiping the same god? You are correct that if god exists, he/she supposedly stays the same. But god only exists within our ability to describe him/her in meaningful ways. If we change our definitions, we change what we worship and this may no longer be aligned with who/what god really is.

We’re describing attributes of personhood; to have an accurate description of a person in order to have a relationship with him/her/it, you’ve got to get the attributes right, don’t you?

 

[crazydyl]

Can you really exmplain/prove Catholicism without scientific evidence? I think that this is the only way to prove it to someone that is a non-Catholic, so I will try my best to prove that Catholicism is the one true religion and that there is a God. I think that this question comes up so much that I will prepare something for non-Catholics asking why I was once lost but I found my way through using my brain

Before I started looking into religion I believed that there was no proof in any religion. I ended up not being able to be passionate about anything because without a meaning to life there is no need to be passionate and love anyone, who gives a s***? What is the point in love? Why would it matter if you killed someone that annoyed you? If we are meaningless pieces of flesh then who cares? I decided to not go down that route and I decided that being with a Muslim woman and making her happy would be better and give meaning to life - I could love her and give my children a reason to be passionate and not thugs/ wasters. If my children asked me ‘why should I study?’ and I believed that we were here for no reason I’d say ‘there is no reason so do what you want’, which is true. before I settled down with the Muslim woman I thought that I’d just check to see if there was any proof in anythiing, as I didn’t want to bring my kids up in a particular belief system if there was actual proof in something else.

Now let’s get to the facts:

• there are ouji boards and they do work. If you don’t believe in ouji boards and witch craft then you have the bottle to go and prove us wrong. You go and do that, or are you a wimp? Do you have any passion? Do you have a reason to be passionate? If you don’t believ in it then take part in a lot of witch craft, because if there is no such thing and there is no reason to live, then why not? I know many people that have used it and in one case all of the ash trays were smashed in the house at once and there were 7 witnesses, so how can you explain that there are no spirits? You can’t tell me that ‘was in people’s heads’… If I was unsure then I would have the courage to do it, are you a wimp?
• Ok, there are spirits so anything is possible in the world if there are spirits, right? If there are spirits then how can we define what is possible? or not possible? We simply cannot.
• Now you should believe in spirits or you are possessed by Satan after trying out the ouji board, unlucky… Go to a priest and try to sort that out.
• Right, is there any proof/logic behind a particular religion? After researching many religions for actual scientific evidence the only one that has any is the Catholic Church!
• The evidence are as follows:

• channel4.com/programmes/shroud-of-christ/4od#2929828
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo
• miraclerosarymission.org/lanciano.html
  What you should be able to see from watching this video clip and reading these short pages are that there is a 3% chance of the Sudarium having blood type AB, there is a 3% chance of the blood type on the Turin Shroud and a 3% chance that the blood type is AB in the Lanciano church. The chances of all of that being the same blood type is 0.000027%… The video explains a lot more proofs of other things and explains them in a lot of detail - the ending about the shroud is my favourite part.

• I have also found some very interesting videos produced by some young lad that looks like a priest, this is the first clip and I think that there are about 10 (2 hours of proof!) of them explaining the proofs of the Catholic Church - youtube.com/watch?v=dHv_Qc3wkcg&feature=related

He has pretty much said what I have said and a lot more! If you have real passion then watch these videos as they have PROOF! If you can’t be bothered then go away and continue to live your life with no reason or passion.

Thank you

 

[crazydyl]

Ok, so you could say that there are other proofs for other religions? Show me them and we can talk about this. You will see that the Catholic Church is the king of miracles

After you have checked out the miracles you then have to say to yourself,

‘ok, these are supernatural and something, but is it good or evil?’

The overwelming activities in the Catholic Church shows me that it is the truth. I think this because of what I have said in this post…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=455200

Thank you

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We’re describing attributes of personhood; to have an accurate description of a person in order to have a relationship with him/her/it, you’ve got to get the attributes right, don’t you?

Unfortunately for me i did not see the part where it is said that God can do the logically impossible. I don’t agree with this at all (i got it of the Wikipedia, perhaps from the wrong part, as i am not aware that logical impossibility is an attribute of God). Some people do not see the metaphysically impossible as being the same as the logically impossible. But i see them as the same thing. It seems that i have embarrassed my self by not reading properly and not being as learned as i should be. Well done.

Of course; If the logically impossible is an attribute of God then i reject that attribute; which would make me an unorthodox theist.

I will get back to you on the other stuff. I Got some gardening to do.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Here is a link discussing Gods attributes as faithful Catholics understand it. I my self will be giving them a thoroughly good reading. Next time i will check my knowledge before making embarrassing replies. I Apologizes.

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

However, i am defending a conception of God that i perceive as logical, and i will be defending the classical idea of God insofar as it is logical.

All powerful does not mean that God can do the logically impossible, and neither do i believe that logical limits are in fact “limits” in the sense that an all powerful being ought to be able to do anything we can think of. For instance a perfect being cannot choose not to exist; because if such a being were to do so it would not be perfect. This is not a limitation on Gods perfection but rather it is an expression of Gods perfection. There are other apparent limitations that can also be explained by showing that the limitation is an expression of Gods nature rather than an impediment that ought not to be their.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think I have to stop you there… it all breaks down for me once we start talking outside of our current experience. Our experience does indicate that ‘being’ is logical, exists, and so on. Yet causality and being only have meaning for us within time and space.

It is irrelevant that we perceive being in time; that is not the same as having evidence of them both being synonymous. It is merely apparent, and logic shows us otherwise. In order for their to be change, ontologically speaking there must first be existence. Change is the actualization of some potential being or event. We perceive being, and it is evident that being is required in order to account for the existence of other potential beings.

The very definition of ‘cause’ is defined with respect to its ‘effect’ such that at point A in time the effect was ‘not’ and at point B in time the effect ‘was.’ Similarly for ‘being’, how is a being’s existence defined when there is nothing: no time, no space, no matter to inhabit.

You assume that space time and matter is required in order for there to be such a thing as being. This is flawed and backward; you have it the wrong way round. The fact is an absolute perfect timeless being which is the seat of all existential power has to exist in order to account for potential reality, otherwise we are left with no reality at all. The only way, logically speaking, that any potential change or being can come into existence ontologically speaking, is for their to be a fully actual being transcending all potentiality and thus change. Since change is the actualization of some potential reality, we need that which does not change in order to account for it; otherwise potential beings cannot logically exist.

Its either that, or you can resign to irrationality and claim that the logically impossible can exist. But the very act of being itself proves that logic is real.

Will you even concede the possibility that science may get to why the universe may have come ‘from nothing’ via scientific explanation?

This just shows me that you know very little about science. Don’t get me wrong, since i can often make blunders as you well know. I am not calling you stupid. But how can true empirical science show us that a being came from that which is not real? You cannot measure that which is not real in order that you can say this thing came from it. Science is in the game of measuring finite realities that are real.

 

[greylorn]

I think I have to stop you there… it all breaks down for me once we start talking outside of our current experience. Our experience does indicate that ‘being’ is logical, exists, and so on. Yet causality and being only have meaning for us within time and space. The very definition of ‘cause’ is defined with respect to its ‘effect’ such that at point A in time the effect was ‘not’ and at point B in time the effect ‘was.’ Similarly for ‘being’, how is a being’s existence defined when there is nothing: no time, no space, no matter to inhabit.

Will you even concede the possibility that science may get to why the universe may have come ‘from nothing’ via scientific explanation? I find issues with applying philosophical and logical rules to realms we no nothing about. Before time, space, matter… our world; how are we sure that the same rules apply?

Similarly, we deduce god’s existence with philosophical certainty (in your case) by using definitions of causality, precedence, regress, necessary/contingent and working backward to the unmoved mover.

Why when we use the same principles of deduction with our understanding of benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence do believers cry foul on the logical problem of evil? Now we must suspend our typical tools because there’s obviously something we don’t know about in the equation. And so free will is introduced, but certainly exceptions can be found that either 1) permit intervention and removal of evil without violating free will and 2) historically demonstrate the supposed choosing of good without the need for supreme free will such as angels, Mary, and those in heaven.

That’s interesting. Seems like this isn’t quite worked out yet.

These questions have been going on for quite some time. The point is that as we change our definitions, how are we sure we’re worshiping the same god? You are correct that if god exists, he/she supposedly stays the same. But god only exists within our ability to describe him/her in meaningful ways. If we change our definitions, we change what we worship and this may no longer be aligned with who/what god really is.

We’re describing attributes of personhood; to have an accurate description of a person in order to have a relationship with him/her/it, you’ve got to get the attributes right, don’t you?

With luck, before long you will realize that you are arguing with someone who believes that God can declare that 2 + 2 = 5 and make it stick. Next you might figure out that you might as well expect logical arguments from your pet hamster.

 

[jinminn]

Before I started looking into religion I believed that there was no proof in any religion. I ended up not being able to be passionate about anything because without a meaning to life there is no need to be passionate and love anyone, who gives a s***?

This unfortunate. There is nothing to have led you to feel like this about an atheistic world view. There are loads of reasons to live without god and things to be ‘passionate’ about.

Now let’s get to the facts:

• there are ouji boards and they do work. If you don’t believe in ouji boards and witch craft then you have the bottle to go and prove us wrong. You go and do that, or are you a wimp? Do you have any passion? Do you have a reason to be passionate?

So… you incite others to try something technically anathema to your religion by resorting to childish taunts? Interesting.

The ouiji board was initially released by a novelty game company. I doubt it had ill intent of talking with demons behind it.

Honestly, if I have the opportunity to try one, I just might. Also, do you realize that if one could produce tangible results every time an ouiji board was used that it would be more reproducible than anything associated with god… ever? God won’t answer prayers with the repeatability and predictability that, apparently, demons will provide answers to mundane questions that 13 year olds have at late night sleepover parties.

The evidence are as follows…

He has pretty much said what I have said and a lot more! If you have real passion then watch these videos as they have PROOF! If you can’t be bothered then go away and continue to live your life with no reason or passion.

1. The shroud was successfully replicated by Garlaschelli, a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, using nothing except those implements, chemicals, and techniques that would have been available at the time of Jesus.
2. From a pro-shoud site (from my estimation), the following quote was found: “Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed.”
3. Lanciano is just ridiculous. What should have been one everyone’s mind is ‘Where in the world did the priest get part of a human heart?!?’ No one wondered who’s heart that was? I would have checked any bodies he might have had access to for incisions. Without verifying that the change occurred (and the priest was the only one to witness that…), all we know is that a priest had piece of a heart in a church. This is not miraculous.

My life is without neither reason or meaning and thank you for the encouragement to go on with it.

 

[jinminn]

Change is the actualization of some potential being or event. We perceive being, and it is evident that being is required in order to account for the existence of other potential beings.

I will admit that knowledge of philosophy is by far not my strongest point… I am attempting to grasp your move toward focusing on being in the whole of this response, but still don’t grasp how we can extend our concept of causality to a time when none of the typical elements of our playground of logic exist.

Though logically possible for there to be a ‘being’ when there was, in fact, nothing… our rules of logic and being hold for our conception of reality, which is only the case because we have ‘being’ in time and space.

I do believe it valid to say on one hand that we wrestle with the rules of causality within time and space and know that it holds… but then apply that same logic to a realm where we have no grounds to deduce that these rules still apply.

They exist in our universe and we are hypothesizing about when our universe was not. As you say, we have being and therefore know that logic is real. But this is because of our existence an the existence of a particular universe where laws have been observed. Indeed, philosophers form first principled due to descriptive statements that can be verified as working a priori, right? Though they can’t be verified themselves, if they didn’t work, we wouldn’t accept them. Therefore the rules we operate by work for our universe.

In particular, whether you call it ‘cause’ or ‘actualization’, we know this based on what happens in the continuum of time. You are, however, saying that a god caused something when there was no continuum whatsoever. This is why, for me, I do not believe we can properly discuss what had to ‘cause’ the big bang, as our notion of causality and even the a priori principles we hold are derived in a universe where there is space, time, verified ways things operate, etc… But then we apply them to a realm where these rules are not and cannot be verified.

One last thought experiment. Would you agree that god could have created a universe where causality was ‘different’ in some way? I have a hard time thinking up an example… but do you think he could have done it different so that our a priori laws were different in any way than they currently are? If this is even possible, we could have found ourselves in a different universe with different principles and trying to apply those principles to figure out the beginning. In either case, our tools only work for this universe and I don’t see it following that they have any reason to work ‘outside’ the universe, which would be the case ‘before’ it existed.

Since change is the actualization of some potential reality, we need that which does not change in order to account for it; otherwise potential beings cannot logically exist.

I admit being a bit lost here. I think I responded to most of this above as well. Feel free to correct! This is quite the realm of oddities for me.

I will say that you discuss it as though it’s absolutely certain, but I perceive this as far from true… otherwise all philosophers would be deists, would they not? Do you represent a particular school of thought on these matters and are there others?

This just shows me that you know very little about science. Don’t get me wrong, since i can often make blunders as you well know. I am not calling you stupid. But how can true empirical science show us that a being came from that which is not real? You cannot measure that which is not real in order that you can say this thing came from it. Science is in the game of measuring finite realities that are real.

Not necessarily. In the same way as you apply logic to hold constant, even to realms we cannot possible get to, if modern science understood the big bang phenomenon and was able to definitively declare that it really did just ‘come from nothing’ and it’s rules and theories held given the evidence we do have access to… it could make that claim. Do you disagree?

This is the beauty of science – though you are correct that it cannot make claims about something that is not real… it can create theories that predict what did happen and then examine the evidence.

Here are some links along these lines:

• An amazing video by Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist on background behind the theory of general relativity and the current state of cosmology. It’s absolutely fascinating. Put up with his anti-religious quotes here and there. They are in the minority and everyone should have this knowledge.
  — Pay particular attention to his statement about why the universe came from nothing.
  — Also ponder his quantitative description of how insignificant we actually are and contemplate that vs. the message that the entire universe was created for us. Indeed, even though Genesis is not literal, it’s interesting that we have progressed in our knowledge such that what almost all religions assert, namely that a supreme deity created us for his particular joy and love and even structured the world and universe for our pleasure, is patently false. Obviously not the deity part is falsified, but the idea that early forms of theological cosmology had about geocentricism and us being the pinnacle is quite odd when compared to our vast insignificance.
• Discover Magazine article on the same topic

Thanks for the dialog.

 

[jinminn]

With luck, before long you will realize that you are arguing with someone who believes that God can declare that 2 + 2 = 5 and make it stick. Next you might figure out that you might as well expect logical arguments from your pet hamster.

Not sure who this is directed to…

• To MindOverMatter on how to think about me?
• To me on how to think about MindOverMatter?

 

[crazydyl]

This unfortunate. There is nothing to have led you to feel like this about an atheistic world view. There are loads of reasons to live without god and things to be ‘passionate’ about.

So… you incite others to try something technically anathema to your religion by resorting to childish taunts? Interesting.

The ouiji board was initially released by a novelty game company. I doubt it had ill intent of talking with demons behind it.

Honestly, if I have the opportunity to try one, I just might. Also, do you realize that if one could produce tangible results every time an ouiji board was used that it would be more reproducible than anything associated with god… ever? God won’t answer prayers with the repeatability and predictability that, apparently, demons will provide answers to mundane questions that 13 year olds have at late night sleepover parties.

1. The shroud was successfully replicated by Garlaschelli, a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, using nothing except those implements, chemicals, and techniques that would have been available at the time of Jesus.
2. From a pro-shoud site (from my estimation), the following quote was found: “Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed.”
3. Lanciano is just ridiculous. What should have been one everyone’s mind is ‘Where in the world did the priest get part of a human heart?!?’ No one wondered who’s heart that was? I would have checked any bodies he might have had access to for incisions. Without verifying that the change occurred (and the priest was the only one to witness that…), all we know is that a priest had piece of a heart in a church. This is not miraculous.

My life is without neither reason or meaning and thank you for the encouragement to go on with it.

1. Yeah, there are spirits and I know spritualists that talk to spirits, so do you believe in spirits?
2. If you believe in spirits then how is anything else and miracles not possible? How can you decide what is possible? Did you design the universe? Do you know the rules? Can you explain how these spirits are communicating with us? Nooooooooooooo…
3. Did you see on the video that the shroud was specifically from the period and area of Jesus? They have way more knowledge than you about textiles and yet you think that you know more than those people again, are you God? lol
4. Yes, one can remake the shroud but it is from this area and date that makes sense plus it matches the blood of three other seperate sources of Jesus’ blood. How could this have been faked? The shroud must have been made during this period and place… Can you fake those characteristics by doing that now? NO!
5. Lanciano is ridiculious? So why have the Catholic Church not been put in jail for having body parts in it’s church? They have not been investigated, maybe you should start a law suit?
6. The blood has been confirmed as type AB, so this must have been an old study.
7. I agree with you when you say ‘My life is without neither reason or meaning and thank you for the encouragement to go on with it.’ If you cannot be passionate about life and we are not a source of passion and love, then what is the point? I have gone around with passion and love but been disappointed until I found the truth. There is actually no point if we are not created from love. If we are here by accident then who cares? I know that I’d always need to pretend that there was a God even though there was no proof, because if I had children I’d have no reason to tell them to be passionate about anything and life. Think about it, if you have a kid and they feel like there’s no point what would you say to them? ‘Oh, sure go kill yourself because it doesn’t matter’? You couldn’t say anything to a child that was not passionate if there is no reason to be passionate
8. And finally, how do you explain the thousands of miracles and stigmata for one? I think that you know best because you act like God saying what can be done and what cannot be done That is very arrogant! You just need to believe in these miracles! If you really have passion to seek the truth then go to spiritualist groups and you talk to the ‘spirits’ that are devils. Maybe this will save your soul and is worth doing if you would never believe through any other way.
9. Then you come back to me and you explain how spirits come about, after all you do know everything, mate!

 

[crazydyl]

I’ve been sent this email by my mother. I am too busy to read it as I am in a rush. I hope that it helps this issue that you have.

ZENIT, The world seen from RomeNews Agency================================================== Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle Franciscan Recounts His Special Mission in Siena By Carmen Elena Villa SIENA, Italy, MAY 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Since 1997, Franciscan Father Paolo Spring has had a mission fully related to his vocation: to look after the Eucharistic miracle that is in the Basilica of St. Francis in the city of Siena. Every week he receives dozens of pilgrim groups, from children preparing for their first Communion, to foreigners who take advantage of their trip to this city full of art, history and spirituality, to see one of the most impressive Eucharistic miracles: that of 223 hosts consecrated 280 years ago, still intact in one of the basilica’s side chapels. On receiving the faithful, the priest recounts the story of the miracle in English or Italian and, on recounting it, marvels at the fact, as if it were the first time he heard the story. “They come from all over the world where there are Catholics. They come to see the miracle. When they arrive, they sing, are moved and weep with joy,” said the priest in conversation with ZENIT. A joy that is infectious and renews the priest himself, despite the fact he has known the story for a long time. He still remembers the first time he saw these hosts: “At the end of the 70s on a pilgrimage when I came here I learned about the miracle in depth and I thought: It must be well looked after, it must be made known, we must work so that, whoever comes will understand it and will leave with this miracle in his heart.” Stolen treasure The miracle occurred Aug. 14, 1730, eve of the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. That day in all the churches of Siena the priests consecrated additional hosts for those who might wish to receive the Body of Christ the following day. That night all the priests of Siena met in the main cathedral of the city for a vigil, leaving their respective churches alone. Some thieves took advantage and entered the Basilica of St. Francis to steal the gold chalice with the consecrated hosts. The next morning it was discovered that the hosts were not there and a group of faithful found the upper part of the chalice in the middle of the street. Thus it was verified that the Body of Christ had been stolen. The inhabitants of Siena began to pray so that the hosts would be recovered. Three days later, while a man was praying in the Church of St. Mary of Provenzano, very near the Basilica of St. Francis, he noticed that there was something white inside a box for donations to the poor. Upon investigation, the box was found to contain 351 hosts – the same number of hosts that had been stolen. “Those three days were like the days between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection,” reflected Father Spring. The hosts were full of dust and cobwebs. The priests cleaned them with great care. Then there was a day of adoration and reparation. Thousands of faithful arrived in the basilica in thanksgiving for the finding of the hosts. They were not distributed, it seems, because the Franciscans wanted the pilgrims to adore them until the moment they deteriorated (because on being deteriorated, the real presence of Christ would disappear). But the hosts remained intact. The people began to consider them miraculous and increasingly pilgrims went to pray before them. A few were distributed on special occasions. Presence Today, 280 years later, 223 hosts remain, in the same state they were in the day they were consecrated. “At different stages they have been examined and they physically retain all the characteristics of a newly made host,” explained Father Spring. In 1914 the most rigorous examination of this miracle was carried out by order of Pope St. Pius X. “The Sacred Particles turned out to be in perfect state of consistency, lucid, white, perfumed and intact,” Father Spring said. The examination also concluded that the stolen hosts were prepared without special precautions and kept under ordinary conditions that, in normal circumstances should have caused deterioration. On Sept. 14, 1980, Pope John Paul II traveled to Siena to celebrate the 250th anniversary of this Eucharistic miracle. On going there, he said, “It is the Presence.” Personalities such as St. John Bosco and Blessed Pope John XXIII have also prayed before these holy hosts. For Father Spring, the Eucharistic miracle of Siena “represents a proof of the love of God for us and the presence to sustain us against doubts, difficulties – the miracle with which God the Father is helping the Church not to be afraid, to live the presence of her founder sent by the Father to do his will.” “Here two miraculous things happen,” explained Father Spring pointing to the hosts consecrated almost three centuries ago. “Time does not exist, it has stopped”; and “composite bodies and organic substances are subject to withering. For these hosts, neither fungus nor elements that break them down subsist. It is a living, continuous miracle. We do not know until when the Lord will permit it.” [This article is part of the column God’s Men – a series of reflections on the priesthood that ZENIT is offering its readers during this Year for Priests. If you or someone you know has an inspiring testimony of the priesthood to contribute, please contact our editor at news@zenit.org.]