A good argument that atheists use, and one that fumbles me

[ReapReason]

You’re the only person in a world of seven billion people who grasps the “truth” about
Esse-Monism. ( whatever that is! )

I congratulate you, sir. The world waits for your book.

Well, as i expected of you, this is just a dishonest distortion of my situation. Esse-monism is not a publicly established concept, so obviously nobody knows about it. Esse-monism is just a name that i have given to my intellectual position on matters concerning being and essence. I wanted to share this intellectual position, but it seems nobody on this site really understands the metaphysical implications of making a distinction between being and essence, and sticking by the principle that out of nothing comes nothing. And some are less willing to understand it because like you they are paranoid that i am trying to deceive them or peddle them pantheism in disguise.
You yourself didn’t even know about Aquinas’ distinction between being and essence; which is the very bases of my argument. Yet you act like you understand Aquinas, when in reality you have a very superficial understanding of metaphysics.

A rational discussion cannot proceed when people shove distortions of what you are saying in to your mouth; although i can understand why a lesser mind would make that mistake based on a misconception resulting purely from the fact that i use the word “monism” in my description. Hell would freeze over before they ever thought to reserve judgement until they actually read the argument.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, as i expected of you, this is just a dishonest distortion of my situation. Esse-monism is not a publicly established concept, so obviously nobody knows about it. Esse-monism is just a name that i have given to my intellectual position on matters concerning being and essence. I wanted to share this intellectual position, but it seems nobody on this site really understands the metaphysical implications of making a distinction between being and essence, and sticking by the principle that out of nothing comes nothing. And some are less willing to understand it because like you they are paranoid that i am trying to deceive them or peddle them pantheism in disguise.
You yourself didn’t even know about Aquinas’ distinction between being and essence; which is the very bases of my argument. Yet you act like you understand Aquinas, when in reality you have a very superficial understanding of metaphysics.

I think the sticking point is created by calling your position “monism.” That essentially means one substance, so it is very susceptible to pantheistic implications. For example, that the universe is made of the same essential substance as God, i.e., matter is derived from “God substance.” That may not be what you mean, but it seems a natural implication.

 

[Neildown]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

I’ve weighed up Catholicism and atheism for several years now, and I’ve only become a better-educated Catholic in doing so. I mean, the scientific arguments of the big bang and macroevolution sound good on paper (not to mention they aren’t necessarily contradictory to Catholic teaching, so I’m fine even if they are true), but none of it can really justify itself to completeness - one always has to go back to the beginning of everything, and science has only succeeded in kicking a can down the road thus far. Not that it’s wrong to keep kicking it (as that’s kind of how science works) - but when people are using it for the purpose of trying to justify non-theism sometimes it can appear that we’re at odds with God and science.

Completely regardless, I think it’s highly improbable that atheists or Catholics will ever discover how exactly our universe was formed. Not that we know if it is or isn’t possible.

The most recent argument I’ve heard is that our universe may have started from another universe/dimension expelling matter into this one. But then we have to wonder, “where did that universe come from?” In effect, we still have no comprehensible explanation of why we exist.

As far as “errors” in the Bible - they would probably be more accurately described as 1) analogies, 2) hyperbole, 3) figurative language, or 4) any other number of abstract word compositions found within the Bible. Hope that helps!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

Hi Curious Soul.

Good to see you are tackling the arguments in approaching a particular faith, as reasoning through issues is very important. However, could I suggest that this is never really enough. There needs to be an experiential knowledge of a faith before a person is really convinced by it existentially, that is, before it becomes “real” for the believer. Arguments are definitely important and one can consent to them but you need to live a faith before you can truly see how right the arguments in favour of the faith are. To be blunt, knowing Jesus and living in the bossom of the Church is more, much, much more, than simply cognitively accepting its doctrines and believing the truth of the Bible.

But having said that, I find what you have to say interesting.

I’m surprised anyone would use the Big Bang theory to try to dispute the existence of God - partly because it was formulated by a Jesuit priest!!! If anything, the Big Bang, which postulates the sudden coming-into-existence of the universe out of nothing, seems to confirm what theists and Christians generally agree on with regards to Creation: that God created ex nihilo, out of nothing, and that therefore the universe is, at least in theory, finite. In fact, there are also excellent philosophical arguments to demonstrate that an actually infinite universe is impossible (despite what St Aquinas believed).

As for biblical “errors”, well, that is more complex because the Bible isn’t simply a monolithic text, but one produced through various means but numerous authors over multiple generations. Often I find that people who attack the credibility of the Bible are doing so in a literalistic way - in that way, strangely enough, they are just like fundamentalists!

Finally, science does not teach us that “everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another”, This is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. All science can do is show us that there are constant conjunctions of matter which result in cause and effect, but it cannot demonstrate that this is coincidental because, in all fairness, we don’t know.

Hope that helps somewhat.

Jonathan

 

[icouch]

The “first-cause” argument is one I’ve always struggled with. Human beings have a sub-conscious need to create meaning, and no where does it show more than the “first-cause” argument.

It is very possible that there is a scientific explanation for why the earth formed - just because we can’t explain it now, that doesn’t validate it any less. Yet many people try to rationalize the God theory, saying things like “something does not come from nothing”. The universe existed before this earth was created, so clearly this earth did not form out of “nothing”. The nature of belief is such that creation stories serve a purpose, but be careful what you try to rationalize.

 

[Boulder257]

Curious,

You might be interested to know that the man who came up with the “Big Bang Theory” was a Catholic priest. If you are interested in a scientific approach to tthe existence of God rather than in a philosophical approach, I recommend the Magis Center of Reason and Faith.

This is always one of those pertinent facts that always seems to be forgotten. I’m glad you brought it up and I wish more people would recognize the work of Father Lemaitre. He gets no credit for the big bang and yet, people continually use that concept to “dis-prove” God. Everytime I point out Father Lemaitre’s work when having this discuss it always puts a direct end to the discussion. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church we may not even know about the Big Bang!

Lastly, doesn’t the Big Bang sound awful lot like the creation story? I mean, there was nothing and then all of the sudden all of the matter in the world exploded into an expanding universe in less time than is humanly imaginable. Sounds alot to me like a creator said, “let there be light.”

 

[trapper1]

The “first-cause” argument is one I’ve always struggled with. Human beings have a sub-conscious need to create meaning, and no where does it show more than the “first-cause” argument.

It is very possible that there is a scientific explanation for why the earth formed - just because we can’t explain it now, that doesn’t validate it any less. Yet many people try to rationalize the God theory, saying things like “something does not come from nothing”. The universe existed before this earth was created, so clearly this earth did not form out of “nothing”. The nature of belief is such that creation stories serve a purpose, but be careful what you try to rationalize.

It’s not that the earth came from nothing…it’s that the universe (or multiverse) had an absolute begining that appears to have required a transcendent cause.

Of course, the earth was formed via natural processes. The only folks that argue against this seem to be young earth creationists.

(as an aside, Aquinas had no issue, philosohpically, with a causal chain extending infinitely in the past…his first mover argument is not about this.)

 

[Richca]

Is evolution and a belief in God totally incompatible? I do not think they are. You might wish to watch this video. It is, I believe, a good explanation by an Orthodox bishop on evolution.

The Darwinian theory of evolution and catholicism are incompatible. For catholics believe that God alone creates the soul of every new human being. Some degrees of evolution may be true and would be compatible with the catholic faith. The Cambridge Explosion of animal life that occurs in the cambridge fossil record era presents an insurmountable problem for the Darwinian theory of evolution.

 

[Richca]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

Hello CuriousSoul,
Please keep in mind that the science taught in the schools and universities which you describe as everything comes down to coincidence after coincidence is a theory and an unreasonable one at that.

 

[buffalo]

The Darwinian theory of evolution and catholicism are incompatible. For catholics believe that God alone creates the soul of every new human being. Some degrees of evolution may be true and would be compatible with the catholic faith. The Cambridge Explosion of animal life that occurs in the cambridge fossil record era presents an insurmountable problem for the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Indeed. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis with variation within.

Every day the odds get worse…

Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

 

[atheistgirl]

The Cambridge Explosion of animal life that occurs in the cambridge fossil record era presents an insurmountable problem for the Darwinian theory of evolution.

If you’re going to just make bald assertions, at least know what you’re making bald assertions about

It’s The Cambrian Explosion

Sarah x

 

[Al_Moritz]

The Darwinian theory of evolution and catholicism are incompatible. For catholics believe that God alone creates the soul of every new human being.

Biological evolution is a physical, material process. The sould is immaterial. The two, soul and evolution have nothing to do with one another, except that the soul needs a suitable biological substrate. Biological evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic faith.

 

[trapper1]

Biological evolution is a physical, material process. The sould is immaterial. The two, soul and evolution have nothing to do with one another, except that the soul needs a suitable biological substrate. Biological evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic faith.

Yes…totally agree.

 

[Richca]

If you’re going to just make bald assertions, at least know what you’re making bald assertions about

It’s The Cambrian Explosion

Sarah x

Thank you very much for that Sarah, my mistake . I would not call it a bald assertion though, it’s the truth of the fossil record which even Darwin himself recognized and which presents an unexplainable problem (Darwin’s Dilemma) for his theory of evolution.

 

[Crescentinus]

The odd thing with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is that, scientifically speaking, is itself evolving.

 

[buffalo]

Biological evolution is a physical, material process. The sould is immaterial. The two, soul and evolution have nothing to do with one another, except that the soul needs a suitable biological substrate. Biological evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic faith.

Uh no -

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[buffalo]

The odd thing with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is that, scientifically speaking, is itself evolving.

It is devolving and so are we.

 

[Richca]

Biological evolution is a physical, material process. The sould is immaterial. The two, soul and evolution have nothing to do with one another, except that the soul needs a suitable biological substrate. Biological evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic faith.

I agree with you here and I believe I said some kind of degree of evolution is compatible with the catholic faith. And I suppose that if God wanted to evolve all life from one single cell living organism he could do that but is that even a reasonable assertion? That all life evolved from one single cell organism cannot be verified in the fossil record with certainty. In fact, the Cambrian Explosion suggests otherwise and a number of philosopher-scientists say that it is even an unreasonable assumption to suggest that all life evolved from one single cell organism and their reasons for saying so make sense.

 

[buffalo]

I agree with you here and I believe I said some kind of degree of evolution is compatible with the catholic faith. And I suppose that if God wanted to evolve all life from one single cell living organism he could do that but is that even a reasonable assertion? That all life evolved from one single cell organism cannot be verified in the fossil record with certainty. In fact, the Cambrian Explosion suggests otherwise and a number of philosopher-scientists say that it is even an unreasonable assumption to suggest that all life evolved from one single cell organism and their reasons for saying so make sense.

Did God know what Adam would look like?

 

[Richca]

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Of course!