Ask the Atheist

[The_Catholic]

Hey PLP, while I disagree with you on most topics, I do not at all blame you for what you believe about life in general. I too used to be an athiest for pretty much the same reasons you seem to be. Yes now I’m a believer, a Catholic (though there are a few things I have trouble dealing with within the Catholic Church). There’s nothing I can say that will change your mind, nor anyone else except God. I believe He is the only one who brings us the gift of Faith, and then we are to make a choice.

I personaly don’t believe in a literal six day creation or a global flood neither, to me that’s silly. Actualy the first few chapters in Genesis I believe are the most symbolic chapters in the entire Chritian Bible. The Bible though is not a science book and one should not look to it for that, it’s a book of Faith and Spirituality I believe. It does “apperantly” have contradictions but the Bible also uses a type of language (I forget the name) that shows what things “appear” to be are not, like as in the Body and Blood of Christ. This type of language teaches spiritual truth.

Personaly I believe God can save anyone as long as that person doesn’t have hatred in their heart against God and Christ. Man there is so much confusion out there, so many different Churches, Faiths, even within the early Church there were many differences (though mainly Catholic) it’s no wonder why so many people do not believe. But I believe there’s hope and if I’m wrong then so be it. But it’s only God who will bring the Faith, not by learning history, science or whatever, only God.

God give you peace PLP.

 

[MTH]

The Catholic:

I personaly don’t believe in a literal six day creation or a global flood neither, to me that’s silly. Actualy the first few chapters in Genesis I believe are the most symbolic chapters in the entire Chritian Bible. The Bible though is not a science book and one should not look to it for that, it’s a book of Faith and Spirituality I believe. It does “apperantly” have contradictions but the Bible also uses a type of language (I forget the name) that shows what things “appear” to be are not, like as in the Body and Blood of Christ. This type of language teaches spiritual truth.
.

Why not? God created the universe and all it’s glory. If He wanted to, He could of created the universe in one second just by thinking it, but he chose to do it in six days. Remember, God is ALL powerful, ALL knowing and NOTHING is impossible for God.

 

[The_Catholic]

MTH,

What is your point? I guess maybe I shouldn’t have said “silly” about a 6 day creation? But with so much evidence against it (as I see it) is why I called a literal interpretation “silly.” I meant no disrespect and by all means God can do what he wishes, of course.

 

[TNT]

The Catholic:

MTH,

What is your point? I guess maybe I shouldn’t have said “silly” about a 6 day creation? But with so much evidence against it (as I see it) is why I called a literal interpretation “silly.” I meant no disrespect and by all means God can do what he wishes, of course.

Something to ponder:
Little Mt St Hellen’s removed 1200 feet off its height in 15 seconds at 500+mph.
Carved a 600 foot canyon in less than 48 hours.
A tiny earthquake in the Indian Ocean wiped out 1000 miles of 2 mile deep shoreline in 45 min. and eliminated 170,000 people in an hour.

I refer to this as Godspeed.

 

[MTH]

The Catholic:

MTH,

What is your point? I guess maybe I shouldn’t have said “silly” about a 6 day creation? But with so much evidence against it (as I see it) is why I called a literal interpretation “silly.” I meant no disrespect and by all means God can do what he wishes, of course.

I’ve heard many people say that the story of creation as mentioned in Genesis did not really happen that way and that it was impossible for God to create the “heavens and the earth” in only six days, and I say, why not? Since God can created everything in the universie out of nothing, surely He can create it in only six days. It seems to me that creating it in six days would be a lot easier than creating it out of nothing.

 

[PLP]

MTH:

I’ve heard many people say that the story of creation as mentioned in Genesis did not really happen that way and that it was impossible for God to create the “heavens and the earth” in only six days, and I say, why not? Since God can created everything in the universie out of nothing, surely He can create it in only six days. It seems to me that creating it in six days would be a lot easier than creating it out of nothing.

It’s certainly not impossible by itself. What’s noted is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is logically incompatible with modern science. At least one of these accounts must be either factually incorrect or should be interpreted metaphorically. Since it’s absurd to interpret modern science as metaphorical, if you want to save both Genesis and science, you have to interpret Genesis metaphorically.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

I don’t see reliance on rationality and intellect as “arrogant”. I see it as merely sensible.

But then I was, of course, speaking of *exclusive *reliance on intellect, which is the arrogance of intellect.

DaVinci relied upon his great intellect to figure out certain things. But his greatest work relied upon the fused workings of intellect **and **imagination.

DaVinci was no atheist.

He opened his mind and his heart to God. What his mind could not fathom, his heart did fathom.

So it is with those who have not been corrupted by the arrogance of intellect.

 

[MTH]

PLP:

It’s certainly not impossible by itself. What’s noted is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is logically incompatible with modern science. At least one of these accounts must be either factually incorrect or should be interpreted metaphorically. Since it’s absurd to interpret modern science as metaphorical, if you want to save both Genesis and science, you have to interpret Genesis metaphorically.

I would respond to what you posted here, but I have no idea what you said.

 

[forthright]

PLP,

Doesn’t the atheist view of the Big Bang, evolution, action/reaction, etc. as ultimately being one big chain of events in one big cosmic science experiment indicate that we are all the result of chance chemical and physical interactions? Doesn’t this view indicate that all our development, knowledge, and emotions are simply the results of millions of years of chemical reactions? Doesn’t this idea ultimately indicate that humans have no free will, that everything we will ever do is ultimately the result of all the other interactions that take place prior to our existence? Doesn’t this mean that criminals and psychopaths really aren’t responsible for their actions, since they are merely operating within the parameters passed onto them by this chain of events? Without a divine cause or reason for existing, don’t we ultimately reduce to being the predictable result of an overblown science experiment, except that we just don’t have an equation big enough or complicated enough to describe it all? Why do we hold anybody accountable for anything? By this reasoning, everything that happens has already been predetermined by the laws of science.

 

[PLP]

forthright:

Doesn’t this idea [of the Big Bang] ultimately indicate that humans have no free will, that everything we will ever do is ultimately the result of all the other interactions that take place prior to our existence?

“Free Will” is the crux of the bisquit here. Everyone thinks they understand what “free will” means, but it’s a surprisingly slippery concept. What precisely do we mean by “free will”? If something is not caused, does that mean it’s random? If it’s not random, it is, by definition, correllated with something.

How could you tell the difference between a person who did have free will and one that did not? How would I know whether I myself did or did not have free will?

I’d post a thread on the topic, but the more I think about the concept of free will, the more I realize that I have only questions, and no good answers, irrespective of the presumption of theism or atheism. I can conclude only that I not only don’t understand the concept of “free will”, but the more I think about it, the less I understand it.

 

[TNT]

“Free Will” is the crux of the bisquit here. Everyone thinks they understand what “free will” means, but it’s a surprisingly slippery concept. What precisely do we mean by “free will”? If something is not caused, does that mean it’s random? If it’s not random, it is, by definition, correllated with something.

How could you tell the difference between a person who did have free will and one that did not? How would I know whether I myself did or did not have free will?

I’d post a thread on the topic, but the more I think about the concept of free will, the more I realize that I have only questions, and no good answers, irrespective of the presumption of theism or atheism. I can conclude only that I not only don’t understand the concept of “free will”, but the more I think about it, the less I understand it.

I’d post a thread on the topic, but the more I think about the concept of free will, the more I realize that I have only questions, and no good answers,
…
Well, at least you are able to demonstrate the process of Free-Will.