S
squirt
Guest
Have you finished the books already? Wow!
- Status
G
GordonBOPS
Guest
Squirt - It seems you are hiding behind books to hide your lack of understanding of evolution. Yet I’m sure you’ve never questioned Evolution with the depth (im assuming you are athiest) you’ve questioned Christianity etc…
G
Gryphon
Guest
Hi, Atheist -
At 34, I had a real crisis of faith when I was dating “John” - a lapsed Catholic, fast lapsing from agnosticism to atheism, a nuclear engineer pursuing a PhD in electrical engineering. In things technical, I was no match for John.
John believed there was no “God.” And nearly convinced me, too.
John’s points: 1) “God” is just a crutch we use to explain the unknown things that human knowledge will ultimately understand so we won’t need the crutch; 2) the universe is self-referential, self-existent - we don’t need no “god!” and, 3) Occam’s Razor is always right.
John’s example of “Occam’s Razor”: the Chinese used to explain the earth’s existence by saying it rested on the back of a turtle… who rested on the back of a larger turtle… etc. John’s point was - among all possible answers, the simplest answer is best. Ergo, there are no turtles… there is no “God.” The earth just “is.” No need for creation, or a Creator. Just exists, in and of itself, with no reference to, or need for, anything outside itself.
John really had me on the run there for awhile. Enter a book about the philosophy of mathematics called “Pi in the Sky” by John Barrows of Cambridge University, in which he makes the following points:
*Godel’s Theorem proves that our universe requires reference to something beyond itself - *even Stephen Hawking is - reluctantly - reaching the same conclusion. There went John’s #2 theory.
- Moving on to Occam’s Razor - Barrows’ point is that the simplest answer is only the best if you don’t cut out necessary complexity. So, *you can’t cut the unproven axioms away for simplicity’s sake… when they really exist. *
After he chewed over all the above, John no longer considered himself an “atheist,” and had moved back to “agnosticism.” We began discussing not whether there was a God, but whether He was a personal God. By the end of that discussion, John’d gone to confession and started praying again.
I wish you all the best in your continued search for truth. I hope that you find something I’ve written here at least somewhat helpful!
God bless,
Gryphon
At 34, I had a real crisis of faith when I was dating “John” - a lapsed Catholic, fast lapsing from agnosticism to atheism, a nuclear engineer pursuing a PhD in electrical engineering. In things technical, I was no match for John.
John believed there was no “God.” And nearly convinced me, too.
John’s points: 1) “God” is just a crutch we use to explain the unknown things that human knowledge will ultimately understand so we won’t need the crutch; 2) the universe is self-referential, self-existent - we don’t need no “god!” and, 3) Occam’s Razor is always right.
John’s example of “Occam’s Razor”: the Chinese used to explain the earth’s existence by saying it rested on the back of a turtle… who rested on the back of a larger turtle… etc. John’s point was - among all possible answers, the simplest answer is best. Ergo, there are no turtles… there is no “God.” The earth just “is.” No need for creation, or a Creator. Just exists, in and of itself, with no reference to, or need for, anything outside itself.
John really had me on the run there for awhile. Enter a book about the philosophy of mathematics called “Pi in the Sky” by John Barrows of Cambridge University, in which he makes the following points:
- Math describes reality. There is a wildly unpopular, but true, mathematical statement, Godel’s Theorem that proved that *for any system at least as complex as basic mathematics there would be at least one unproven axiom which had to be taken as a “given,” i.e., “on faith”! *Now, you could prove this unproven axiom… but your proof would necessarily contain at least one unproven axiom…You could prove this new axiom… *but your proof would **necessarily *contain at least one unproven axiom
*Godel’s Theorem proves that our universe requires reference to something beyond itself - *even Stephen Hawking is - reluctantly - reaching the same conclusion. There went John’s #2 theory.
- Moving on to Occam’s Razor - Barrows’ point is that the simplest answer is only the best if you don’t cut out necessary complexity. So, *you can’t cut the unproven axioms away for simplicity’s sake… when they really exist. *
After he chewed over all the above, John no longer considered himself an “atheist,” and had moved back to “agnosticism.” We began discussing not whether there was a God, but whether He was a personal God. By the end of that discussion, John’d gone to confession and started praying again.
I wish you all the best in your continued search for truth. I hope that you find something I’ve written here at least somewhat helpful!
God bless,
Gryphon
R
Richard_Lamb
Guest
No, I have in fact seen and lived much that in my mind proves the existence of God…
G
Gryphon
Guest
Atheist -
Forgot to answer your other question, about whether I had trouble believing in the miracles in the Bible.
The short answer is: “No, I don’t.”
My answer is based on Godel’s Theorem, which I explained in my earlier post.
People who don’t believe in miracles believe the universe is a closed, self-referential system. The problem is… as Godel’s Theorem has proved… our universe isn’t closed, and isn’t self-referential. It’s not only rational, but mathematically necessary, to acknowledge that our universe depends upon an Entity, whose existence is outside the universe. I (and many others) call that Entity “God.”
And it’s a very big mistake to try to apply the “rules of the universe” to Someone who doesn’t live inside there.
It’s like the goldfish in the bowl on your coffee table trying to dictate whether you can change the water or feed them. I’m sure that to the goldfish, these seem like pretty miraculous, longed-for, and welcomed events! But to you, operating outside the rules of the box, it’s really no big deal.
So I have no problem believing that this Source Entity, this Ultimate Reference of the created universe… (in the Catholic Mass, we say: “in Whom we live, and move, and have our being”)… Who probably has us sitting on His coffee table somewhere… occasionally reaches in and changes the water (or parts the Red Sea) or feeds us (with multiplied loaves and fishes - or with His very own Body, Soul, Blood and Divinity in the Eucharist). It all seems really amazing and miraculous to us… but it’s really no big deal… to Him.
Still reading? Okay… last points…
When you get right down to it, atheism is just another religion. It is no less a theory than any other belief system, and cannot be proven, and requires as much “faith” as any other belief system. Maybe more faith, because…
In actual fact, if you take Godel’s Theorem seriously, there is quite a bit of empirical evidence stacked against it! (To loosely quote Niels Bohr, when he was accepting the Nobel Prize for Physics… the more I study the universe, the more I realize there must be Someone Who holds it all together.)
On the other hand, empirical evidence is mounting in favor of the dewy-eyed mystics who claim that God is real, and present in our lives whenever we have sense enough to invite Him in. Just one example from our own age: there is a growing body of double-blind research documenting the efficacy of prayer in the healing of serious medical conditions / diseases.
So, from one goldfish to another…
God bless, and keep searching…
Gryphon
Forgot to answer your other question, about whether I had trouble believing in the miracles in the Bible.
The short answer is: “No, I don’t.”
My answer is based on Godel’s Theorem, which I explained in my earlier post.
People who don’t believe in miracles believe the universe is a closed, self-referential system. The problem is… as Godel’s Theorem has proved… our universe isn’t closed, and isn’t self-referential. It’s not only rational, but mathematically necessary, to acknowledge that our universe depends upon an Entity, whose existence is outside the universe. I (and many others) call that Entity “God.”
And it’s a very big mistake to try to apply the “rules of the universe” to Someone who doesn’t live inside there.
It’s like the goldfish in the bowl on your coffee table trying to dictate whether you can change the water or feed them. I’m sure that to the goldfish, these seem like pretty miraculous, longed-for, and welcomed events! But to you, operating outside the rules of the box, it’s really no big deal.
So I have no problem believing that this Source Entity, this Ultimate Reference of the created universe… (in the Catholic Mass, we say: “in Whom we live, and move, and have our being”)… Who probably has us sitting on His coffee table somewhere… occasionally reaches in and changes the water (or parts the Red Sea) or feeds us (with multiplied loaves and fishes - or with His very own Body, Soul, Blood and Divinity in the Eucharist). It all seems really amazing and miraculous to us… but it’s really no big deal… to Him.
Still reading? Okay… last points…
When you get right down to it, atheism is just another religion. It is no less a theory than any other belief system, and cannot be proven, and requires as much “faith” as any other belief system. Maybe more faith, because…
In actual fact, if you take Godel’s Theorem seriously, there is quite a bit of empirical evidence stacked against it! (To loosely quote Niels Bohr, when he was accepting the Nobel Prize for Physics… the more I study the universe, the more I realize there must be Someone Who holds it all together.)
On the other hand, empirical evidence is mounting in favor of the dewy-eyed mystics who claim that God is real, and present in our lives whenever we have sense enough to invite Him in. Just one example from our own age: there is a growing body of double-blind research documenting the efficacy of prayer in the healing of serious medical conditions / diseases.
So, from one goldfish to another…
God bless, and keep searching…
Gryphon
B
Booger
Guest
Your view of human ancestry is incorrect. Humans did not come from monkeys. You will not find an evolutionist that will say that humans came from monkeys or chimpanzees. Humans and monkeys do have a common ancestor that was not a monkey although they may superficially resemble a monkey. Your understanding of evolution is too simplistic and you are forgetting the role of mutation, types of mutations, and natural selection. If you should start your reading anywhere, take Squirt’s advice and read The Selfish Gene. Why are humans considered so advanced? Is it because we have technology, a complex social structure, and consciousness? Take away the technology and all we have is consciousness. Maybe the social structure would hold up, maybe not. One could argue that we don’t have a social structure, but that is beyond my area of knowledge. But what I am getting at is that we are not so different from animals as you’d like to believe. It’s an odd thing about science. Religion is always putting humans on a pedestal high above the other animals, but science is always there to yank us off that pedestal and remind us that we are not that special.
If we assume (for the argument) that Jesus was a liar, then his apostles knew it or they didn’t. If they knew it and played along, then it makes sense that they would flee for their lives (“Run away!” Monty Python) only to appear later to claim the throne of their new religion. It doesn’t sound that far fetched if we assume that they were in on it. Peter was appointed by the previous ruler.
If they didn’t know that he lied, then they fled and only carried on their with their master’s work and spread the good news. Since they believed their religion is true, they were willing to die for their beliefs and get their reward. Peter was appointed by the previous ruler.
B
Booger
Guest
Gordon:
It’s easy. Make sure that there is a {quote} before the statement and a {/quote} after each statement. Make sure to leave out the { }and replace them with ]because I only added them to keep the message board from doing this.
G
Ghosty
Guest
First my personal story:
Most of my life I was a “practicing” atheist, and I held to many of the atheist arguments brought up on this board. My pursuit of atheism eventually led to accept the existance of a “God”, and in fact I was forced to accept such an existance based purely on logic and reason. From there it became a matter of how to relate to this god, and I chose to oppose it based on what I saw as its nature. I was a true atheist in that that I rejected God even if it existed, and, in fact, because it existed.
As I studied further, however, I encountered Orthodox Judaism (from a completely non-religious pursuit, interestingly) and was very deeply moved by the strong hold they have on tradition and prophesies concerning the “messiah”. I became more and more convinced that these people were the only examples in the world of truly faithful people; God had told them to keep these Scriptures sacred, and nothing the world had thrown at them for thousands of years had led them to apostacy. The struggle of the Jews, Orthodox in particular, to keep sacred the finest details of their religion all in hopes of a coming messiah to me, at least, demonstrated what I can only describe as a kind of divine intervention. In their strength I saw something unprecidented in my studies of human cultures. As I was seriously considering becoming Jewish, I found it very important to study the messiah prophesies, as the Orthodox Judaism I was interested in was very much tied in with waiting for the messiah. I came to the conclusion that this Jesus person must have been the messiah, and from there I found that the Catholic Church was the continuation of the messiah’s work, and therefore the very true continuation of Temple Judaism.
The decision was made. Judaism was seemingly supernaturally protected, and its prophesies had brought the fruit of Jesus the Annointed, and Jesus had instituted the Church in order to continue the Temple in a new form for a new age. That is, in very short form, how I went from atheist to Catholic. As you can see, I came to doubt my atheism, but I have had very little reason to doubt my Catholicism.
Most of my life I was a “practicing” atheist, and I held to many of the atheist arguments brought up on this board. My pursuit of atheism eventually led to accept the existance of a “God”, and in fact I was forced to accept such an existance based purely on logic and reason. From there it became a matter of how to relate to this god, and I chose to oppose it based on what I saw as its nature. I was a true atheist in that that I rejected God even if it existed, and, in fact, because it existed.
As I studied further, however, I encountered Orthodox Judaism (from a completely non-religious pursuit, interestingly) and was very deeply moved by the strong hold they have on tradition and prophesies concerning the “messiah”. I became more and more convinced that these people were the only examples in the world of truly faithful people; God had told them to keep these Scriptures sacred, and nothing the world had thrown at them for thousands of years had led them to apostacy. The struggle of the Jews, Orthodox in particular, to keep sacred the finest details of their religion all in hopes of a coming messiah to me, at least, demonstrated what I can only describe as a kind of divine intervention. In their strength I saw something unprecidented in my studies of human cultures. As I was seriously considering becoming Jewish, I found it very important to study the messiah prophesies, as the Orthodox Judaism I was interested in was very much tied in with waiting for the messiah. I came to the conclusion that this Jesus person must have been the messiah, and from there I found that the Catholic Church was the continuation of the messiah’s work, and therefore the very true continuation of Temple Judaism.
The decision was made. Judaism was seemingly supernaturally protected, and its prophesies had brought the fruit of Jesus the Annointed, and Jesus had instituted the Church in order to continue the Temple in a new form for a new age. That is, in very short form, how I went from atheist to Catholic. As you can see, I came to doubt my atheism, but I have had very little reason to doubt my Catholicism.
B
Booger
Guest
I guess not, but I always try to be open minded to new ideas. I always double check (triple, quadruple etc.) my own understanding of things to make sure that my decisions are informed.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Now I’ll try to address other issues presented on this thread:
Evolution: I believe 100% in biological evolution, though I’ve always doubted the concept of random mutation even as an atheist (my reason being that genetic mutations are almost universally minor, and those that are major are almost never able to impact the survivability of an indiviual specimen in a positive way, so “a little more hair” to protect from a rapidly advancing ice age makes no sense statistically speaking), but I have always believed that our genes have their own kind of “direction” and direct feedback/response relationship with our environment (which makes sense when you figure that we came from single-cell organisms that, like all organisms, had a feedback/response relationship with their environment, and we’re still made up of a collection of such “organisms”). Evolution does not explain the origins of life, and can’t, as “evolution” describes a process of change, which presupposes existance. The earliest Church fathers understood this relationship between process and origins, including St. Augustine, yet modern Christians seem to have abandoned this early wisdom unfortunately.
Science vs. Faith: True science is, and can only be, a system of describing possibilities and probabilities based on observable factors. In this function, science is one of the greatest tools, and wonders, of the human mind. As stated earlier, however, science absolutely depends on unprovable axioms in order to function. For example, to argue that the truest way to know the world is through observable phenomina one must accept the unprovable axiom that observation, on some level, is flawless. Only if our senses are inerrant can we deduce absolute truth from them. Yet, science also tells us, most notably through studies of biology, that not only are senses errant, but they are absolutely muddled in the best of cases (study, for example, how many distortions our brains make in order to translate light into vision), and completely unreliable in other cases (study schizophrenia and natural hallucinations). True science can’t stand against faith because true science must accept that unprovable axioms are necessary to formulating advanced mental constructs. What most people who argue that science is superior to faith are in favor of, however, is a faith in the inerrancy of some form of observation and definition, even if that form is currently inaccessable; it’s the “holy grail” of Science, if you will. Whether it’s the hypothesized “Grand Unified Theory”, or some other form of inerrant and cohesive calculation, it’s accepted dogmatically that it must exist by many who argue for “science” over “faith”.
There is absolutely no point in engaging “scientists” in debate on this matter because one is generally forced to assume their unprovable axioms for the sake of argument. One might as well try to prove to a Muslim that Jesus is the Messiah with just the Koran.
Evolution: I believe 100% in biological evolution, though I’ve always doubted the concept of random mutation even as an atheist (my reason being that genetic mutations are almost universally minor, and those that are major are almost never able to impact the survivability of an indiviual specimen in a positive way, so “a little more hair” to protect from a rapidly advancing ice age makes no sense statistically speaking), but I have always believed that our genes have their own kind of “direction” and direct feedback/response relationship with our environment (which makes sense when you figure that we came from single-cell organisms that, like all organisms, had a feedback/response relationship with their environment, and we’re still made up of a collection of such “organisms”). Evolution does not explain the origins of life, and can’t, as “evolution” describes a process of change, which presupposes existance. The earliest Church fathers understood this relationship between process and origins, including St. Augustine, yet modern Christians seem to have abandoned this early wisdom unfortunately.
Science vs. Faith: True science is, and can only be, a system of describing possibilities and probabilities based on observable factors. In this function, science is one of the greatest tools, and wonders, of the human mind. As stated earlier, however, science absolutely depends on unprovable axioms in order to function. For example, to argue that the truest way to know the world is through observable phenomina one must accept the unprovable axiom that observation, on some level, is flawless. Only if our senses are inerrant can we deduce absolute truth from them. Yet, science also tells us, most notably through studies of biology, that not only are senses errant, but they are absolutely muddled in the best of cases (study, for example, how many distortions our brains make in order to translate light into vision), and completely unreliable in other cases (study schizophrenia and natural hallucinations). True science can’t stand against faith because true science must accept that unprovable axioms are necessary to formulating advanced mental constructs. What most people who argue that science is superior to faith are in favor of, however, is a faith in the inerrancy of some form of observation and definition, even if that form is currently inaccessable; it’s the “holy grail” of Science, if you will. Whether it’s the hypothesized “Grand Unified Theory”, or some other form of inerrant and cohesive calculation, it’s accepted dogmatically that it must exist by many who argue for “science” over “faith”.
There is absolutely no point in engaging “scientists” in debate on this matter because one is generally forced to assume their unprovable axioms for the sake of argument. One might as well try to prove to a Muslim that Jesus is the Messiah with just the Koran.
G
GordonBOPS
Guest
Booger,
First, as to your point about human evolution, so you are willing to buy this “missing link” common ancestor between man and monkees? Do you find that this is that much more compelling than say, Christianity? Look, to be clear, I believe that God built into the genetic code an ability for animals to indeed evolve. That idea fits perfectly with His wisdom of things. But to use evolution as an explanation as to the decendancy of all creatures, including man just is way too extreme. Don’t you think? Shouldn’t there be other intellectual creatures besides man in that case? Why are the only intellictual creature like us? I mean, I don’t think Evolution explains everything that it claims to explain. Isn’t one of the keys of evolution based on the idea that organisms respond to their external conditions so as to maximize their ability to survive? To me, such a theory goes to a point, but why doesn’t that extend that living things are mortal?
Looking forward to your reply…
First, as to your point about human evolution, so you are willing to buy this “missing link” common ancestor between man and monkees? Do you find that this is that much more compelling than say, Christianity? Look, to be clear, I believe that God built into the genetic code an ability for animals to indeed evolve. That idea fits perfectly with His wisdom of things. But to use evolution as an explanation as to the decendancy of all creatures, including man just is way too extreme. Don’t you think? Shouldn’t there be other intellectual creatures besides man in that case? Why are the only intellictual creature like us? I mean, I don’t think Evolution explains everything that it claims to explain. Isn’t one of the keys of evolution based on the idea that organisms respond to their external conditions so as to maximize their ability to survive? To me, such a theory goes to a point, but why doesn’t that extend that living things are mortal?
You seem to imply things were all bright and sunshiny about the time after Jesus’ death - “claiming their throne” - but there was continued and serious opposition to these men, constant threats to put “down” what it was they were preaching. These men clearly had to have conviction in their beliefs. Again, not only to overcome the resistance of the status quo - Judaism, but to step out and spread the word - spread it in a way that was quite remarkable given the times they lived. On top of that, again, willing to face and accept death on the strength of this condition. If they knew Jesus was a liar, and that there was no life after death, why do so? IF Jesus was a liar and they knew it, he was killed and buried and everthing he TOLD them turned out to be a lie. If I told you that I would be killed and would come back to life and I didn’t, i am a fool and you would be for believing me! What kind of a religion could survive 2000 years on that kind of a lie? The point is, JESUS MUST BE WHO HE SAID HE IS.
Looking forward to your reply…
B
Booger
Guest
Hook, line, and sinker.
It’s fine if you want to believe that God did it, but the difference between you and I is that I look only at the evidence. I do not fit the evidence to my beliefs. For example, I have been told that the current Pope has accepted evolution based on the evidence, but also inserted his belief that God gave man a soul. You seem to pick and choose what you believe about evolution and make it fit your theology.
Evolution has no ultimate goal or endpoint, so you cannot assume that intelligent organisms will emerge unless natural selection steers those organisms towards increased intelligence.
What? Didn’t you see The Passion? They beat and killed that guy! Bright and sunshiny?!!
B
Booger
Guest
These posts are getting way to long.
If Jesus actually died, then it doesn’t make much sense for them to carry on if they weren’t in on the lie. Jesus also could have faked his own death, therefore making a “resurrection” possible. That would help explain why they carried on.
If Jesus lied and they knew it, the only reasons that I can think of to explain why they carried on was to hold positions of authority and possibly over throw the current government. Maybe they were in on the lie as well. Keep in mind that I’m throwing around a lot of maybe’s and what if’s because this is purely speculative on my part.
If Jesus actually died, then it doesn’t make much sense for them to carry on if they weren’t in on the lie. Jesus also could have faked his own death, therefore making a “resurrection” possible. That would help explain why they carried on.
M
Monarchy
Guest
Ever heard of Jonestown?
M
Monarchy
Guest
Have you examined all the information about every single religion out there? Islam? Hinduism?
You are making the positive assertion and so you need to prove it or I am more than right in logicaly dismissing your claim.
M
Monarchy
Guest
When someone believes they have the absoulute truth, I go through and show them where I see they are making logical errors. I have not tried to be nasty in my posts, and where I might be it is because I have heard the same thing from someone else before (the way a catholic might be a little miffed when the umpteenth person says that they worship Mary).
M
Monarchy
Guest
Show me a extra biblical example (other than Josephus, which is a fake) of his life.
And I am reminded of something that Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence”. Claim that a Jewish capenter/teacher lived in the middle east and taught a different version of Judaim and it isn’t so extraordinary. Claim he could heal people, raise the dead, was killed, rose the third day, and went up to heaven and That is an extraordinary claim. All you have is Hearsay.
J
JimO
Guest
No, I have not examined all the information about every single religion, but I have examined a lot, enough to convince me that my own path is right for me. However, as I stated, someone who is 18 has hardly had the time to examine sufficient information to make an informed judgement about any religion. I already acknowledged that this was a presumption that assumed Atheist is a teenager with an average intellect and average interest in philosophy and, I stated that I could be wrong about this. If this is the positive assertion you are referring to, then you are not correct in dismissing it, simply because it was a direct response to Atheist’s request for (name removed by moderator)ut, not the statement of a theory to be tested.
If you and I were debating the evidence of a particular religion, I would grant your dismissal, but you simply jumped into the middle of a thread where individuals were relating their own experiences in response to a request for that (name removed by moderator)ut. Instead of providing your own experience, such as how long you have been an atheist (another presumption on my part, sorry) and why you hold to that, you come in swinging. Forgive me for not turning the other cheek, I’m still a work in progress.
Like I said, if you want a confrontation on the merits of a given belief system, start a thread, or jump in to one of the others that is raging at the moment. Otherwise, let us theists answer Atheist’s question directed to us.
S
Sherlock
Guest
I was an atheist in my youth (from about 16 to 21). However, it ultimately struck me as requiring just as much blind faith as what I had left (a poorly-catechized child’s view of Christianity). Eventually I left atheism, as it seemed irrational to me—and living life has reinforced that opinion, not weakened it. When I look back on that period, it is hard not to laugh at what I was—a shallow thinker convinced of my own intellectual superiority. It was easy and satisfying to poke fun at those who were religious (weak-minded and easily led), while I was so much smarter; so brave; so willing to take the unbeaten path…my chin thrust bravely against the setting sun, for Science! Knowledge! Progress!Heh heh…right out of an Ayn Rand novel…
Thank God I grew up.
Thank God I grew up.
J
JimO
Guest
Thanks for the explanation and I am sorry for not turning the other cheek. We do truly share the same types of frustrations. Mine have originated in participating in several threads were faith-based discussions are going along, only to have someone claiming to be an atheist “charge” in with the same tired arguments, antagonize people and derail the original discussion. It’s just plain discourteous.
Again, sorry for the harsh response.
- Status