Atheism

[rcwitness]

That’s a true statement. Believing in the idea of something does not make that something exist. I agree with you here.
If that is not what you meant by that comment please clarify.

Yes, that was my point.

I know my points were rather lengthy, but it does seem like the conversation between religious and people not of their religion have turned into political news sound bites and no true in depth dialog is being looked for. People are looking for sniping sound bites for one upmanship instead of listening to each other.

Absolutely. I would do my best to go as deep as my understanding of initial belief in the existence of God permits.

I am trying to get the religious to understand why people do not believe what the religious are claiming.

Ok. I would suggest that belief in a creator apart from all life and matter is not so much derived from the religious claim, but an acknowledgment not of intellect only. It is a matter of the soul recognizing what is not seen or proven. Neither proof of the Creator, or proof against the Creator exists. This, we believe, is how the Person of God fashioned things. We must acknowledge what is not revealed through carnal senses, if we hope to live beyond this temporal life, since it is the Spirit that gives life, not flesh.

 

[Russell_SA]

This is something I haven’t had a lot of experience explaining. I usually fellowship with believers. But I did discuss it with an athileist once. He likes science. So I found that to be the common ground. I explained the strange situation of evolutionists thinking they can use the Big Bang theory to discredit a creator, and creationists thinking they have to reject the Big Bang theory.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Since a Catholic priest first proposed the understanding of the Big Bang theory, we can accept the theory as respecting the Person of God as the cause of the Big Bang.

Evolution on earth is a completely separate study of science than cosmology. It’s inappropriate for a specialist in a field of science to way in on a different field. So you may have been discussing science with someone that accepts that science as the current best way to understand reality and as such, accepts the current best explanation that these scientific fields have for addressing the origins of life on this planet and the origins of the universe.
Science doesn’t have an agenda to “discredit a creator”. They do not have the tools to tell the difference between nothing and your “creator”, so they do not place it in their models and can only use what they can actually demonstrate as manifesting in reality, testable, and falsifiable.
Hate to always point this out, but there is no conspiracy theory through out science to discredit supernaturalism.

 

[jcrichton]

As an atheist, funny identity really. Who describes themselves by what they have not been convinced of? Hi I’m Marry, the a-fairist, Sam the a-creationist, Margaret the a-whatever. We describe ourselves by what we find important in our lives and you can discover that by what questions typically get brought up first and so on. But anyhoo…just to chime into this conversation. Atheism is a position on one question, Do you believe that the supernatural exists? - Nope. That’s all. Now from that answer, can you get to any other conclusions about this person? No. No you can’t. This answer tells you nothing at all about how this person thinks about the world, society, relationships, how to cook a great creme brulee, etc. This is why it is pointless to say to Atheists, “because of atheism…” followed by a really messed up comment. It always comes across as, “I’m not a bigot, but…” followed by some messed up bigoted statement because just like being black has nothing to do with your ability to be a human being, same goes for being an atheist.

Belief is not a choice. (Same for your sexuality, by the way.) Your belief about something is the same thing as your conclusion about something. Their interchangeable. You can not come to a conclusion about something without first learning about it. Learn about the chair you are sitting in and then choose to belief it’s a fork. You can not honestly do this.

You can not bring something into existence through logic. Logic will help narrow down the search to begin looking for something to see if it exists or not. Logic is also limited to your ability to learn and references to reality. That is why A can equal A if all anyone knows about A is 8 out of a million other things about it. Until someone demonstrates that there is a 9th, 10th, etc. other identifying things about one of these objects that is different from the other, they will always be the same. So you can logically be correct, but because you are ignorant of reality, you could still be factually wrong. However, you are still justified in believing that A is the same as the other A. You do not have to know everything to be correct.

Also, people’s lives teach them about what information is more important than other pieces of information. So both could be “justified” if you’re restricting the justification to how each person implements this information into their lives. Such as someone claiming to have witnessed a supernatural event. The exact same event to someone else may conclude that they experienced something and don’t know what it was. Both are fine as an answer, but other people who have not had these experiences, are not justified in coming to these conclusions other than believing that those two people experienced something.

So how do you tell the difference? Well here’s a way to have that discussion:

Hi, Russell!

I can agree with you about one thing: perception is subjective–every single person in the world would defend his/her personal preference/conception.

I disagree with you in your conclusions since perception can be quite different from reality and denying reality could be an extension of steadfast adherence to personal preference/conception.

…you’ve even entered, lightly, into that realm of stubborn construct where people are disowning the reality into which they are born and embracing the construct of their personal preference/conception… we even have psycho/sociologists claiming an enlightened humanity where gender is as fluid as water–accommodating it to whatever basin the projector conforms it.

Perception is often wrong… as the case with eating disorders… so the logic you present can be just as wrong if the person/s refuses to accept reality (say, supernatural events)–a learned error is worse than ignorance/understanding of fact.

I offer the Shroud of Turin–science knows it is not possible for man to have created such image; the “masters” agree in what it is not (not manmade); yet, their adherence to their personal preference/conception does not allow them to accept what is right in front of them–even when they hit on the apex of their skills: ‘extreme burst of energy.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That’s a true statement. Believing in the idea of something does not make that something exist. I agree with you here.

If that is not what you meant by that comment please clarify. I know my points were rather lengthy, but it does seem like the conversation between religious and people not of their religion have turned into political news sound bites and no true in depth dialog is being looked for. People are looking for sniping sound bites for one upmanship instead of listening to each other. I am trying to get the religious to understand why people do not believe what the religious are claiming. But still they come across as not wanting to engage in dialog to get to understand, but to find a point where they can feel justified in believing that the other side is fundamentally broken and are incapable of rational thought. They offer their sympathy instead of learning how to empathize. Why is that always the damn case with these conversations?

Hi, Russell!
…most Believers pity non-Believers as a matter of default.

Those who Believe that we are more than the sums of our humanity and the environment around us… that we have access to eternal life… well, we cannot but desire that all of humanity join in–sadly, this, though done out of love, is often misunderstood (even some Believers question the generosity of extending Eternity to those who reject it).

However, it’s been my experience that it is the atheist who, citing “intelligence,” often takes the stance of superior being: 'believers, specially Catholics, are dumb (I’m being generous–the articulations are quite more robust) and backwards.

Many times the agenda is not about exchange of ideas, as with the JWs, but seeking an opportunity to remove God from the entire human spectrum–a true Believer could never acquiesce to such an exchange.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Evolution on earth is a completely separate study of science than cosmology. It’s inappropriate for a specialist in a field of science to way in on a different field. So you may have been discussing science with someone that accepts that science as the current best way to understand reality and as such, accepts the current best explanation that these scientific fields have for addressing the origins of life on this planet and the origins of the universe.
Science doesn’t have an agenda to “discredit a creator”. They do not have the tools to tell the difference between nothing and your “creator”, so they do not place it in their models and can only use what they can actually demonstrate as manifesting in reality, testable, and falsifiable.
Hate to always point this out, but there is no conspiracy theory through out science to discredit supernaturalism.

Hi, Russell.
I agree with you that science (unbiased research and study) is not able to discredit supernaturalism.

The problem is not science. The problem is human bias, technology, and understanding…

Let’s take the snowflake… science has determined that each snowflake is unique and that it is formed by intricate geometric forms… I’ve heard that they have even spliced a snowflake right down the middle creating a mirror image… the findings tells us much about man’s growth (science) and technology… Scriptures simply tells us that God makes Himself manifest even to the unlearned through nature… as a Believer… I look beyond the findings on the snowflake and I see God’s perfection being reflected in this tiny particle of nature created with math for a purpose that goes beyond its physical parameters… have you witness children (and even dogs) interacting with snow? Have you noticed how people, who have not yet given in to disillusionment and despair, embrace the snow with a young heart?

…science cannot measure feelings nor the source of such human (animal) affinity with nature… it is just there!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

Evolution on earth is a completely separate study of science than cosmology. It’s inappropriate for a specialist in a field of science to way in on a different field. So you may have been discussing science with someone that accepts that science as the current best way to understand reality and as such, accepts the current best explanation that these scientific fields have for addressing the origins of life on this planet and the origins of the universe.

We were discussing creation vs. …hmm mm not sure what the atheist calls it? Spontaneous, random organization of matter producing the universe and life?

Science doesn’t have an agenda to “discredit a creator”. They do not have the tools to tell the difference between nothing and your “creator”, so they do not place it in their models and can only use what they can actually demonstrate as manifesting in reality, testable, and falsifiable.
Hate to always point this out, but there is no conspiracy theory through out science to discredit supernaturalism.

The Catholic faith is not opposed to science. But science does not provide answers of why, and for what. Faith allows us to see and accept what is made known. The Church makes known things science cannot conclude, ever. Science and faith are not opposed to one another.

The pope was excited at George’s discovery of the expanding universe and his Big Bang Theory. He thought it may have been “a proof” for creation. George did not want him to think that way. It certainly supports an original place and moment of origin, but still, there will never be proof, only supporting evidence.

 

[Russell_SA]

Hi, Russell!

I can agree with you about one thing: perception is subjective–every single person in the world would defend his/her personal preference/conception.

I disagree with you in your conclusions since perception can be quite different from reality and denying reality could be an extension of steadfast adherence to personal preference/conception.

…you’ve even entered, lightly, into that realm of stubborn construct where people are disowning the reality into which they are born and embracing the construct of their personal preference/conception… we even have psycho/sociologists claiming an enlightened humanity where gender is as fluid as water–accommodating it to whatever basin the projector conforms it.

Perception is often wrong… as the case with eating disorders… so the logic you present can be just as wrong if the person/s refuses to accept reality (say, supernatural events)–a learned error is worse than ignorance/understanding of fact.

I offer the Shroud of Turin–science knows it is not possible for man to have created such image; the “masters” agree in what it is not (not manmade); yet, their adherence to their personal preference/conception does not allow them to accept what is right in front of them–even when they hit on the apex of their skills: ‘extreme burst of energy.’

Maran atha!

Angel

Your perception of an event, does not negate the reality that event occurred. How you’ve been taught to explain that event is where perception comes into play. It’s communication of describing that event that is limited by your vocabulary and by what you’ve been taught about what the meaning of those events are. This is where it becomes subjective. Your culture may conclude that the expressions of love stem from supernatural sources while my culture concludes that it still remains in reality. How to tell the difference comes from the language we use to bridge the gaps between these two cultural descriptions of these common events that everyone experiences. All the descriptors of why that event stems from a supernatural source seem to be not distinguishable from something imagined. It’s the same argument for medicine and sudomedicine. Once sudomedicine has been tested and proven to actually work, then it becomes medicine. Once supernatural claims past the test of testability, falsifiable, and manifesting in reality in some detectable way, then it becomes “reality”.

If you are unable to distinguish your perception of an event and the truth of that event for what it truly is, then your perception of reality is reality. You have to have a way to distinguish between the two. What test have the supernatural detector people in religion been hiding from the scientific community for being able to tell the difference between a natural event and a supernatural event?

Psycho/sociologist are the scientific experts in their field, so I’m just going to go with the fallacy of appealing to the experts and group consensus within their field of study and agree with them. They are the one’s that have the credibility to be able to look at human sexuality and make conclusions on this issue.

A person would be wrong if they know they are sitting in a chair and are lying to people by saying its a fork. If they do not have the tools, vocabulary, or the evidence for determining the difference between a chair and a fork, then once they are taught it’s a chair, then it will remain a chair until they feel justified in determining the difference between a chair and a fork. All that has nothing to do with if the chair actually is a fork in reality or not. If the person can not tell a difference, then to them, it is a chair by culture A or a fork by culture B.

Science knows what it can justify to know and stops where it currently can not know. It does not presuppose that it will not know. It asks, huh that’s interesting, lets look at that. All I have is a screwdriver to look at it with? Well I guess we’ll learn all we can by its interaction with a screwdriver. Personally, I would have used a hammer. But in science, we would all discuss the possible tools on what to use to poke this thing with and learn from these tests. How do you test something that does not manifest in reality in any detectable way? That thing is now no different than nothing.

 

[Russell_SA]

We were discussing creation vs. …hmm mm not sure what the atheist calls it? Spontaneous, random organization of matter producing the universe and life?
The Catholic faith is not opposed to science. But science does not provide answers of why, and for what. Faith allows us to see and accept what is made known. The Church makes known things science cannot conclude, ever. Science and faith are not opposed to one another.

The pope was excited at George’s discovery of the expanding universe and his Big Bang Theory. He thought it may have been “a proof” for creation. George did not want him to think that way. It certainly supports an original place and moment of origin, but still, there will never be proof, only supporting evidence.

Just because you can formulate a question, does not make it have an objective definitive answer. Seems like religious people want objective answers to subjective questions that only have meaning to each individual. Once you’re happy with the answer you got, you’ll move on to the next until you run into someone that came to a different conclusion to your subjective objectivity.

Science can answer these subjective questions, because it starts with observing reality and then making philosophical arguments about how to study this observation and then running tests and retesting for bias. You can observe human behavior and know objectively that nutrition is better than poison. It becomes subjective as to how to diversify your “nutrition”, “do we eat apples or oranges today?” but it’s objective to not drink battery acid. All scientifically studied. Religions keep arguing that, no only apples are nutrition, no it’s oranges, but some still argue for the battery acid sprinkled in as flavor.

 

[jcrichton]

Your perception of an event, does not negate the reality that event occurred. How you’ve been taught to explain that event is where perception comes into play. It’s communication of describing that event that is limited by your vocabulary and by what you’ve been taught about what the meaning of those events are. This is where it becomes subjective. Your culture may conclude that the expressions of love stem from supernatural sources while my culture concludes that it still remains in reality. How to tell the difference comes from the language we use to bridge the gaps between these two cultural descriptions of these common events that everyone experiences. All the descriptors of why that event stems from a supernatural source seem to be not distinguishable from something imagined. It’s the same argument for medicine and sudomedicine. Once sudomedicine has been tested and proven to actually work, then it becomes medicine. Once supernatural claims past the test of testability, falsifiable, and manifesting in reality in some detectable way, then it becomes “reality”.

If you are unable to distinguish your perception of an event and the truth of that event for what it truly is, then your perception of reality is reality. You have to have a way to distinguish between the two. What test have the supernatural detector people in religion been hiding from the scientific community for being able to tell the difference between a natural event and a supernatural event?

Psycho/sociologist are the scientific experts in their field, so I’m just going to go with the fallacy of appealing to the experts and group consensus within their field of study and agree with them. They are the one’s that have the credibility to be able to look at human sexuality and make conclusions on this issue.

A person would be wrong if they know they are sitting in a chair and are lying to people by saying its a fork. If they do not have the tools, vocabulary, or the evidence for determining the difference between a chair and a fork, then once they are taught it’s a chair, then it will remain a chair until they feel justified in determining the difference between a chair and a fork. All that has nothing to do with if the chair actually is a fork in reality or not. If the person can not tell a difference, then to them, it is a chair by culture A or a fork by culture B.

Science knows what it can justify to know and stops where it currently can not know. It does not presuppose that it will not know. It asks, huh that’s interesting, lets look at that. All I have is a screwdriver to look at it with? Well I guess we’ll learn all we can by its interaction with a screwdriver. Personally, I would have used a hammer. But in science, we would all discuss the possible tools on what to use to poke this thing with and learn from these tests. How do you test something that does not manifest in reality in any detectable way? That thing is now no different than nothing.

…while the reality of fork vs. chair hinges upon vocabulary the fact remains that one is not to be sat on. However, if a learned person would suggest to you that you can determine which one of the two artifacts you can use to sit on because it is your perception that makes the function of the artifacts real… you will both end up in a dark place (a whole in the ground). Yet, both you and the professional can bend reality and claim that you are just as comfortable sitting on a fork as sitting on a chair–you would both be professing to a redefined reality as your norm. Still, projection is not reality–no matter how hard a person may think it is.

While it is true that vocabulary defines some issues; it is not true that it defines all issues. There are products on the market that corps sell as the best thing in the world even though they taste like burnt cardboard and the paste filler is rejected even by insects; the culture is enamored with the idea of consuming such items because they are romanticized in commercials and other propaganda sources… the reality is that they taste horrible and even insects sidestep them… insects are oblivious to vocabulary!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

Just because you can formulate a question, does not make it have an objective definitive answer. Seems like religious people want objective answers to subjective questions that only have meaning to each individual. Once you’re happy with the answer you got, you’ll move on to the next until you run into someone that came to a different conclusion to your subjective objectivity.

Science can answer these subjective questions, because it starts with observing reality and then making philosophical arguments about how to study this observation and then running tests and retesting for bias. You can observe human behavior and know objectively that nutrition is better than poison. It becomes subjective as to how to diversify your “nutrition”, “do we eat apples or oranges today?” but it’s objective to not drink battery acid. All scientifically studied. Religions keep arguing that, no only apples are nutrition, no it’s oranges, but some still argue for the battery acid sprinkled in as flavor.

I think you are talking past me. We both believe in the big bang theory, right? Yet we can look at that information and conclude that is how God first caused creation. How do you account for the cause of the motion and matter, the complexity of life and reproduction?

 

[Russell_SA]

…while the reality of fork vs. chair hinges upon vocabulary the fact remains that one is not to be sat on. However, if a learned person would suggest to you that you can determine which one of the two artifacts you can use to sit on because it is your perception that makes the function of the artifacts real… you will both end up in a dark place (a whole in the ground). Yet, both you and the professional can bend reality and claim that you are just as comfortable sitting on a fork as sitting on a chair–you would both be professing to a redefined reality as your norm. Still, projection is not reality–no matter how hard a person may think it is.

While it is true that vocabulary defines some issues; it is not true that it defines all issues. There are products on the market that corps sell as the best thing in the world even though they taste like burnt cardboard and the paste filler is rejected even by insects; the culture is enamored with the idea of consuming such items because they are romanticized in commercials and other propaganda sources… the reality is that they taste horrible and even insects sidestep them… insects are oblivious to vocabulary!

Maran atha!

Angel

So you can run a test to determine the difference between the two objects. How do you do that with supernatural claims and reality claims assigned to the same event? Culture A and Culture B both are looking at the chair and neither one can come up with a test that distinguishes the two claims, so they are both justified in believing that event 1 is a chair and the other believing it is a fork. All they are doing is using a different label for the same observation. However, being of culture B, I am claiming a natural explanation for the event because the event manifested in reality while culture A is claiming a supernatural explanation without having any tests to conclude that supernaturalism is any different than nothing.

Using vocabulary to describe your experience of an event is not the same as lying about the event. That is the definition of false advertising that you are describing. That would be the reference I suggested before where someone is sitting in a chair and lying to everyone by saying its a fork.

 

[Russell_SA]

I think you are talking past me. We both believe in the big bang theory, right? Yet we can look at that information and conclude that is how God first caused creation. How do you account for the cause of the motion and matter, the complexity of life and reproduction?

I trust that the scientists who study cosmology conclude that the Big Bang Theory is the current best model for how the universe came to be after the bang. What happened before that, no one knows. Your label of god is my label of “No one knows”, you’re just calling that cause a god. While that’s fine, i’ll call it bob. We’re still just labeling the concept of A comes before B, so there must have been an A. Fine I agree with you that there must have been an A. What that A is? No one knows. You can use logic to come to conclude that there must have been an A, but what that A is, well that’s where we have to stop if we’re going to be honest with ourselves. Well I have to stop because I demand more evidence than just philosophical arguments for something that manifests in reality. It’s like how we mathematically knew that gravity waves could exist, but we didn’t teach that they existed in reality until we ran the test this year and found them. That is when I would feel justified in teaching people about gravity waves. Religious people are teaching about the reality of gravity waves while the math was still on the board from yesterday.

 

[rcwitness]

I trust that the scientists who study cosmology conclude that the Big Bang Theory is the current best model for how the universe came to be after the bang. What happened before that, no one knows. Your label of god is my label of “No one knows”, you’re just calling that cause a god. While that’s fine, i’ll call it bob. We’re still just labeling the concept of A comes before B, so there must have been an A. Fine I agree with you that there must have been an A. What that A is? No one knows. You can use logic to come to conclude that there must have been an A, but what that A is, well that’s where we have to stop if we’re going to be honest with ourselves. Well I have to stop because I demand more evidence than just philosophical arguments for something that manifests in reality. It’s like how we mathematically knew that gravity waves could exist, but we didn’t teach that they existed in reality until we ran the test this year and found them. That is when I would feel justified in teaching people about gravity waves. Religious people are teaching about the reality of gravity waves while the math was still on the board from yesterday.

We recognize that belief is inevitable. Not only inevitable, but fashioned to be so. It is not a mere “concept” but a being. A person who has being, thought, plan, and purpose.

How can you claim nobody knows? If we believe correctly, than we know the Truth. I know that I did not create myself. I know that I won’t live past about 100 yrs. I know I need forgiveness. I know Jesus loved others more than his own life. Science doesn’t know these things. Faith does.

 

[Russell_SA]

We recognize that belief is inevitable. Not only inevitable, but fashioned to be so. It is not a mere “concept” but a being. A person who has being, thought, plan, and purpose.

How can you claim nobody knows? If we believe correctly, than we know the Truth. I know that I did not create myself. I know that I won’t live past about 100 yrs. I know I need forgiveness. I know Jesus loved others more than his own life. Science doesn’t know these things. Faith does.

What do you mean by belief? Be precise. We developed thousands of words to be as precise about conveying concepts as we possibly can. I assume you mean belief to mean “to conclude”. If not, then let me know and please don’t continue to use words with multiple meanings used in an ambiguous way. “We recognize that belief is inevitable.” That comes across as a poetic turn of phrase that now requires me to ask you what you mean by that. Please stop doing this when having a discussion with me. Its irritating.

So, to rewrite the phrase, “We recognize that coming to conclusions is inevitable.” We come to conclusions about information by examining the world, so yes that’s obviously inevitable for us. Doesn’t need to be pointed out really.

“if we believe correctly” - Belief is not a choice, its a conclusion by what you have experienced. Choose to believe your chair is a fork. Once again I do not think you are using belief in this way, so please choose a better word to communicate what you mean. Saying key words that sound spiritual in a sentence does not make that sentence correct. All you’re doing is coming across as someone that needs to drop enough key words over a short period to show how spiritual you are. Sorry, that’s name dropping, not communicating.

You did not create yourself, that’s an observation based in reality, so studiable by science.

You won’t probably live past 100 yrs. It has been observed that this is not the norm, but is observed in reality. So once again, studiable by science.

It is possible for a human being to named Jesus - reality observation

It is possible for humans to love each other more or less than themselves - reality observation.

You making a proclamation about yourself - observable in reality

All of these things that are observable in reality can be put into science. Science is not just test tubes. Sociology is a science, psychology is a science, anthropology is a science. You’re really coming across as not knowing that everything observable in reality has a science that studies it. That’s all science is, the study of reality.

Supernatural transcendence has no detectable connection to manifesting in reality in any known way and as such, can not be differentiated from nothing.

 

[adamhovey1988]

The God that many atheists accuse us Christians of believing, the “bearded fairy in the sky” granddad type, is, not the God that we believe in. Likewise, we’ve NEVER objected to science, at least Catholics haven’t. I would recommend those that don’t know how Science and Religion can work together read “Fides et ratio”. Here’s a link. w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

 

[rcwitness]

What do you mean by belief? Be precise. We developed thousands of words to be as precise about conveying concepts as we possibly can. I assume you mean belief to mean “to conclude”. If not, then let me know and please don’t continue to use words with multiple meanings used in an ambiguous way. “We recognize that belief is inevitable.” That comes across as a poetic turn of phrase that now requires me to ask you what you mean by that. Please stop doing this when having a discussion with me. Its irritating.

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. It’s a conclusion, conviction, position, state of mind, stance. I did not use it in multiple meanings. I sense hostility with you. I don’t think I should continue our conversation

So, to rewrite the phrase, “We recognize that coming to conclusions is inevitable.” We come to conclusions about information by examining the world, so yes that’s obviously inevitable for us. Doesn’t need to be pointed out really.

I’m not sure why you don’t want me to use the term belief.

“if we believe correctly” - Belief is not a choice, its a conclusion by what you have experienced. Choose to believe your chair is a fork. Once again I do not think you are using belief in this way, so please choose a better word to communicate what you mean. Saying key words that sound spiritual in a sentence does not make that sentence correct. All you’re doing is coming across as someone that needs to drop enough key words over a short period to show how spiritual you are. Sorry, that’s name dropping, not communicating.

I’m stating my belief. Belief in God is relying on Spiritual sight, not a science experiment.

You did not create yourself, that’s an observation based in reality, so studiable by science.

I cannot observe myself being born. It takes others to observe. Eventually you would have to start at the first person.

You won’t probably live past 100 yrs. It has been observed that this is not the norm, but is observed in reality. So once again, studiable by science.

Yes, you are right. I did not mean to say this is only evidenced by faith.

It is possible for a human being to named Jesus - reality observation

I don’t know what this was referring to.

It is possible for humans to love each other more or less than themselves - reality observation.

This is debatable. You can’t observe this.

You making a proclamation about yourself - observable in reality

But how do I know this? Others may observe what I claim. The conviction of sin is through faith.

All of these things that are observable in reality can be put into science. Science is not just test tubes. Sociology is a science, psychology is a science, anthropology is a science. You’re really coming across as not knowing that everything observable in reality has a science that studies it. That’s all science is, the study of reality.

Again, we are not anti-science. Science is compatible with faith. But faith is necessary where science cannot be applied, to believe in the Creator.

A butterfly which begins life in one stage, then goes through metamorphosis in a chrysalis stage, and then to a very different form, is an incredible sign of intelligent design!

 

[AnlytcPhil]

I am a theological noncognitivist, which you would probably call “atheist”, though we differ philosophically from atheists and agnostics. I just wanted to say I really like Pope Francis’ statement: “Atheists who follow their consciences will be welcome in Heaven”.

 

[rcwitness]

I am a theological noncognitivist, which you would probably call “atheist”, though we differ philosophically from atheists and agnostics. I just wanted to say I really like Pope Francis’ statement: “Atheists who follow their consciences will be welcome in Heaven”.

Cool! What does that mean to you? And what does your conscience tell you about the Creator?

 

[AnlytcPhil]

Cool! What does that mean to you? And what does your conscience tell you about the Creator?

Thanks for your reply.

Creator? Not my conscience, but my reasoning tells me that we humans can only have learned the word “creator” from hearing or reading of cases of usage of

“X is the creator of Y”

in which they were synonymous with

“One thing within the already existing universe that we label ‘X’, rearranged some matter within the already existing universe into a form that we label ‘Y’”.

Therefore, when I see this:

“God is the creator of the universe”

I can only see it as equivalent to this:

“One thing within the already existing universe labeled ‘God’, rearranged some matter within the already existing universe into a form that we label ‘the universe’”.

That makes no sense to me, and – actually that’s exactly why I am a theological noncognitivist.

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks for your reply.

Creator? Not my conscience, but my reasoning tells me that we humans can only have learned the word “creator” from hearing or reading of cases of usage of

“X is the creator of Y”

in which they were synonymous with

“One thing within the already existing universe that we label ‘X’, rearranged some matter within the already existing universe into a form that we label ‘Y’”.

Therefore, when I see this:

“God is the creator of the universe”

I can only see it as equivalent to this:

“One thing within the already existing universe labeled ‘God’, rearranged some matter within the already existing universe into a form that we label ‘the universe’”.

That makes no sense to me, and – actually that’s exactly why I am a theological noncognitivist.

Do you believe in a conscience or heaven? Why did Francis’ statement appeal to you?