Atheism

[rcwitness]

Then why do you think a brilliant atheist such as Stephen Hawking, who is in a totally paralyzed condition in which he cannot move, doesn’t become a Christian so he can do what you believe he wants to do – live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis?

Remember, he is 74 years old, and knows full well that he doesn’t have much longer to live.

Because believing in God is not simply wishing we can live forever.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

AnlytcPhil:>>Why do you believe that atheists don’t want to live forever in bliss after they die?<<

rcwitness:>>I don’t believe that.<<

AnlytcPhil:>>Then why do you think a brilliant atheist such as Stephen Hawking, who is in a totally paralyzed condition in which he cannot move, doesn’t become a Christian so he can do what you believe he wants to do – live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis?

Remember, he is 74 years old, and knows full well that he doesn’t have much longer to live.<<

rcwitness:>>Because believing in God is not simply wishing we can live forever.<<

Steven Hawking is pretty smart and surely knows you would say that. So why do you believe that he doesn’t do whatever is necessary for him to do in order to be able to do what he wants to do – live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis? – and don’t forget that he is 74 years old and knows very well that he doesn’t have long to live.

 

[rcwitness]

AnlytcPhil:>>Why do you believe that atheists don’t want to live forever in bliss after they die?<<

rcwitness:>>I don’t believe that.<<

AnlytcPhil:>>Then why do you think a brilliant atheist such as Stephen Hawking, who is in a totally paralyzed condition in which he cannot move, doesn’t become a Christian so he can do what you believe he wants to do – live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis?

Remember, he is 74 years old, and knows full well that he doesn’t have much longer to live.<<

rcwitness:>>Because believing in God is not simply wishing we can live forever.<<

Steven Hawking is pretty smart and surely knows you would say that. So why do you believe that he doesn’t do whatever is necessary for him to do in order to be able to do what he wants to do – live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis? – and don’t forget that he is 74 years old and knows very well that he doesn’t have long to live.

I don’t know, maybe he’s trying to “figure out physical evidence” for what cannot be seen by the carnal senses.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

AnlytcPhil:>>Steven Hawking is pretty smart and surely knows you would say that. So why do you believe that he doesn’t do whatever is necessary for him to do in order to be able to do what he wants to do – live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis? – and don’t forget that he is 74 years old and knows very well that he doesn’t have long to live.<<

rcwitness: >>I don’t know, maybe he’s trying to “figure out physical evidence” for what cannot be seen by the carnal senses.<<

But why would he do that? He’s intelligent. Do you think perhaps he doesn’t know that if he did whatever you think is necessary for him to be able to do what he obviously would want more than anything to do – to live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis? – and remember, that at age 74, he knows he doesn’t have long to live.<<

 

[Michael68]

Why do you believe that atheists don’t want to live forever in bliss after they die?

I don’t see anything but a trap with this silly question

 

[rcwitness]

AnlytcPhil:>>Steven Hawking is pretty smart and surely knows you would say that. So why do you believe that he doesn’t do whatever is necessary for him to do in order to be able to do what he wants to do – live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis? – and don’t forget that he is 74 years old and knows very well that he doesn’t have long to live.<<

rcwitness: >>I don’t know, maybe he’s trying to “figure out physical evidence” for what cannot be seen by the carnal senses.<<

But why would he do that? He’s intelligent. Do you think perhaps he doesn’t know that if he did whatever you think is necessary for him to be able to do what he obviously would want more than anything to do – to live forever in bliss in a new healthy body with no paralysis? – and remember, that at age 74, he knows he doesn’t have long to live.<<

Why is Stephen’s opinion of God so significant to you? Are there not great minds who believe in God? What about George Lemaître?
news.wgbh.org/post/big-bang-theory-roman-catholic-creation

George presented his theory before Einstein in 1930, to which Einstein highly commended. And the Pope saw as:

scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.*
For his part,Lemaîtrewas not pleased with the Pope’s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:

 

[jcrichton]

So you have no answer for my question, right?

I think you’ve just answered your query!

Intelligence is not a sign of knowing right or better–it is a gauge for reception and comprehension… yet, if it is wheeled through error (stubbornness and complacency) it gains and comprehends nothing.

…you seem intelligent enough to read through my response and acquire the necessary information from its content… yet, you refuse to see an answer…

There’s nothing to be done when a mind refuses to engage beyond its own construct.

It’s like giving a chimp or a dolphin a 2000-piece jigsaw puzzle… it can verify that there is something to the pieces (color, texture, density…), it may even be cognizant of the picture on the cover of the box… but it cannot fathom the purpose, let alone gain any enjoyment from engaging the task of combining the pieces into a cohesive and complete design.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Why do you believe that atheists don’t want to live forever in bliss after they die?

It is not what I believe… it is what they subscribe to… they believe in materialism (nothing beyond what they *perceive *is the fullness of the universe)–tangible existence of things.

They determined that that which is supernatural does not exist because it is not tangible… Heaven is not tangible… hence, to those who reject what they cannot experience through their senses (I should say, known senses) cannot exist.

…some even formulate some simple (but to them “well beyond brilliant”) philosophies… such as ‘there’s nothing after death because no one has come back from the dead to prove it…’

As you can see, it is not I who limits them but it is they themselves that have set boundaries to their understanding and reason.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

It seems that George Lemaitre made theories about the expansion of the universe (at an accelerating rate) that were correct, which Hawking had to change his understanding (he believed it was deccelerating).

catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/a-day-without-yesterday-georges-lemaitre-amp-the-big-bang.html

 

[rcwitness]

Another great article, with many quotes from the great scientist:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

 

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness:>>Why is Stephen’s opinion of God so significant to you?<<

My interest in him has nothing whatever to do with any of Stephen Hawking’s claims about science, as you may be thinking. I am interested in discussing him because he is brilliant yet totally paralyzed except for a few facial muscles that he uses to operate his voice machine and his wheelchair. He is 74 years old, and knows full well that he hasn’t long to live. So – there can be no doubt that if he believed it were possible, he would dearly love to be able to live forever in bliss. But he only believes that he is going to die into nothingness.

Now it seems that you’re trying to avoid discussing him, and turn our attention to some non-handicapped Christians who are also brilliant scientists. We can discuss those too if you like, but they can wait. I would first like your opinion specifically on Hawking. What advantage do you think Hawking achieves, or believes he achieves, by remaining an atheist? What is your opinion as to why he remains an atheist, and doesn’t choose to become a Christian?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:>>Why is Stephen’s opinion of God so significant to you?<<

My interest in him has nothing whatever to do with any of Stephen Hawking’s claims about science, as you may be thinking. I am interested in discussing him because he is brilliant yet totally paralyzed except for a few facial muscles that he uses to operate his voice machine and his wheelchair. He is 74 years old, and knows full well that he hasn’t long to live. So – there can be no doubt that if he believed it were possible, he would dearly love to be able to live forever in bliss. But he only believes that he is going to die into nothingness.

Now it seems that you’re trying to avoid discussing him, and turn our attention to some non-handicapped Christians who are also brilliant scientists. We can discuss those too if you like, but they can wait. I would first like your opinion specifically on Hawking. What advantage do you think Hawking achieves, or believes he achieves, by remaining an atheist? What is your opinion as to why he remains an atheist, and doesn’t choose to become a Christian?

You aren’t reading the articles I posted, are you? A big part of them, because of Lemaitre’s position, is the separate but equally valid pursuit of science and faith in learning about God and Truth.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

You aren’t reading the articles I posted, are you? A big part of them, because of Lemaitre’s position, is the separate but equally valid pursuit of science and faith in learning about God and Truth.

Yes I read them, but neither author attempts to define the term “God”. If you can find where they attempt to do that, then I’d appreciate your copying and pasting some of it, so I can go back and digest it. All apologists, in their writings I’ve seen, speak as though “God” is already a word in their reader’s vocabulary. IOW, apologists gear their writings solely to atheists, but never to theological noncognitivists. Most atheists and agnostics share your belief that “God” is a coherently defined term. You say “God” means something that exists. Most atheists say “God” means something that doesn’t exist. Most agnostics say “God” refers to something that may or may not exist. Theological noncognitivists say none of those. Unlike atheists, theological noncognitivists don’t say “God” exists", “God doesn’t exist”, or “God may or may not exist”. Some theological noncognitivists may claim the term “God” is meaningless. But I don’t. I only say that I can’t tell any difference between “God” and a meaningless word. However I could say the same thing about lots of technical terms, for instance, biological or medical terms, that are not in my vocabulary.

Can I get you to speculate as to why Stephen Hawking doesn’t choose to become a Christian so he can live forever in bliss?

 

[rcwitness]

God = Creator, Lord, Giver of Life, Spirit
Alright? Are you willing to move on?

 

[rcwitness]

Can I get you to speculate as to why Stephen Hawking doesn’t choose to become a Christian so he can live forever in bliss?

I already did.
I don’t know, maybe he’s trying to “figure out physical evidence” for what cannot be seen by the carnal senses.
Maybe he concludes something false? For sometime he rejected Lemaitre’s theory of the accelerating universe.

Science and faith are separate fields. Steven’s conclusions about faith has nothing to do with his intellegence. Lemaitre’s conclusions about faith have nothing to do with his intellegence. They require different attributes. They can work in harmony and neither contradicts the other, but they are different realms. One is physical, the other is spiritual.

If you prefer to cast out the spiritual because the laws of the physical don’t apply to the spiritual, then that is your choice and belief.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

God = Creator, Lord, Giver of Life, Spirit
Alright? Are you willing to move on?

Speaking of a ‘doing’ does not define a ‘doer’ of the ‘doing’. Grammatically speaking, a verb cannot define its own subject. “Creator” and “giver” imply the verbs “create” and “give”. Suffixes “-or” or “-r” on the end of them changes their grammatical form from verb to noun, but placing suffixes on verbs does not define a subject for the implied verbs. The only kinds of uses of “creator” I can understand are like “Thomas Edison was the creator of the incandescant lamp, which was the first light bulb”. “Thomas Edison” is well-defined as a human. I know who he was. I know what a light bulb is. So I understand that sentence. But I cannot understand “God created everything but God”, for that’s circular. I have no idea at all of anything “Spirit” could mean. Can you describe anything for “Spirit” to mean?

Do you have any idea why Stephen Hawking, smart as he is, old as he is, in the condition he’s in, chooses to die off into nothingness when he could choose to live forever in bliss? That’s not showing any smarts.

 

[rcwitness]

The human mind does not have the capacity to understand the “Supreme Spirit Being”, who created the universe and gave life within.
Our carnal mind, or senses (flesh and blood) are unable to comprehend the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are consubstantial in being. Our Spirit is able to acknowledge, by the gift of faith and Divine revelation, His presence and communication with us.

Arguing whether God exists or not, and if He can be defined or not becomes a matter of one’s acceptance or rejection of what the inner conscience and testimony of proposed faiths claim. The Christian God has been revealed through the Father’s and Prophets of the Jewish Nation, and initiated with Abraham. This Being revealed Himself through messengers and signs, giving them the Law. Prophesies were given for the coming of the Messiah, who would fulfill the Law and deliver those who are condemned by the Law.

Jesus, is the Christian Messiah who established a New Covenant for those who accept His Testamony, and believe he is able to release us from the trespasses of the Law.

He has fashioned this on the conviction of Spiritual assent.

 

[rcwitness]

It’s as though, in order to define “God”, we must explain the “people of the Jewish covenant and Law, and then the Son of Mary”. He is bound to “a people” and their “relationship to Him”. We can only “know Him” through how He has communicated Himself to us.

To demand a comprehensive definition of God, is to demand to meet Him in all His “being”. To accomplish this, would mean the judgment of ourselves, and death. His forgiveness appeared to us in Jesus. To know Jesus, is to know the hidden grace of our Creator.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness:>>The human mind does not have the capacity to understand the “Supreme Spirit Being”, who created the universe and gave life within.<<

How, then, can one distinguish between sequences of alphabet letters that make no sense and those for which we have no understanding?

rcwitness>>Arguing whether God exists or not…<<

In order for that sequence of alphabet letters to be coherent, the sequence of alphabet letters “God” would have to be coherent. Atheists already believe it to be coherent, but theological noncognitivists are unable to jump to any conclusions, positive or negative, without reason (other than the “reason” “I want it were true”). So that will have to wait until such coherence can be established.

 

[rcwitness]

How, then, can one distinguish between sequences of alphabet letters that make no sense and those for which we have no understanding?

This seems like “playing dumb” to me. I cannot play dumb.

In order for that sequence of alphabet letters to be coherent, the sequence of alphabet letters “God” would have to be coherent. Atheists already believe it to be coherent, but theological noncognitivists are unable to jump to any conclusions, positive or negative, without reason (other than the “reason” “I want it were true”). So that will have to wait until such coherence can be established.

Yes, and while we wait, we have either two options. To trust, or to distrust in whether the Covenants were given from the divine Being (as opposed to man’s imagination). Those who choose to trust, participate in the Body and Blood of the New Covenant.