M
- Status
F
freesoulhope
Guest
I’m sorry, but the point of the matter is, you do not know that your wife loves you; you have faith that she does; i agree that one is helped by your experience of her, but its still a matter of faith in the long run.
I cannot see God, but we can experience the world, and we can deduce from the world whether or not it is probable that God exists. If you don’t believe that the world popped out of nothing, and you believe that anything that “begins” to exist has a cause,
(and im sure all scientists believes that things that begin to exist need causes), then one “has to believe”, that what ever caused the universe, is timeless and immaterial; and any cause that is immaterial, must have a will, since no random forces were around before the universe, in order to shape it; and a nature that has a timeless immaterial body, cannot give a random naturalistic cause to the universe because it is not controled by natural law, it is above nature; it trancends it.
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
Ah, freesoulhope, my nemesis.
We are like salt and pepper, you and I. Like peanut butter and jelly.
Or maybe more like water and oil. Yeah, that’s it…
We should stop meeting like this. People will talk.
We are like salt and pepper, you and I. Like peanut butter and jelly.
Or maybe more like water and oil. Yeah, that’s it…
We should stop meeting like this. People will talk.
L
Linkowski
Guest
Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.
Psalms 19:1-4 **The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. **2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
General revelation shows the hand of God…I am not sure that you really want to see it. I see you running from God…
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
My prayer is that the Lord would open your heart to His general revelation and that you would realize your need for salvation…you must see yourself as a sinner in the eyes of a holy God and a loving God who desires for all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth… No one deserves salvation…but you must reach out and receive that gift which God has gievn to you and that gift is Christ…who died for us and bore our sins that we might go free…
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
1 Peter 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness–by whose stripes you were healed.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;** it is the gift of God**, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Come to the light…
F
freesoulhope
Guest
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
Ummmm. No thanks. But I appreciate the thought.
A
anthony022071
Guest
There is a good logical reason. All sciences (including logic) and their practical applications are based on the Platonic assumption that the world is ordered according to rational laws and is imbued with rationality. If God is taken out of the equation,then the basis of all the sciences becomes contradictory.
G
Greg27
Guest
For me in regards to this statement, it conflicts with everything I believe is just, good and true, as it is formulated. If God is truely as this Pope portrays, then in my view it is the sort of God Richard Dawkins rightly condemns in his works as evil and not worth worshipping by any decent and self-respecting person. Thankfully the church seems to have reformed this dogma in a more positive way, but I’ve seen this repulsive formulation bandied about quite a lot here. Certainly if I am to return to Catholicism, better apologetics than quoting this Pope during the medieval period removed hundreds of years from our own needs to be done to convince me this is not what Catholics really believe.
Inter-religious hatred and fanatacism within a faith are one of the best ways to turn someone into an atheist or agnostic.
M
Mirdath
Guest
I did specify good and logical reason, did I not? The teleological argument is neither.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
I’m Not sure what you are talking about here? What Pope?
Have you read what i have written properly? Or am i reading you wrong?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
I am not sure how you have got this idea from what i have written?
N
nucatholic
Guest
Freesoulhope,
your analogy of the husband having “faith” that his wife loves him does not hold up to scrutiny. I can see if someone loves me by their words, followed by their actions. I do not have absolute knowledge of this, because it is possible for someone to deceive me, but if I can see the source of the love through actions and affection, then in my mind I can be pretty sure that the person loves me. With the concept of God, we do not directly perceive the supposed source of love. Things happen to us, good and bad, and we can interpret those things as coming from god (or any other unfalsifiable thing like angels, fairies, ghosts) or as coming from people and pure chance. The problem with interpreting these things as being from god, is that there is simply no way to confirm this. Itd be like attributing everything good that happened to me to my imaginary friend and the same concept of my faith in my imaginary friend Helmut the Pirate applies to every god and supernatural being ever conceived. Theres simply no reason to think the cause of the many things in my life is anything but chance and the actions of other agents in the world.
your analogy of the husband having “faith” that his wife loves him does not hold up to scrutiny. I can see if someone loves me by their words, followed by their actions. I do not have absolute knowledge of this, because it is possible for someone to deceive me, but if I can see the source of the love through actions and affection, then in my mind I can be pretty sure that the person loves me. With the concept of God, we do not directly perceive the supposed source of love. Things happen to us, good and bad, and we can interpret those things as coming from god (or any other unfalsifiable thing like angels, fairies, ghosts) or as coming from people and pure chance. The problem with interpreting these things as being from god, is that there is simply no way to confirm this. Itd be like attributing everything good that happened to me to my imaginary friend and the same concept of my faith in my imaginary friend Helmut the Pirate applies to every god and supernatural being ever conceived. Theres simply no reason to think the cause of the many things in my life is anything but chance and the actions of other agents in the world.
G
Generic_Man
Guest
Agnosticism never made any sense to me. Having scepticism as your belief always struck me as a cop-out. There is a god or there is not one. There is no “maybe god” who created the world. IMO, they should make up their mind.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
As far as God is concerned, I would not expect you to think that God is doing something to you, or doing something for you by reason alone; such things are spoken by people who are in a “relationship with God”.
However, the universe had a beginning.
You can know what happened, by knowing what can’t happen, or at least narrow down the possibilities.
The philosophical atheist either has beliefs that the world has popped out of nothing, (a belief that contradicts reason), or they think, as a matter of principle, that you are not allowed to come to the reasonable conclusion that God must exist if we are to explain existence; because as far as some people are concerned, “science” is the wellspring of all truth, and no truth can be reasonably known other then through science. This means that, even if common sense points to God, one must deny God on the principle, that one cannot accept any idea that would mean the existence of a transcendent nature; some have already come to the belief or conclusion that the natural universe is all that exists, because that is all that the natural science can measure. Who is more open minded the atheist, or the theist?
The theistic alternative.
The Big Bang suggests that, if there is a cause, then it cannot be apart of time, space, energy or matter. The implications which the Big Bang is suggesting to us, leaves us with a very limited number of possibilities; in fact it demands that in order for the universe to have a cause, the cause would have to posses a nature that is unlike the nature of the universe, and in fact, transcends all natural laws. Such a nature would have to be timeless, having no beginning or end, and would have to possess a “timeless will” in order to be capable of causing the natural universe’s existence, since it does not have a material body which can be manipulated by random forces-- forces that do not exist apart from the universe. Forces and energies belong to an already existing universe.
The naturalistic alternatives.
Let’s look at the alternative. We now know through Big Bang cosmology, that the universe, including time, space, energy and matter and all the forces that come with it, had a beginning. If the universe is all there is, and is “existence” in its very self, then it would have to bring its self from nothing, into “existence”. But there is no “existence” for it to come “into existence” since it is assumed to be, by its very nature, “all existence"; everything. Since there is no pre-existence in order for the universe to be the birth of random forces or energies, there is absolutely no logical reason for the universe to be here.
The contradiction is far too huge for it to be a reasonable possibility. Since there are no forces existing before the big bang, it can only mean that the impossible has happened, and can happen— we exist because of an irrational paradox. Quite literally a miracle has happened. The universe appeared out of nothing.
- Which scenario seems more reasonable to you?
- And would you say that the evidence, according to the laws of logic, favors both arguments equally?
N
nucatholic
Guest
Freesoulhope,
These are arguments that I have addressed many times, but I will summarize my position very briefly. The deductions from Big Bang cosmology are extremely speculative. The nature of the singularity has been interpreted in different ways, but why shouldn’t we think that the singularity had just always existed and by its nature led it to explode into the known universe? Even the brightest minds in the world have changed their minds several times in short periods of time due to new data. Science claims to be a better method of arriving at truth. It does not rely on authority, but rather makes judgements based on evidence alone. Where there is no evidence, then one must technically be silent. We can make reasonable deductions from things we do know, but even these deductions aren’t immune from scrutiny due to the very real possibility of unpredicted factors. The only time science makes a claim of higher probability of truth, is when there is strict observation or solid, tangible evidence.
Neither science nor I claim to know for sure why the universe exists and the other mysteries of life. We do know, though, that the scientific method is the best way of discovering truths about the universe. Faith and religion are simply not verifiable in any way other than what some call “Religious Experience.” I have never had a religious experience, thus the most rational thing for me to do is ascribe to the default position of technical agnosticism and practical atheism in respect to all gods, supernatural beings and similar concepts unverifiable by science. I also do not believe that anyone who is being completely honest with his/herself would claim that there is no chance that there could be completely natural causes for a supposed religious experience.
Like I said, this is very brief but I have a Hist of Science Final tomorrow, and I must study!
These are arguments that I have addressed many times, but I will summarize my position very briefly. The deductions from Big Bang cosmology are extremely speculative. The nature of the singularity has been interpreted in different ways, but why shouldn’t we think that the singularity had just always existed and by its nature led it to explode into the known universe? Even the brightest minds in the world have changed their minds several times in short periods of time due to new data. Science claims to be a better method of arriving at truth. It does not rely on authority, but rather makes judgements based on evidence alone. Where there is no evidence, then one must technically be silent. We can make reasonable deductions from things we do know, but even these deductions aren’t immune from scrutiny due to the very real possibility of unpredicted factors. The only time science makes a claim of higher probability of truth, is when there is strict observation or solid, tangible evidence.
Neither science nor I claim to know for sure why the universe exists and the other mysteries of life. We do know, though, that the scientific method is the best way of discovering truths about the universe. Faith and religion are simply not verifiable in any way other than what some call “Religious Experience.” I have never had a religious experience, thus the most rational thing for me to do is ascribe to the default position of technical agnosticism and practical atheism in respect to all gods, supernatural beings and similar concepts unverifiable by science. I also do not believe that anyone who is being completely honest with his/herself would claim that there is no chance that there could be completely natural causes for a supposed religious experience.
Like I said, this is very brief but I have a Hist of Science Final tomorrow, and I must study!
F
freesoulhope
Guest
I completly agree that it is quite possible that a religious experience cound very well be a swelling in the brain, whether that can be seen as a proof agains’t God, a cannot be certain, and i can only think that it is, if i think that God does not exist. I can also believe in God and yet think that alot of things are a result of hullucinations. For Instance, Alot of catholics would discount the ufo abductions as hullucinations. How do i know that life isnt one big hullucination? I get very sceptical when people start talking about mass hullucination, just because they want to explain a way a religious experiences that is experienced by hundreds of people; where do you stop? On both sides of the fence i see people make prepostrous arguements.
As for the big bang, the singlarity is nothing, its not like its a small ball of something; its nothing at all. Zero. If a point is infinitly dense then it cannot be thought of as being something, since it has no quantity. Plus, time is agreed to have had a beginning. In order for there to be a singlarity, that has always been there, then it would require time to have always have been. Nobody believes this, and the steady state theory is not taken seriously if it has not abandoned entirely. As i have explained, a singlarity is not something. Secondly, if the universe is everything, and it has a beginning, its existents cannot be explained by something naturalistic, since the universe is all there is. Note i am using current scientfic evidence; its not just an accertion, or maybe; the sceintific evidence makes God a necessity if one is to believe that the world is caused, rather then just popping out of nothing.
God as far as i can see, is being revealed through his handy work. This cannot be explained by natural forces as there are no natural forces in existents before the bigbang; seeing as there was no before, just nothing.
This only leaves the posibility of it expanding out of nothing, which just doesn’t make logical sense to me. If one can except that, then why not believe in God? He seems to be the most probable explaintion, in fact it seems obvious to me.
G
Gareth
Guest
I’m sorry I can’t get my head around this, it smacks to me of ‘lets play make believe’.
?? seems to me you use words in a different way from most people.
Those poor fishermen from Galilee would have no idea what you’re talking about. I could read and learn, and learn for the rest of my life about this cack. But ultimatly like the bible says “of the making of books their is no end”.
I know what the catechism says about these things, what CS Lewis thought about the problem of pain. I’m a practical person I like explanations that work, to me these explanations are spurious.
Are you saying the purpose of child rape is that we can learn something from it? be specific and direct about your beliefs. Tell us bluntly how you see the holocaust and the other things I mentioned.
All these complicated theories about suffering and free will, are meaningless and not required in the face of the truth: God is imaginary.
A
anthony022071
Guest
How could you reach this conclusion,when logical reasoning is itself based on a telelogical assumption?
M
Mirdath
Guest
I think you will agree with me that logic is not God.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
So, you understand that only in one area is faith more important than reason, and yet you say, at the end of your “reply” (see below) that “faith” (as Christianity) is still a superstition?
Do you know what superstition means?
Superstition means replacing ("-stition") one thing over (in place of) another thing (“super-”) inappropriately.
Since only in the area of “God-stuff” is it possible to place faith over reason (which you’ve said you agree with) how/why is it “inappropriate” (a “superstition”) to do so?
Once again, if ONLY faith in God is appropriately placed “above” reason, what has your faith in “what you can see and know” got to do with the question of the validity of faith in God, since it is a special case of faith (the only one) which singularly MUST be placed above reason?
…and yet,… you call faith in God a “superstition”…?
If you actually agree that ONLY faith in God is the variety of faith that is “placeable” before reason,… how can you dismiss it as superstition?
Christianity uses reason against all superstition. Since reason, whose use creates knowledge (science) and whose method is “rational thought”, is the only tool usable to expose “superstition”, and the ONLY area not subject to reason, as you’ve admitted, is faith in God, ONLY FAITH (the true one [of God]) is incapable of being “exposed” as a superstition.
Nothing in faith contradicts science, and nothing in science contradicts faith. It can’t, because faith (TRUE FAITH) IS TRUTH and science (TRUE SCIENCE) is TRUTH. Truth is truth, and can’t contradict itself.
The fact that people call things that are not faith “faith”, and then call all faith “superstition” because the non-faith-“faith” is (rightly) debunkable, says nothing other than that these people don’t know what they’re talking about.
That is a perfectly sincere reporting of your judgements based on your observations of what you think is “Christianity”,… but your observed “Christianity” is not Christianity.
If you ever want to see past the interposed “fake Christianity” that you are takng for actual Christianity, let us know…!
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.- Status