Athiests: What do you do when....

[R_Daneel]

But this ability fails when it come to the ultimate “Why”.
Why did certain amino acids come together and at point did these chemicals develop some rudimentary conscienceness?
Why did these amino acids begin to convert other materials for their own “survival”?
Why did these amino acids begin to “split” to make others just like themselves?
Why did these amino acids begin constructing, not just “single celled” entities, but multicelled entities - each with a specific task to perform?

In other words the root cause answer of WHY life started.

You are absolutely correct that science does not (or cannot) answer the “ultimate why”. It is not concerned with “ultimate why’s” or “ultimate anything”… because these questions carry no significance for science.

If I would ask you the question: “what is the ultimate reason (or why) for God’s existence?”, I suspect you would answer: “there is no ultimate reason… God exists, and nothing further is needed”. This is exactly the same answer you will get when you ask an atheist about the existence of the universe: “there are brute facts, which do not have nor can they have an explanation”. The “ultimate why” is a syntactically correct question, however it is not a legitimate one.

Put the same amino acids together and nothing happens. “Life” is something entirely seperate from simple, or even complex chemistry.

Actually, no. Life is complex chemistry, nothing more. The shortest definition of “life” is “complex response to complex stimuli”. As a matter of fact, even biologists do not agree if a certain entity (a virus) is “alive” ot not.

 

[R_Daneel]

Who maligns the scientific method??
Certainly not the Catholic Church that has started and ran thousands of hospitals around the world and down through many centureis.
Certainly not the Catholic Church who has championed universities with large scientific research facilities.

I was not talking about the Catholic Church, rather a lot of posters around here (names omitted), who did exactly that.

 

[JRKH]

You are absolutely correct that science does not (or cannot) answer the “ultimate why”. It is not concerned with “ultimate why’s” or “ultimate anything”… because these questions carry no significance for science.

If I would ask you the question: “what is the ultimate reason (or why) for God’s existence?”, **I suspect you would answer: “there is no ultimate reason… God exists, and nothing further is needed”. **This is exactly the same answer you will get when you ask an atheist about the existence of the universe: “there are brute facts, which do not have nor can they have an explanation”. The “ultimate why” is a syntactically correct question, however it is not a legitimate one.

Actually you would be wrong in how I would answer. I would answer, “I don’t know why God exists”. I have enough to deal with living in accordance with His will for me.

Peace
James

 

[Moonstruck888]

I agree that if there is no evidence, but in this case there is. However - you claim the evidence does not support “God” and I say it does.
Therefore the claim is only “patently ridiculous” to those who deny (or misread) the evidence.

Please, detail this evidence…

Not at all - The reason is because, as I expressed in an earlier post, There is only one God but many descriptions. The major religions describe God in similar terms, give him different names, and build their faiths on similar principles.
I might also point out that I believe firmly in God and also firmly in evolution as being one of God’s tools.
In fact I believe that our journey out of this finite life into the next infinite one is, in a sense, a form of evolution.

I see…

So why is it that the Bible is explicit on what must be done with people who worship the wrong God? Cursed is he who withholds his sword from blood of the infidel.

 

[JRKH]

Please, detail this evidence…

All of creation… Now don’t bother with refutation since I already know that we will not agree on the interpretation of the evidence plus it is off topic.

I see…

So why is it that the Bible is explicit on what must be done with people who worship the wrong God? Cursed is he who withholds his sword from blood of the infidel.

Source please

Peace
James

 

[Moonstruck888]

Source please

Peace
James

Jeremiah 48:10

It never ceases to amaze me that I know more about the Bible than most Christians. Don’t you actually read the Bible?

 

[Moonstruck888]

All of creation… Now don’t bother with refutation since I already know that we will not agree on the interpretation of the evidence plus it is off topic.

I’m sorry, but this I must contest.

The question is “how did the Universe get here?”

You can’t use the Universe as evidence to answer the question of where the Universe came from. That’s preposterous.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Jeremiah 48:10

It never ceases to amaze me that I know more about the Bible than most Christians. Don’t you actually read the Bible?

In which translation? I figured this was the verse you were referring to, but I’ve never seen it translated this way, and a Google search failed to find this wording as well

 

[JRKH]

I’m sorry, but this I must contest.

The question is “how did the Universe get here?”

You can’t use the Universe as evidence to answer the question of where the Universe came from. That’s preposterous.

Told you we wouldn’t agree…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Jeremiah 48:10

It never ceases to amaze me that I know more about the Bible than most Christians. Don’t you actually read the Bible?

Thank you - Perhaps now we need to take a look at whether your reading a valid translation. Here are several translations - including two “Literal” translations. None of which match yours.

Jeremiah 48:10
The Holy Bible, New International Version
"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD’s work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!

The New American Standard Bible
"Cursed be the one who does the LORD’S work negligently, And cursed be the one who restrains his sword from blood.

The King James Version (Authorized)
Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

The New King James Version
Cursed is he who does the work of the LORD deceitfully, And cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood.

The New Revised Standard Version
Accursed is the one who is slack in doing the work of the Lord; and accursed is the one who keeps back the sword from bloodshed.

The Douay-Rheims Bible
Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord deceitfully: and cursed be he that withholdeth his sword from blood.

The NAS Strong’s Version
"Cursed be the one who does the LORD’S work negligently, And cursed be the one who restrains his sword from blood.

Young’s Literal Translation
Cursed [is] he who is doing the work of Jehovah slothfully, And cursed [is] he Who is withholding his sword from blood.

J.P. Green’s Literal Translation
Cursed is he who does the work of Jehovah deceitfully, and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood.

Now - That being said I love how people try to treat the Bible as a completely level playing field, pulling things from the OT covenant and trying to use it as a “sword” agains the NT covenant.

The New covenant is built upon the Law of Love. Jesus tells us that "The queen of the south will rise up and condemn the present generation (of Jesus time) for their lack of faith. It is highly unlikely that the Queen of the South was Jewish Yet Jesus gives her more rightiousness than the Jews of His Generation.

As I said earlier, There is but one True God. And His Law is Love. Those who seek after this God, whether they know him as God, Jehovah or Allah or whatever, are on the right path. Even the Catachism recognizes this.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
​

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I’ll end with a gem from Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate (but probably just a ‘lesser’ scientist):
“Most scientists I know don’t care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science – that it has made it possible for people not to be religious.” *

This sounds a lot like Dawkins’ view, who also, by the way, is one of the “lesser lights” in the scientific world.

What needs to be confronted, and cannot be confronted in this thread, is why so many current scientists lean toward agnosticism and atheism. It can’t just be the passage of time. There has to be a philosophical and psychological mechanism that has kicked in and taken off.

But the view that among current scientists there is a preponderance of atheists, and therefore atheism must be more true, makes no sense whatever. You might as well say that in modern music rap preponderates, and therefore must be closer to true beauty than classical music.

Modern man has lost his soul in many respects by repudiating God. This God is repudiated more and more everywhere we look. But that is no proof whatever that God does not exist, or that it is not really intelligent to believe in God. All it proves is that the devil once again is having a field day with the human race.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Thank you - Perhaps now we need to take a look at whether your reading a valid translation. Here are several translations - including two “Literal” translations. None of which match yours.

They match mine flawlessly. Pardon me for not remembering every precise syllable, but the intent is absolutely clear. Not only are you premitted to kill infidels, you’re obliged to do so.

Now - That being said I love how people try to treat the Bible as a completely level playing field, pulling things from the OT covenant and trying to use it as a “sword” agains the NT covenant.

The New covenant is built upon the Law of Love. Jesus tells us that "The queen of the south will rise up and condemn the present generation (of Jesus time) for their lack of faith. It is highly unlikely that the Queen of the South was Jewish Yet Jesus gives her more rightiousness than the Jews of His Generation.

As I said earlier, There is but one True God. And His Law is Love. Those who seek after this God, whether they know him as God, Jehovah or Allah or whatever, are on the right path. Even the Catachism recognizes this.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
​

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

The last I checked, the Old Testament was still part of the Christian Bible, despite the attempts of apologists to disown it, if you will…

 

[Moonstruck888]

But the view that among current scientists there is a preponderance of atheists, and therefore atheism must be more true, makes no sense whatever. You might as well say that in modern music rap preponderates, and therefore must be closer to true beauty than classical music.

It seems pretty obvious from where I’m sitting

Scientists are trained to apply a method based on experimental observation that basically amounts to vigorously attacking ideas to prove them resistant to falsification. It becomes second nature to a scientist to consider what would verify an idea and what would falsify it.

If it is impossible to define what would falsify and idea then it would make a trained scientist very skeptical of that idea.

So, what would falsify the idea of God creating the Universe?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Francis Collins, a world class scientists and until recently the head of the human genome project, early in life became an atheist. However, more recently he has written The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. He has described his youthful adoption of atheism as one of “willful blindness.”

I think this is true of many atheists, even the brightest ones. They have made a God of the scientific method and kneel to worship it, repudiating any God who cannot be found at the end of a telescope or floating in a petri dish.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

moonstruck

So, what would falsify the idea of God creating the Universe?

Proof that the universe is eternal? There is no such proof. If anything, proof … the Big Bang … is that the universe* was* created. Unless you want to say it created itself, it has a Creator.

 

[Moonstruck888]

moonstruck

So, what would falsify the idea of God creating the Universe?

Proof that the universe is eternal? There is no such proof. If anything, proof … the Big Bang … is that the universe* was* created. Unless you want to say it created itself, it has a Creator.

In other words, you can’t define what would falsify God. Correct?

 

[JRKH]

They match mine flawlessly. Pardon me for not remembering every precise syllable, but the intent is absolutely clear. Not only are you premitted to kill infidels, you’re obliged to do so.

I have yet to see the term “infidels” in there.

The last I checked, the Old Testament was still part of the Christian Bible, despite the attempts of apologists to disown it, if you will…

No need to try to “disown it”. We accept the OT as part of the bible and we accept it in the way it is intended.
The Bible contains many books for many purposes. It is not simply a “List of Commands” to be blindly followed. While I’m sure you have run into Christians who view it this way, I can assure you that this is not how the Catholic Church views it.

Peace
James

 

[Moonstruck888]

I have yet to see the term “infidels” in there.

Okay, non-believers then…

 

[jinminn]

This sounds a lot like Dawkins’ view, who also, by the way, is one of the “lesser lights” in the scientific world.

And a lot of the OT sounds like the principles of Islam, which is one of the ‘lesser lights’ in the religious world.

What needs to be confronted, and cannot be confronted in this thread, is why so many current scientists lean toward agnosticism and atheism. It can’t just be the passage of time. There has to be a philosophical and psychological mechanism that has kicked in and taken off.

I would say:

• we’re in a time that allows questioning of even things once held to be ‘sacred’ and ‘off-limits.’ Individuals are not satisfied by suface-scratching answers that just lead to more questions. Those in science are trained to accept something only if it has the necessary evidence and have found various religions wanting in that area.
• if you wish to put this on a ‘psychological mechanism’ then it probably falls into the responsibility of your god who made us how we are and knew from before all time that we would be in this forum discussing these things.

But the view that among current scientists there is a preponderance of atheists, and therefore atheism must be more true, makes no sense whatever. You might as well say that in modern music rap preponderates, and therefore must be closer to true beauty than classical music.

I can’t really get into this as it would take too long. I’ll try to be extremely brief:

• Arguments for god often rest on premises answered by science. Argument from design believes that no agent other than god could be responsible for various occurrences in nature. The biologist, however, studies this area his entire life. He believes there is a better mechanism and is not convinced by the argument.
• It’s about the level of knowledge individuals have as well as the encouragement to think critically, ask questions, and not be satisfied with theories that lack supporting evidence that I think makes the difference.

Regarding rap vs. classical? This is a false analogy. You equate existence in past vs. present as an indicator of truth. Were circular orbit theories to come back again, we could easily compare them to decide which theory better answered what we see in the sky. We can do the same for music: more complex chord progressions, required skill to play, tendency to become a legacy (anyone can make a rap CD compared to very few who will be remembered in orchestra halls for centuries), etc.

Also, since science has specialists, what do musical ‘specialists’ say about the matter? The fact that every week one may visit his/her nearest orchestra hall specifically built for classical music and supported through classical music tickets for $60-200/ticket tells me that the connoisseurs still like classical.

Modern man has lost his soul in many respects by repudiating God. This God is repudiated more and more everywhere we look. But that is no proof whatever that God does not exist, or that it is not really intelligent to believe in God. All it proves is that the devil once again is having a field day with the human race.

I love it. When all else fails:

• equate disbelief with some form of hatred, anger, attack, or whatever secondary-emotional-motive-with-hate-based-connotations you can conjure up
• when god is not sustained by belief due to inquiry which has not found evidence… blame the devil.

 

[jinminn]

No need to try to “disown it”. We accept the OT as part of the bible and we accept it in the way it is intended. The Bible contains many books for many purposes.

I still have yet to hear satisfactory explanations of what exactly those purposes are and for what they were intended.

This is part of the difficulty with the OT… if any one of THESE, for example, cannot be justified… religion fails.

Even if it is more than commands (which obviously it is as it contains stories and quasi-history as well), we’re still at a loss regarding why god commanded:

• to stone non-virgins on their wedding night on their father’s door step
• not to eat four legged insects

Dei Verbum and one of the early Leo’s stated that 1) nothing is uninspired in the bible and that 2) god inspired to be written only what he wanted and no more

So…

• nothing superfluous
• everything explicitly inspired by god

But we have the above and everything at the link. Even ‘through the eyes of the NT’ this seems a bit more than one can explain away.

Which is why I predict something akin to:

• we cannot know the mind of god and all his mysterious ways
• god created everything so whatever he wants to do is moral