Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[veritashunter]

Dear MMortal03:

Since we are discussing the Faith/Science issue and the atheistic viewpoint I thought I would ask you about Pascal’s Wager.

Pascal’s Wager is a philosophical exercise in logic. It states the following:

1. That there are 2 possible outcomes to the question of if God exists. Either He does or He does not.
2. It states that if God does not exist yet a person were to mistakenly believe in God and then die that the person would risk and lose nothing.
3. Yet, if the same person were to wager against belief in God and were wrong upon their death they might lose everything when faced with the reality of the existence of God and the expense of their denial.
4. The conclusion is that there is no possible profit in disbelief.

This formula removes you from the good vs. evil premise.

Using linear logic please defeat the equation.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[veritashunter]

Dear MMortal03:

A basic law of scientific proof is the following:

“In order to prove that something does not exist one must first prove that it did at one time previously exist and since has been destroyed by another force of nature.”

Using linear logic please defeat the equation.

Yours in Truth,

Veritashunter

 

[veritashunter]

Dear MMortal:

Using linear logic applied to the Law of Cause and Effect in relation to the formulation of the universe (The Big Bang) please identify the following:

1. The first cause/force exerted on the primary object/first material entity?
2. The primary object/first material entity on which the first cause/force was exerted?
3. What action initiated the first cause/force?
4. How can the Law of Cause and Effect be remedied with the Material/Physical Law that matter requires substance (nothing comes from nothing)?

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[veritashunter]

DearMMortal3:

Using linear logic please prove the existence of time as a tangible reality?

Assumed points of mutual concession:

1. Time has no physical material dimension (L x W x H)
2. Time has no identifiable mass.
3. Time does not consist of matter or any material component.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[veritashunter]

Originally posted by Mmortal 03:

**This is inevitable in the setting of a debate, as sides have been taken, and until you get to the crux of it, it will often just seem as if each side is manipulating their own separate set of variables, instead of each side manipulating the same set of variables.

Also, it would be kind of difficult to “sort of” be an atheist. In other words, you “sometimes” believe in, or live your life taking into consideration possible metaphysical stuff. Therefore, it is something quite different to debate with an atheist coming from a theist perspective, than debating with a theist from a different religion. In the former case, using the qualities of your god as components of your argument just doesn’t fly, for example.**

Dear MMortal03:

My previous 4 posts (#'s 580-583) will rescue all of us from the pitfalls you identified above.

Using strict linear logic (proven variables and components without the possible consideration of personal opinions, intuitive reasoning, any unidentifiable/unquantifiable or metaphysical justifications) please address the questions and solve the philosophical equations.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
The same goes for the mind set of those who consider themselves “above” God because they believe that God was an invention founded on superstition and lack of intellectualism.

I would argue that this happens on both sides, regarding the anti-intellectualism read. As far as the superstition side, probably not, though, becuase you can’t be superstitious of something that is not there.

…you may argue all you want but Believers never state that non-believers are not “educated enough” to understand the Holy Spirit. It is always the “intellectuals” who claim that Believers lack “intelligence” since they think differently.

Quote:
Hence, their repertoire cannot but be dismissive of any thought other than that which directly supports them or in the least is “open-minded” enough to agree with their philosophy.

This is inevitable in the setting of a debate, as sides have been taken, and until you get to the crux of it, it will often just seem as if each side is manipulating their own separate set of variables, instead of each side manipulating the same set of variables.

Also, it would be kind of difficult to “sort of” be an atheist. In other words, you “sometimes” believe in, or live your life taking into consideration possible metaphysical stuff. Therefore, it is something quite different to debate with an atheist coming from a theist perspective, than debating with a theist from a different religion. In the former case, using the qualities of your god as components of your argument just doesn’t fly, for example.

…maybe I was not clear enough: the non-Believer’s possition is that if their system of belief is not accepted it is due to a deficiency in the Believers; hence, they seek those who agree with them–those who do or at least do not challenge their belief system are seen as “enlightened.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Maybe I missed that point. No doubt, though, do ignorant people circumvent the law at times. Again, it would be important to separate the ignorant atheists from those who are not. Some people don’t always get the full picture. Think of Protestants and Sola Scriptura. They think they are living the fullness of truth by just using the Bible alone, but from the Catholic perspective, this is false.

In the same way, there are flawed perspectives within the category of atheism, but it doesn’t mean that there aren’t fuller, more complete perspectives under the same roof.

I must concur with you on this point. Since my perspective is limited I cannot speak from all atheist view point; though my reason is based on the exchanges I’ve had with self-proclaimed atheists (this is inclusive of one of my best friends in hs).

So yes, there are levels of thoughts within any group.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mmortal03]

Pascal’s Wager is a philosophical exercise in logic. It states the following:

1. That there are 2 possible outcomes to the question of if God exists. Either He does or He does not.
2. It states that if God does not exist yet a person were to mistakenly believe in God and then die that the person would risk and lose nothing.
3. Yet, if the same person were to wager against belief in God and were wrong upon their death they might lose everything when faced with the reality of the existence of God and the expense of their denial.
4. The conclusion is that there is no possible profit in disbelief.

This formula removes you from the good vs. evil premise.

Using linear logic please defeat the equation.

1. There are more than two outcomes than just does God exist or does God not exist. You could have multiple gods, and you could have a God that isn’t the Christian one. But, I’ll accept, for the sake of argument that there either is some metaphysical creator or there isn’t.
2. This is false. Your unstated major premise here is that there is an a judgment made upon you after you die, and this decides whether you get to go to heaven or not. However, there could be any number of possibilities. It could be that there is an evil God that tortures our souls when we die, regardless of what we did in our lives.

Furthermore, the premise that you lose nothing by believing in God if he doesn’t actually exist is false. You do lose something, because every possible opportunity on Earth that you missed because you thought it was sinful, you could have participated in. All the time that you went to church could have been spent in a more practical manner.

1. There are a large number of different religions that say that if you don’t believe in their God there is a good chance you won’t make it into paradise. It isn’t a matter of believing in an arbitrary god, it is about believing in the right one. That makes the the scenario completely different. You live your life believing in one of the many gods, and denying the rest of them. I go one step further, because there is no way to know which one is the right one.
2. I already discussed the possible profits of disbelief in #2. I will also mention that this entire wager is sometimes talked about in the sense of “You might as well believe in God, just in case.” Well, besides what I said about there being many different possible Gods in #3, it is furthermore against the teachings of Christ to believe in him “just in case”. If you did that, I don’t think it would be looked too highly upon at your judgment day.

 

[mmortal03]

Dear MMortal03:

A basic law of scientific proof is the following:

“In order to prove that something does not exist one must first prove that it did at one time previously exist and since has been destroyed by another force of nature.”

Using linear logic please defeat the equation.

Yours in Truth,

Veritashunter

I don’t think you are giving enough context for this particular law. Yes, of course, there is no way to PROVE that something doesn’t exist, except for the case where you knew it existed and measured its transformation or destruction. This is just another way of phrasing the concept of falsifiability. Deities are unfalsifiable. So are leprechauns and unicorns. There are nearly limitless possibilities to what could possibly exist, that we can’t measure. I’m not claiming that some form of deity doesn’t exist, I’m just claiming that there is no way to measure one’s existence or know which one is the right one, therefore, I don’t follow any of them.

 

[mmortal03]

Dear MMortal:

Using linear logic applied to the Law of Cause and Effect in relation to the formulation of the universe (The Big Bang) please identify the following:

1. The first cause/force exerted on the primary object/first material entity?
2. The primary object/first material entity on which the first cause/force was exerted?
3. What action initiated the first cause/force?
4. How can the Law of Cause and Effect be remedied with the Material/Physical Law that matter requires substance (nothing comes from nothing)?

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

It hasn’t been experimentally proven that everything has to come from something or that a cause has to precede everything. I actually don’t think it can be proven, though it could be disproved with evidence to the contrary. Along the same lines that you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist, except for the case where you knew it once existed, you also can’t prove that something ALWAYS happens when you aren’t dealing with a closed set. That is why we call them scientific THEORIES. Just to point this out, however, there are concepts in quantum mechanics, where the effect might happen before the cause, and other “weird” things like that. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

In terms of the big bang, you are just applying the lack of a first cause to a Creator, instead of the beginning of the universe. It is no more logical to say that a Creator had no Creator, than to say that the universe had no Creator, or to just profess ignorance.

 

[drpmjhess]

Furthermore, the premise that you lose nothing by believing in God if he doesn’t actually exist is false. You do lose something, because every possible opportunity on Earth that you missed because you thought it was sinful, you could have participated in. All the time that you went to church could have been spent in a more practical manner.

mmortal03, if there is nothing after you die, isn’t it irrelevant what you might lose? If there is no life after death, it will be utterly irrelevant what you might or might not have engaged in, and church time that “could have been spent in a more practical manner” has no significance at all. You can enjoy yourself for the eight-odd years you life here, but whatever pleasure you might derive will be no more significant than the pleasures not experienced by an ascetic.

That being said, I agree with you that “living a moral life to get into heaven” is a pretty silly concept, because (1) it reduces morality to utilitarian value, and (2) it carries the risk you mentioned that you might have bet on the wrong god.

Petrus

 

[mmortal03]

DearMMortal3:

Using linear logic please prove the existence of time as a tangible reality?

Assumed points of mutual concession:

1. Time has no physical material dimension (L x W x H)
2. Time has no identifiable mass.
3. Time does not consist of matter or any material component.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

Why does this one matter to the debate again?

 

[mmortal03]

Originally posted by Mmortal 03:

**This is inevitable in the setting of a debate, as sides have been taken, and until you get to the crux of it, it will often just seem as if each side is manipulating their own separate set of variables, instead of each side manipulating the same set of variables.

Also, it would be kind of difficult to “sort of” be an atheist. In other words, you “sometimes” believe in, or live your life taking into consideration possible metaphysical stuff. Therefore, it is something quite different to debate with an atheist coming from a theist perspective, than debating with a theist from a different religion. In the former case, using the qualities of your god as components of your argument just doesn’t fly, for example.**

Dear MMortal03:

My previous 4 posts (#'s 580-583) will rescue all of us from the pitfalls you identified above.

Using strict linear logic (proven variables and components without the possible consideration of personal opinions, intuitive reasoning, any unidentifiable/unquantifiable or metaphysical justifications) please address the questions and solve the philosophical equations.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

I didn’t use proven variables and components in ANY of the above questions, because they weren’t proposed precisely enough, and some of them could not be proven. When you propose questions and concepts using imprecise unproven variables and components, you can’t then have me try to prove them with proven variables and components. It would be like me asking you to prove to me that unicorns don’t exist. It isn’t possible, but that wouldn’t keep me from not basing my life on the possible existence of unicorns.

 

[mmortal03]

…you may argue all you want but Believers never state that non-believers are not “educated enough” to understand the Holy Spirit. It is always the “intellectuals” who claim that Believers lack “intelligence” since they think differently.

No, I would argue against this. There have been many times where I have experienced non-believers being told that they are not “educated enough” with regards to the works of the philosophers that the believers ascribe to.

…maybe I was not clear enough: the non-Believer’s possition is that if their system of belief is not accepted it is due to a deficiency in the Believers; hence, they seek those who agree with them–those who do or at least do not challenge their belief system are seen as “enlightened.”

Right, I am not saying that this doesn’t happen. However, you too associate more with believers than non-believers because you feel like you have something more in common. This doesn’t have to be about whom is smarter than whom. It is confirmation biases, and the avoidance of cognitive dissonance that keeps people to only seeking those who agree with them. This is one of the reasons why I am here, because I like to keep myself from doing that.

About the enlightenment part: I will say that the more of the world I see (the more experiences I have with a variety of concepts and cultures), the less I think that one particular religion could definitively be the right one. That doesn’t mean I am smarter than anybody. Make sure not to equate enlightenment with smarts, though. One can feel enlightened on either side, compared to their prior experiences. It seems to be a relative thing.

 

[veritashunter]

1. There are more than two outcomes than just does God exist or does God not exist. You could have multiple gods, and you could have a God that isn’t the Christian one. But, I’ll accept, for the sake of argument that there either is some metaphysical creator or there isn’t.
2. This is false. Your unstated major premise here is that there is an a judgment made upon you after you die, and this decides whether you get to go to heaven or not. However, there could be any number of possibilities. It could be that there is an evil God that tortures our souls when we die, regardless of what we did in our lives.

Furthermore, the premise that you lose nothing by believing in God if he doesn’t actually exist is false. You do lose something, because every possible opportunity on Earth that you missed because you thought it was sinful, you could have participated in. All the time that you went to church could have been spent in a more practical manner.

1. There are a large number of different religions that say that if you don’t believe in their God there is a good chance you won’t make it into paradise. It isn’t a matter of believing in an arbitrary god, it is about believing in the right one. That makes the the scenario completely different. You live your life believing in one of the many gods, and denying the rest of them. I go one step further, because there is no way to know which one is the right one.
2. I already discussed the possible profits of disbelief in #2. I will also mention that this entire wager is sometimes talked about in the sense of “You might as well believe in God, just in case.” Well, besides what I said about there being many different possible Gods in #3, it is furthermore against the teachings of Christ to believe in him “just in case”. If you did that, I don’t think it would be looked too highly upon at your judgment day.

**Dear MMortal03:

1. Pascal’s Wager is what is in question…not Catholic theology as Pascal defined the criteria to be a singular God. This is because the idea of God is tantamount to “Supremecy”…There can be only One supreme Being in the universe. The converse would be to say that God has equals which disqualifies the idea of God as a supreme Being…Please research the question before you answer it.
2. You are introducing ideas of good versus evil and chruch worship where it is not part of the discussion. Pascal’s Wager does not deal with church related attendance issues. Please stay on point.
3. Again, you are making assumptions into points 3 and 4 that do not exist in the idea presented, namely, Pascal’s Wager. Please stay on point.

Thus far you have deviated completely from the linear logic that you were asked to utilize. This is because yuo were the debater that advanced a theory that only logic and science need be applied. Please stay on point and respond in only proven scientific facts utilizing linear logic. No personal or subjective reasoning (leaps of faith) are suitable for discussion as you quite eloquently pointed out.

I am only seeking to apply your premise to your argument.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter**

 

[veritashunter]

Why does this one matter to the debate again?

Dear MMortal03:

First, we are finite creatures attemting to define an infinite priciple and principal (namely, God). We must first, therefore, be capable of defining the existential nature of God.

Second, God (if God exists) is beyond time and space. So, in order for us to define God we must be able to understand the temporal reality and the intemporal.

In order for that to happen we must be able to quantify the reality of which both we and God are compared…the finite and the infinite. The frame of reference that we utilize is “time”.

So, if we are to use it as a qualifier, quantifier, and frame of reference for both our existence iand that of God, we must certainly first be capable of proving its existence…correct?

Or, maybe Einstein was wrong!

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[veritashunter]

I don’t think you are giving enough context for this particular law. Yes, of course, there is no way to PROVE that something doesn’t exist, except for the case where you knew it existed and measured its transformation or destruction. This is just another way of phrasing the concept of falsifiability. Deities are unfalsifiable. So are leprechauns and unicorns. There are nearly limitless possibilities to what could possibly exist, that we can’t measure. I’m not claiming that some form of deity doesn’t exist, I’m just claiming that there is no way to measure one’s existence or know which one is the right one, therefore, I don’t follow any of them.

Dear MMortal03:

Your assertions have consistently been inconsistent. You assert that we are not to use emotional responses or personal faith in order to justify the scientific and/or philosophical existence of God.

Therefore, I proposed that we utilize factual criteria only without exception. I have only asked you to do what you proposed.

The point is that you cannot possible rationally understand your own existence without using more than linear logic and scientific fact. This is because you are limited by the extent of progress in discovery that humanity has made in recorded history.

Without utilizing more than these items you have no more reality in the universe as a “higher form of life” than does a sea cucumber utilizing all of the natural instincts at its disposal to understand its environment.

But I am certain that down deep you surely think of yourself as a higher species than a sea cucumber.

The next time you try to expalin the universe, its Creator, and the experiencial dimensions of mankind maybe you ought to consider the “logic” of your proposed theories before you attempt to advance them.

Maybe you should take the time to read someone like Albert Einstein who believed in God (all-be-it not a personal God but God no less) and demanded that the Cosmos without God was mathmatically impossible. It is like believing that a tornado went through a junkyard of broken parts and when it was gone there sat a perfectly functional car full of gasoline (the proper fuel) created in perfect order and utility by mere coincidence with every wire, bolt, and nut put together in perfect complimentarity able to drive itself.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[veritashunter]

**Originally posted by Mmortal 03:

This is inevitable in the setting of a debate, as sides have been taken, and until you get to the crux of it, it will often just seem as if each side is manipulating their own separate set of variables, instead of each side manipulating the same set of variables.

Also, it would be kind of difficult to “sort of” be an atheist. In other words, you “sometimes” believe in, or live your life taking into consideration possible metaphysical stuff. Therefore, it is something quite different to debate with an atheist coming from a theist perspective, than debating with a theist from a different religion. In the former case, using the qualities of your god as components of your argument just doesn’t fly, for example.**

Dear MMortal03:

My first posting asked that you logically defeat Pascal’s Wager. Since the only question is that of “chance and probability” that is where the answer lies. Unfortunate to your perspective, the numbers do not favor your position. This is a freshman year philosophy question…PHIL 101 at best.

My second posting was for you to explain away the laws of proof and material existence by utilizing scientific law and linear logic. You could not do so. This is primary to the discussion because if God can be destroyed by a greater force then God cannot be the Creator of all that exists in the universe. The point is that you cannot use logic and science to defeat a Scientific Law since that is its entire foundation and factual basis. So, your premise has been defeated by comparing it to itself.

My third posting was for you to explain the beginnings and origins of the Big Bang since the primary event cannot be identified or quantified by science. It depends on “Cause and Effect” as its rationale for explanation yet that very principle demands that there was a single first cause, a single first effect and effected object/substance, and a single actuator (directed force) that set it all in motion. Yet, science is unable to identify any of the components it proposes to exist. This also applies to strict evolution rather than limited evolutionary theory.

My fourth posting was for you to prove the existence of time. But you cannot do so because it does not actually exist in any material or tangibly identifiable way. Yet, I am certain that you, Jonathon, do know it exists. How then do you do it without science to prove it…after all, we cannot see, weight, touch, feel, smell, taste, or know time…it has no material dimension or mass or matter (material component)? Yet, somehow Jonathon still knows it exists…why? It is not seen or in any way identified with the senses of the body yet you know it is real.

The is simple. Time is infinite…a circle if you will, with no origin and no terminus, no beginning and no end. But you, Jonathon, are merely a dot on that circle with a definable beginning and end.

As such you (and all of us) need a material and dimensional understanding of our finite existence in reference and relation to an non-material non-dimensional infinite quantum reality that we refer to as “time”. It only exists in our minds in relation to our finite dimension and reality.

Now, if you can’t explain and defeat those simple facts based in strict scientific logic and logical philosophy without using personal intuition, subjective reasoning (as opposed to objective reasoning), filling in the scientific blanks with suppositions, and the strict use of linear logic and science…then what exactly is your point.

You step into and out of logic at will. You seek science and logic in one statement and morality in another. Then you deny that morality is based on the belief in God (not necessarily the Christian God) although the very definition of the term opposes that premise.

The ultimate end point of your argument is that one can truly know nothing because science and logic are your only frames of reference yet they are incomplete. Thus, you eventually become equal to the sea cucumber…a ranging mindless organism with no true moral compass. Human morality then becomes an idea based solely on societal norms which is reduced to a majority opinion…hardly logical, scientifically authentic, and/or real. Morals and morality require a fixed and timeless point of reference to truth.

Opinions change as do policies and societal norms…so if morals are based on those mechanisms then they can never be absolute and therefore not truth.

Yet, by definition the one thing that morality maintains is timeless integrity. Majority opinions and policies never do that.

I am only asking you to follow your own proclamations and words. Nothing more. Please return to the 4 postings and answer them using strict linear logic.

Or admit that you cannot…admit that science, reason, probability and logic agree with Pascal’s Wager. Admit that the laws of scientic proof and material existence are correct. Admit that the method of “cause and effect” cannot fully or even substantially explain the existence of the universe and/or strict evolutionist theory (note it is just a theory because it cannot be fully proven by the same scientific laws) as compared to limited evolutionary theory. And admit that time is merely a conceptual device to understand our finite existence on an infinite quantum plane and that time cannot be understood, proven, or disproven by mere material reality (just like God).

One or the other, choose. The actual issue that we are debating here is integrity of thought. I enterred the argument on the terms and conditions that you defined…the variables that you identified…utilizing the method that you rationalized…in the arena you chose.

Sorry, but you have no home field advantage here. Atheists rarely expect that someone might have an equal or better understanding & grasp on those principles than they do.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, but you have no home field advantage here. Atheists rarely expect that someone might have an equal or better understanding & grasp on those principles than they do.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

:bowdown:

 

[mmortal03]

1. Pascal’s Wager is what is in question…not Catholic theology as Pascal defined the criteria to be a singular God. This is because the idea of God is tantamount to “Supremecy”…There can be only One supreme Being in the universe. The converse would be to say that God has equals which disqualifies the idea of God as a supreme Being…Please research the question before you answer it.

That doesn’t change anything that I said, only categorizes it. I have read discussions regarding Pascal’s Wager for a long time.

1. You are introducing ideas of good versus evil and chruch worship where it is not part of the discussion. Pascal’s Wager does not deal with church related attendance issues. Please stay on point.

Then it loses all meaning. I could just say I believe in some arbitrary concept of God, and live my life however I want, and that would satisfy the condition. That isn’t good enough for any religion’s interpretation of God. Also, you yourself are assuming that the existence of a god implies an afterlife that you are judged by whether or not you believe in him. We could all be animals to some form of a god that existed, and he wouldn’t give us any afterlife. We would still just die and that would be it.

1. Again, you are making assumptions into points 3 and 4 that do not exist in the idea presented, namely, Pascal’s Wager. Please stay on point.

You need to clarify what is the “expense of denial” of an arbitrary God before I can even try to apply any linear logic to it here. You aren’t following your own rules.

Thus far you have deviated completely from the linear logic that you were asked to utilize. This is because yuo were the debater that advanced a theory that only logic and science need be applied. Please stay on point and respond in only proven scientific facts utilizing linear logic. No personal or subjective reasoning (leaps of faith) are suitable for discussion as you quite eloquently pointed out.

What I am doing does not contradict what I said before. Your unstated major premise here is that linear logic is the only way to debate this, which is wrong, and two, that every question you propose to me can be refuted with linear logic. You are proposing questions that have way too many assumptions to apply linear logic to them, so I can’t. I told you earlier that I would try to do it, if possible, not that for every question you could formulate it would be possible to do so.

I am only seeking to apply your premise to your argument.

Your understanding of my premise is a fallacious one, though I appreciate your trying to keep things logical.