Dishonest Apologetics

[twb1621]

First of all, I’m not sure we can assume that everything has a cause when you consider quantum physics. However, setting that aside, we would only know that everything has a proximate cause. If there has always been something, then a lack of a first cause does not prevent there from being something. There could simply be a universe that has constantly been expanding and contracting for eternity. So it was not “nothing before it casued itself into being”. It was always something; it merely changed states.

A reminder to respond to post # forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5284815&postcount=219

When you have the time. I realize how that can be a problem considering I have the same problem lately…

 

[Cinette]

Yeah, I figured you’d guess I was a he. I wonder what gave me away.

Haha, for me I don’t even realize when something is an American expression. I guess that’s what happens when most of what you read and watch is from America.

By the way, I researched Padre Pio, and the evidence seemed pretty shaky. If you want to see what I mean, these articles talk about some of the issues:
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2739751.ece
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/padre-pio-faked-his-stigmata-with-acid-397811.html

Been out all day and now I was watching Sky and the press conference with Gordon Brown which made me nervous. I want the British to give him a chance to prove himself - the expenses scandal has been a tremendous blow. I just wouldn’t like to see the conservatives get in. Then I am peeping at Roger Federer play in the semi finals and I am so nervous that I leave the room and come here to see what emails have come in. I just can’t bear the emotion. I don’t know how his wife can bear it!

I won’t have time to check those links tonight but I can tell you that Padre Pio is impeccable and a great, great saint. Furthermore the Catholic Church is very very careful in these matters. It can take decades before they pronounce themselves but on this man it did not take long to declare him a saint. Saints are an encouragement to us and serve as role models. He was a dedicated and holy man who sacrificed himself his entire life and did an enormous amount of good.

As to how I thought you are a man? Well now, could it be my feminine instincts? I think there is a masculine charm that reveals itself. You are a good listener and not one to get too emotional. You are the opposite of me - that’s for sure!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Been out all day and now I was watching Sky and the press conference with Gordon Brown which made me nervous. I want the British to give him a chance to prove himself - the expenses scandal has been a tremendous blow. I just wouldn’t like to see the conservatives get in. Then I am peeping at Roger Federer play in the semi finals and I am so nervous that I leave the room and come here to see what emails have come in. I just can’t bear the emotion. I don’t know how his wife can bear it!

I don’t really follow British politics that much, though I have heard about the scandal. I’m also not a fan of conservatives, so I guess that means I’m a godless liberal. I’ll have to check out the tennis match. I like watching (and playing) tennis, but I never know when it’s on. Unfortunately it’s shown on delay here in the states.

I won’t have time to check those links tonight but I can tell you that Padre Pio is impeccable and a great, great saint. Furthermore the Catholic Church is very very careful in these matters. It can take decades before they pronounce themselves but on this man it did not take long to declare him a saint. Saints are an encouragement to us and serve as role models. He was a dedicated and holy man who sacrificed himself his entire life and did an enormous amount of good.

Maybe you don’t want to check out the links. They contain some pretty harsh allegations. I don’t know what really happened, but I think it is ambiguous enough that his case doesn’t really provide good evidence of God. I think the church is careful about who they make saints, but I do not think that they verify the supposed miracles very well. For example, with Mother Theresa, the evidence for her miracle was actually pretty thin (a lot of the people involved in the case said the woman healed normally as a response to medical treatment), but it makes sense that they wanted to make her a saint because of her charitable work.

As to how I thought you are a man? Well now, could it be my feminine instincts? I think there is a masculine charm that reveals itself. You are a good listener and not one to get too emotional. You are the opposite of me - that’s for sure!

I’m sure there can be women who are that way as well. But yeah, I think it can often be easy to guess stuff like that.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Many physicists are leading to the possibility and even probability that there must be a higher force of intelligence (God) who established the universe. Therefore, your opinions are merely accepted from those who choose not to accept such a conclusion… yet.

I definitely don’t think that current physics research points towards the existence of an intelligent being. If you want me to believe that, you’re going to have to back it up pretty well.

I understand your dilemma. Religion is not the Subject, as it is a very broad term that takes in every belief whether substantiated in some way or not. Religious experiences are not limited to Faiths but to the direction they offer to the individual. It has nothing to do with what they believe, but what they do not believe or what needs to be addressed through the message. What would your evolutionary explanation offer in the over 5000 years of descriptive prophecies regarding the life and death of Christ. History including the Old Testament confirms Christianity.

I don’t see what evolution has to do with anything. And we’ve already had the prophecy discussion. I don’t think they provide good evidence that a God exists for reasons stated earlier.

No, but with 25 years of investigative and research experience, what I have done and continue to do for over 6 years is research and investigate Christianity and its origins in contrast to other forms of beliefs. That includes where something may be questionable, to referring back through the Vulgates, references to the Vetus Itala and Septuagint, cross referencing with the interpretations of the scholars over history as well as the Church’s interpretations and the partiality or non-partiality involved as well as Roman History which serves well at times. Let us not forget the centuries of discovery in archeological finds, which have served to strengthen the claims of claimed history events. When it comes to questions posed such as yours or whoever, it includes researching or referencing what may be available to offer a viable response. Not pulling information out of a hat. I do this as my thanks to God for His gifts to me and my conversion from my past .

There are plenty of Koranic scholars who find evidence of amazing scientific prophecies within the Koran. They are vague and subject to interpretation, just as most of the biblical prophecies are. I do not feel that either text provides good evidence in favor of its corresponding religion.

 

[Cinette]

I don’t really follow British politics that much, though I have heard about the scandal. I’m also not a fan of conservatives, so I guess that means I’m a godless liberal. I’ll have to check out the tennis match. I like watching (and playing) tennis, but I never know when it’s on. Unfortunately it’s shown on delay here in the states.

I watch all politics. We are affected by all politics. It is said that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. Like America, South Africa is populated with all kinds of people. Our origins are from everywhere. The world is becoming more and more “blended” (?) I knew a man who was born in France with the surname Wilson and he could not speak a work of English. I know a black man with the name of Henry McMurray!! You can’t tell by a name anymore! LOL!

I was once a godless liberal - it was cool. Now I am leaning more towards conservatism but I believe I am in a position to analise better. Wasn’t it George Bernard Shaw who said something about Liberals want things to change so that everything can remain the same? (or words to that effect?) No, I do not like the word liberal anymore because it indicates a “laissez faire” attitude. I am now more orthodox in my thinking.

Maybe you don’t want to check out the links. They contain some pretty harsh allegations. I don’t know what really happened, but I think it is ambiguous enough that his case doesn’t really provide good evidence of God. I think the church is careful about who they make saints, but I do not think that they verify the supposed miracles very well. For example, with Mother Theresa, the evidence for her miracle was actually pretty thin (a lot of the people involved in the case said the woman healed normally as a response to medical treatment), but it makes sense that they wanted to make her a saint because of her charitable work.
I had a quick look and saved both articles on my desktop to check out later. I have read a bio on the life of Padre Pio and have seen a number of documentaries and have read in the media how many people were affected by him - even people who were not Catholics - there were also miracles involving non-Catholics. I have a recording of Lourdes of a documentary where several people who experienced miracles testified. What struck me is that in 150 years only 66 miracles have been authenticated although many more occurred. There is a medical team comprising doctors who are Catholics, Protestants, Jews and atheists. Each case is thoroughly studied and “cross examined” before a miracle is declared. Padre Pio was accused during his lifetime of “affairs” because there was a bunch of women who constantly wanted to get close to him. He spent many hours hearing confessions almost daily (exhausting). Due to the scramble to get to him (especially by women) the Church had to issue tickets and keep a close watch. His stigmata was closely examined when he had to have an operation and was under anaesthetic and doctors said the wounds were fresh and sweet smelling. The wounds disappeared very shortly before his death. His life was filled with many incredible events. No Honest Atheist, I accept that he was authentic.The Bible says “You will know them by their fruit.” Padre Pio had an abundance of “fruit”.

I’m sure there can be women who are that way as well. But yeah, I think it can often be easy to guess stuff like that.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Thanks for your thoughts. I disagree with your argument that an innate human desire is for sex without consequences. I believe there is an innate humane sexual desire. I don’t believe you’ve found a counter example with the one you provided. For a human desire to be innate it must be universal. It must be found wherever human nature is found. Any time, place or culture.

I disagree. I think the desire for sex without consequences has been present in all times, places, and cultures. Certainly during some periods there was no practical way to achieve it. In others, the government or the dominant religion might repress it. However, given that abortions are today taking place all over the world, even in countries where it is banned under all circumstances, it clearly appears present in all places and cultures. There is also evidence that the desire has been present throughout history (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion I realize it’s Wikipedia, but it gives a good overview and is well sourced). If it was not a natural desire, then I would not expect that extremely religious societies would have such difficulty preventing it. And there are also plenty of people who use condoms or are unable to find those who are willing to fulfill their desires. Now I’m sure there are some people who do not have this desire (asexual for example), but there are also those who do not have the religious desire. For example, I can’t recall ever having had the desire. And I think that many children raised in unbelieving homes do not have that desire. In some cultures, such as Scandinavia, there are a lot of non-believers. And just like with the desire for sex without consequences, when the desire is repressed, fewer people seek to fulfill it. For example, there were fewer religious believers in communist countries that restricted religion.

If you argue that there is the possibility that not ALL of our innate desires can be fulfilled, it assumes there is no valid deductive argument at all. It assumes there is no such thing as abstracting a universal principle from instances of it but only generalizations. If you go into a restaurant and order a dish that is served with gravy and the previous fifty times you’ve done this gravy was served with it are you certain gravy will be served with it this time? No you are not. It’s only probable. An example is that all men are mortal. You have experienced the death of a number of human beings. How do you know all men are mortal? Only because you’ve experienced a dozen deaths? Is it only probable that all men are mortal? It’s not analytic. It’s not like 2+2=4. So maybe it’s not true that all men are mortal. Maybe you’ll never die. But you are quite certain that you will die. How do you know that? Because you can abstract a universal principle.

There are desires that can be fulfilled here on earth, and desires that cannot, such as the desire to live forever. If we knew from experience that all earthly desires had natural fulfillment (and I don’t think we can assume that), we would still have no experience with whether supernatural desires can be fulfilled. If I have an extremely generous mother and I ask her for $10, or if I can have the rest of the cookies, or if I can have something very valuable that’s in the house, she might be willing to let me have any of it. So from this I may assume that she would be willing to let me have anything from the house. But can I also assume that she would buy me a $10 million dollar diamond? Just because she is willing to give me what I desire if it is easy to do so, it does not follow that she would give me more outlandish things just because I desired them. Merely because the desires that are easy to fulfill are fulfilled does not prove that desires such as eternal life or being united with God would also be fulfilled. It would be like if there was gravy on all the beef, but this time I ordered salmon.

Also, there are plenty of desires that are unfulfilled here on earth. For example, I think that there are natural desires for eternal life, all the answers, freedom from pain, true objective morality, and infinite happiness. Religion says that we can get all of these things after we die if we believe in their God and follow their religion. My opinion is that religions offered to give us all that we desired and could not have. Certainly not all religions offer all of these, but those that offer more of them would seem more likely to succeed. So it is not like there is just one desire that cannot be fulfilled on earth. I do not see any reason to assume that all these desires can be fulfilled.

If you get time, listen to Kreeft’s argument. Here is the link. He articulates it MUCH better than I.

I listened to this, and I did not think he did a good job considering potential objections. One thing that always surprises me is how such smart people can fail to address such obvious objections. I have just been studying the basics of philosophy and theology on my own for a very short while, and I am able to find problems with the arguments of people like Kreeft and Craig. It makes me think that they may, in fact, have realized the problems, and merely brushed them under the rug. Considering the number of top apologetic arguments that I have found problems with, it seems like either many apologists are presenting arguments they know to be false, or most of my objections are unjustified. However, if the arguments I object to were actually solid and my counterarguments were flawed, I would have expected someone in the forums to have been able to successfully defend at least one of the arguments for the existence of God from my amateur critiques.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I watch all politics. We are affected by all politics. It is said that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. Like America, South Africa is populated with all kinds of people. Our origins are from everywhere. The world is becoming more and more “blended” (?) I knew a man who was born in France with the surname Wilson and he could not speak a work of English. I know a black man with the name of Henry McMurray!! You can’t tell by a name anymore! LOL!

I also think politics is interesting. But I guess that I’m more interested in what goes on in the U.S. because that’s what I know best and because of the huge worldwide implications.

I was once a godless liberal - it was cool. Now I am leaning more towards conservatism but I believe I am in a position to analise better. Wasn’t it George Bernard Shaw who said something about Liberals want things to change so that everything can remain the same? (or words to that effect?)

He did say, “The more things change, the more they stay the same,” but I’m not sure what he was talking about.

No, I do not like the word liberal anymore because it indicates a “laissez faire” attitude. I am now more orthodox in my thinking.

I like the more hands-off attitude when it comes to issues of morality. It’s not an issue of it affecting me, I don’t take drugs or sleep around or anything like that, but I just think that the government should not be the ones saying what’s moral unless it’s to stop something that is harming others. I don’t think that majority rule has historically been shown to be a good way of figuring out what’s moral and what isn’t. So my belief is that if you aren’t hurting anyone, the government shouldn’t care and it should between you and God (if there is a God). And then the other reason I’m liberal is that I see so much suffering. I think it is a real shame that we do not have a public health care system in this country.

I had a quick look and saved both articles on my desktop to check out later. I have read a bio on the life of Padre Pio and have seen a number of documentaries and have read in the media how many people were affected by him - even people who were not Catholics - there were also miracles involving non-Catholics. I have a recording of Lourdes of a documentary where several people who experienced miracles testified. What struck me is that in 150 years only 66 miracles have been authenticated although many more occurred. There is a medical team comprising doctors who are Catholics, Protestants, Jews and atheists. Each case is thoroughly studied and “cross examined” before a miracle is declared.

My problem is that just because doctors do not know why something happened does not prove that it was a miracle. We don’t have a perfect understanding of medicine and so just because we don’t know the cause doesn’t prove it was a miracle.

Padre Pio was accused during his lifetime of “affairs” because there was a bunch of women who constantly wanted to get close to him. He spent many hours hearing confessions almost daily (exhausting). Due to the scramble to get to him (especially by women) the Church had to issue tickets and keep a close watch.

And this doesn’t even really matter to me. If he performed miracles, that’s enough to prove that God exists.

His stigmata was closely examined when he had to have an operation and was under anaesthetic and doctors said the wounds were fresh and sweet smelling. The wounds disappeared very shortly before his death. His life was filled with many incredible events. No Honest Atheist, I accept that he was authentic.The Bible says “You will know them by their fruit.” Padre Pio had an abundance of “fruit”.

I guess I just require a little more evidence then you do because I do not believe in anything supernatural and because I have seen how easy it is for people to be fooled. There are so many magicians and religious con artists that I think it’s healthy to be skeptical about these things. By the way, I am not saying that I think Padre Pio was a bad person. I think that if he did something to his hands to make them look like that, he probably did it in order to bring people closer to God.

 

[Cinette]

I also think politics is interesting. But I guess that I’m more interested in what goes on in the U.S. because that’s what I know best and because of the huge worldwide implications. Here is something an Englishman with whom I worked said to me years ago when I was a fist wielding revolutionary. “A conservative at 20 has no heart - a liberal at 40 has no head.” How true.

He did say, “The more things change, the more they stay the same,” but I’m not sure what he was talking about. “Plus ça change plus c’est la meme chose.” Oh was that Shaw? I must check it out.

I like the more hands-off attitude when it comes to issues of morality. It’s not an issue of it affecting me, I don’t take drugs or sleep around or anything like that, but I just think that the government should not be the ones saying what’s moral unless it’s to stop something that is harming others. I don’t think that majority rule has historically been shown to be a good way of figuring out what’s moral and what isn’t. So my belief is that if you aren’t hurting anyone, the government shouldn’t care and it should between you and God (if there is a God). And then the other reason I’m liberal is that I see so much suffering. I think it is a real shame that we do not have a public health care system in this country.

My problem is that just because doctors do not know why something happened does not prove that it was a miracle. agreed but that is not how it happens. When a person has had a long illness or if there are tests and x-rays that prove that that person had a certain disease or condition and then overnight that person is healed, then one has to consider a miracle. Some healing take place over a period of time and is labelled healing but when something is sudden, spectacular and unexplainable then it can be declared a miracle. Sometimes the team of Doctors take years and verify their findings over and over and the Church plays Devil’s Advocate and then finally they just have to yield and declare a miracle. There have been frauds in the past and that is why the Church is very, very careful. The phenoma of Mejugorje has been going on for years. Many people have converted as a result and there have been some spectacular things. However, there have been scandals as well. The Church does not encourage pilgrimages to Medjugorje. It is still under scrutiny. People have been left it to decide for themselves because of the good that has come out of it. It is very complicated. But again, in regard to Padre Pio I am 100% OK with him. We don’t have a perfect understanding of medicine and so just because we don’t know the cause doesn’t prove it was a miracle.

And this doesn’t even really matter to me. If he performed miracles, that’s enough to prove that God exists. I agree, I don’t go scrambling to look for miracles - I have them around me every day.

I guess I just require a little more evidence then you do because I do not believe in anything supernatural and because I have seen how easy it is for people to be fooled. I do not accept things easily believe me. There are so many magicians and religious con artists that I think it’s healthy to be skeptical about these things I agree completely… By the way, I am not saying that I think Padre Pio was a bad personYou would have to deal with me if you did (and with millions of other people - yes millions!). I think that if he did something to his hands to make them look like that, he probably did it in order to bring people closer to God. That would be dishonest and wrong - it would make him a fraud. One does not need to do anything to bring people closer to God. The biggest tool is prayer. No single person can make anyone believe - it is the Holy Spirit. One can point people, one can teach, one can expose but the ONLY one who can make someone believe is God - Faith is a gift from God.

Have a nice day!

Cinette

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Here is something an Englishman with whom I worked said to me years ago when I was a fist wielding revolutionary. “A conservative at 20 has no heart - a liberal at 40 has no head.” How true.

Yeah, I’ve heard that phrase as well. I Googled it and it turns out it’s from Churchill. I don’t really agree with it, but not being 40 yet I wouldn’t know.

agreed but that is not how it happens. When a person has had a long illness or if there are tests and x-rays that prove that that person had a certain disease or condition and then overnight that person is healed, then one has to consider a miracle. Some healing take place over a period of time and is labelled healing but when something is sudden, spectacular and unexplainable then it can be declared a miracle. Sometimes the team of Doctors take years and verify their findings over and over and the Church plays Devil’s Advocate and then finally they just have to yield and declare a miracle. There have been frauds in the past and that is why the Church is very, very careful. The phenoma of Mejugorje has been going on for years. Many people have converted as a result and there have been some spectacular things. However, there have been scandals as well. The Church does not encourage pilgrimages to Medjugorje. It is still under scrutiny. People have been left it to decide for themselves because of the good that has come out of it. It is very complicated. But again, in regard to Padre Pio I am 100% OK with him.

Yeah, I just think it’s hard to be sure what happened. Sometimes the doctors may merely have misdiagnosed it originally. And there’s also the possibility that we just don’t know the cause yet.

You would have to deal with me if you did (and with millions of other people - yes millions!).

Haha, okay.

That would be dishonest and wrong - it would make him a fraud. One does not need to do anything to bring people closer to God. The biggest tool is prayer. No single person can make anyone believe - it is the Holy Spirit. One can point people, one can teach, one can expose but the ONLY one who can make someone believe is God - Faith is a gift from God.

Yeah, even if his intentions were good it would still be dishonest. But there are definitely cases of seemingly nice honest men doing something dishonest. I think it’s far more likely that it was fake than that God exists.

 

[llblarosa]

To Evil Atheist:

Read/listen to Peter Kreeft’s Philosophy of Religion (for anyone interested in the logic of the faith). There are many more than two logical arguments for the belief in God.

I think you do not completely understand Pascal’s Wager. In my understanding of it, the belief in God also makes you a better, more moral, and happier person along the way.

Many people do not know the philosophy behind the faith. God usually does not start there with people. This is learned, and I challenge all Christians to learn it. It will only serve to strengthen your faith. (According to Aquinas, all Truth is of the Spirit.)

Also, even logic has its limitations. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. And Pascal was right about one thing, for sure - Everyone wagers!

Lisa

 

[benedictus2]

Look, I understand why this logic makes sense to you, but I think it is deeply flawed. For example, for a long time we assumed that Newtonian physics was correct. If we then found some data that was inconsistent with Newtonian physics, what should we have done? We could have said that it is more reasonable to assume that Newtonian physics is correct and this must have been a sign of divine intervention. However, it makes a lot more sense to say that there may be some other physical law at play but we don’t yet know enough or have enough data to say for sure exactly what that law is. Although Newtonian physics gave near perfect answers in most circumstances, Einstein’s general relativity later showed that there were situations in which it was unreliable. So I definitely don’t think that imperfect current knowledge is a good reason to believe in God.

But current knowledge imperfect as it is is way more advanced than during Newton’s time. Now we have physicists and cosmologists tellings us that there is an enormously incredible improbability of the big bang creating an entropic universe and yet here we are.

With the available data, and a more perfect knowledge than what has supported atheism, the case for an Intelligient designer is much, much, much more plausible than the case for chance.

 

[benedictus2]

First of all, I’m not sure we can assume that everything has a cause when you consider quantum physics. However, setting that aside, we would only know that everything has a proximate cause. If there has always been something, then a lack of a first cause does not prevent there from being something.

If there has always been something then that something is the first cause.

There could simply be a universe that has constantly been expanding and contracting for eternity.

No because based purely on available data the universe had a beginning so therefore finite. We cannot go into speculation when dealing with empirical data.

So it was not “nothing before it casued itself into being”.

Causa sui is a contradition. One cannot caused one’s self into being. This would mean that something was before it was not to make itself into something.

It was always something; it merely changed states.

Therefore there was no causation. Therefore not related to our discussion.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

To Evil Atheist:

Read/listen to Peter Kreeft’s Philosophy of Religion (for anyone interested in the logic of the faith). There are many more than two logical arguments for the belief in God.

I think you do not completely understand Pascal’s Wager. In my understanding of it, the belief in God also makes you a better, more moral, and happier person along the way.

Many people do not know the philosophy behind the faith. God usually does not start there with people. This is learned, and I challenge all Christians to learn it. It will only serve to strengthen your faith. (According to Aquinas, all Truth is of the Spirit.)

Also, even logic has its limitations. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. And Pascal was right about one thing, for sure - Everyone wagers!

Lisa

I have read and listened to a decent bit from Kreeft. I know there are a lot more than two. I have found problems with all 20 of Kreeft’s arguments. People wanted to hear my disagreements, so I suggested that they pick the one or two arguments of his that they thought were best. I think I’ve given my objections to three of his arguments now.

Pascal’s wager does not traditionally include something about belief making you happier. I would rather believe the truth then a happy lie, but I also do not find atheism more depressing that theism. Furthermore, I could not force myself to believe something I believe to be false even if I wanted to.

I agree. We all wager that every other religion on earth is false. Since I do not think the evidence for Christianity is that much different, I don’t see why I should wager on Christianity. By the way, I have so many other problems with Pascal’s wager that I have not included here.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But current knowledge imperfect as it is is way more advanced than during Newton’s time. Now we have physicists and cosmologists tellings us that there is an enormously incredible improbability of the big bang creating an entropic universe and yet here we are.

With the available data, and a more perfect knowledge than what has supported atheism, the case for an Intelligient designer is much, much, much more plausible than the case for chance.

I disagree. You seem to be a fan of the fine-tuning argument. I laid out some of the problems I see with that argument in an earlier post. I have so many other problems with the fine-tuning argument, but I don’t really feel like writing a four part post on all the other problems.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If there has always been something then that something is the first cause.

I don’t know how you define “first cause” such that this would follow. By this logic if God existed and would never create anything, he would be the first cause. Similarly, the universe itself never caused anything.

No because based purely on available data the universe had a beginning so therefore finite. We cannot go into speculation when dealing with empirical data.

I agree with you that all theories of what happened before Planck time are speculative (including the theory that there was no natural world at all 14 million years ago). Imagine we knew nothing about cosmology or evolution. We merely had recorded history going back X number of years. It is pure speculation to try to definitively say what happened before this point, but it would be ridiculous to see this as proof that God must have created us at this point.

Causa sui is a contradition. One cannot caused one’s self into being. This would mean that something was before it was not to make itself into something.

This is the point I was making.

You keep trying to make a rhetorical case for the argument, but without presenting substantive reasons why my position is invalid. I really don’t care to get into a long rhetorical debate over this, but if you have any good evidence for your position, I’d appreciate it if you could present it in your next post. I’m sorry, I’m sure this probably seems rude; I just don’t like arguments that go nowhere. I hope you’ll understand.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

For example, I can’t recall ever having had the desire [for there to be a God].

I just wanted to clarify. I am not saying I prefer that there is no God. If there was a way of setting up heaven so that there would be eternal happiness, I would definitely prefer that there be a God than no God. I have no particular aversion to the idea of a God. It’s just that I don’t think there’s a significant chance that the Catholic conception of God is correct. I guess one way of thinking of it would be that I might like to have a genie that will grant me three wishes, but since the possibility of that seems so remote, it’s not something I actively desire.

 

[Cinette]

Yeah, I’ve heard that phrase as well. I Googled it and it turns out it’s from Churchill. I don’t really agree with it, but not being 40 yet I wouldn’t know.
I was in my mid 30s at the time and also didn’t agree with it. Later as I got older and wiser I remembered what he said and I smiled! I always admire younger people who are mature in their faith and who have a wisdom beyond their years and think how their lives must be enriched! How wonderful!

Yeah, I just think it’s hard to be sure what happened. Sometimes the doctors may merely have misdiagnosed it originally. And there’s also the possibility that we just don’t know the cause yet.
No! No! No! There is a team of Doctors, Christian, Jewish and Atheist who scrutinize and check and re check the evidence - this is not a diagnosis :nope::nope: - it is evidence, x-rays, tests, medical reports and medical examinations combined. Think about that for a moment!
…

Yeah, even if his intentions were good it would still be dishonest. But there are definitely cases of seemingly nice honest men doing something dishonest. I think it’s far more likely that it was fake than that God exists.:dts: Padre Pio was an extraordinary person - the fruit was abundant. He did not have an easy life. He suffered much and he gave, gave, gave. His life was witnessed by thousands all over the world. People tried to trick him in Confession and he would tell them their sins before they could tell him and when people left out anything he would say “What about this?” This man is worth investigating.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No! No! No! There is a team of Doctors, Christian, Jewish and Atheist who scrutinize and check and re check the evidence - this is not a diagnosis - it is evidence, x-rays, tests, medical reports and medical examinations combined. Think about that for a moment!

I researched it a little bit and I couldn’t find any evidence that an atheist had scrutinized his stigmata and determined that there was no natural explanation. However, even if the diagnosis was correct, spontaneous remissions are not all that rare. There is a lot we still don’t know about the human body, and we should not assume that all medical mysteries are miracles.

Padre Pio was an extraordinary person - the fruit was abundant. He did not have an easy life. He suffered much and he gave, gave, gave. His life was witnessed by thousands all over the world. People tried to trick him in Confession and he would tell them their sins before they could tell him and when people left out anything he would say “What about this?” This man is worth investigating.

I researched him a little bit more and am pretty unimpressed. The real evidence seems to be pretty thin. Most of the claims about him are unsubstantiated and there were definitely a lot of people during his lifetime who thought he was fraudulent. So it seems like either a lot of the other people in the church were acting dishonestly, or he was.

 

[benedictus2]

The problem here is that we have no other universes to look at so we cannot determine how unlikely this really is.

But then again you are moving out of the knowable. Isn’t it that this discussion is about the knowable? We can’t postulate other universes because that is speculation. I thought this proofs (at least in the scientific realm) are about what is quantifiable and observable.

Just think for a second, how would you randomly choose a number from zero to infinity? You can’t as long as all numbers are equally likely. So you need to have some distribution where some numbers are more common than others. But since we have only one data point (our universe)

,
And isn’t that what is being discussed here, our universe. We are discussing what is observable.

we are not able to say exactly how likely each value of a given constant is. If we had a probability density function for the possible values of one of the constants, then we could say whether or not our value of that constant in our universe is unusual. But without knowing what that distribution is, the probability of a given constant being within .0000000000001% of our universe’s value could be

99%.
But since we are dealing with science, could be’s are inadmissible as evidence.

Here is a quote from Paul Davies as a follow up to TWB’S post:
“ If the initial state were chosen at random it seems exceedingly probable that the Big Bang would have caused out blackholes rather than dispersed gasses. The present arrangement of matter and energy with matter spread thinly at relatively low density in the form of stars and gas clouds would apparently only result from a very special choice of initial conditions. Roger Penrose has computed the odds again the observed universe appearing by accident, given that a blackhole cosmos is so much more likely on a priori ground, he estimate the figure of 10 to the 10 to 30 to 1”
So here he is saying that the odds in favour of the universe being a blackhole is an exponent of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillioin, trillion. If the size of the zeroes were 1 micrometre in diameter, the universe would not be able to hold this number.

So what? As I mentioned in the first part of this post, this is not evidence that our universe is unlikely without the existence of a God.

But that the universe is here by chance is so miniscule, that is 1 to minus trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion,trillion, trillion, That will require a humongous faith on the god CHANCE.

I am perfectly willing to grant that there are some physicists who are impressed by the fine-tuning argument. Physicists disagree on this issue (though I do not think that Hoyle’s position is a very common opinion), reflecting the high level of uncertainty we have over just how likely values similar to our universe’s are. So while I wouldn’t claim this is a settled issue, there is currently not enough evidence to conclude that a universe containing life would be fantastically improbable. And physicists make mistakes, for example Fred Hoyle rejected the big bang model and was a big proponent of the steady state model.

And Fred Hoyle later on ceased to be an atheist after he calculated the incredibly large improbability that we are here by chance.

Furthermore here is a quote from Einstein on the direction of scientific discoveries.

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery, well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be in anyway grasped through thought. The kind of order created for example by Newton’s theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge."

---

The direction of discoveries it seems is towards intelligient design rather than chance.

 

[benedictus2]

I have read and listened to a decent bit from Kreeft. I know there are a lot more than two. I have found problems with all 20 of Kreeft’s arguments. People wanted to hear my disagreements, so I suggested that they pick the one or two arguments of his that they thought were best. I think I’ve given my objections to three of his arguments now.

Pascal’s wager does not traditionally include something about belief making you happier. I would rather believe the truth then a happy lie, but I also do not find atheism more depressing that theism. Furthermore, I could not force myself to believe something I believe to be false even if I wanted to.

I agree. We all wager that every other religion on earth is false. Since I do not think the evidence for Christianity is that much different, I don’t see why I should wager on Christianity. By the way, I have so many other problems with Pascal’s wager that I have not included here.

I think I’ve mentioned before that Pascal’s wager is not really proof for the existence of God but rather more like a security insurance.