Evidence against?

[James_S_Saint]

reality springing into existence spontaneously,

You cannot rationally believe in logical reasoning and believe in spontaneity at the same time.

Thus anything that is, had a cause. And anything that isn’t was merely void of a cause.

 

[liquidpele]

Why do you assume that God’s punishment is forever? I didn’t.

For the purpose of discipline, none.
No I am not suggesting that at all. I am saying that the the punishment of hell is self-inflicted. Its source is not in God. That is my basis for saying that any punishment originated by God must be for discipline and must be finite.

If it’s not inflicted by God, then why would one not be able to simply leave Hell? Well, at any rate, it doesn’t really matter anyway if you don’t believe Hell is infinite, since a finite time there opens the possibility for punishment/redemption as the goal which is at least logical and acceptable in some respects.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If it’s not inflicted by God, then why would one not be able to simply leave Hell?

Because of the ruler of Hell, Satan.

 

[liquidpele]

Because of the ruler of Hell, Satan.

Haha, he sure gets blamed for everything doesn’t he?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Haha, he sure gets blamed for everything doesn’t he?

Only when not blaming God instead.

 

[Matthias123]

Statement retracted, I was in error after further research. I do not have an answer for this question. Since it is monogenism, I do not believe it is currently condemed.

Ok, I did some digging. Here is the scoop:

In the context of other errors, Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being's origin through evolution from other living beings: while formerly evolution was rejected as irreconcilable with the biblical account of creation (which was interpreted in too literal a sense), and as implying a materialistic conception of the human being, the question is now left open to scholarly investigation, provided that the creation of the soul by God is maintained. Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, i.e. the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples: polygenism is rejected because 'it does not appear' [or 'it is not at all apparent'] to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection."

– J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith [1996], page 169

From L’Osservatore Romano:

according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin. One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine. Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin. It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated."

– Roberto Masi, from L'Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969

Notice that the date on this is way before the discovery of mitochondrial Eve. So the Church never opposed such a theory – in fact I bet there are Catholic Universities working on it right now.

Also in an International Theological Commission document on creation and evolution endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger from 2004 states:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.

This also has potential to shed more light on Jesus Christ the “New Adam”.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Ok, I did some digging. Here is the scoop:

Humani Generis was published around 50 years ago or so. In the face of all the evidence from science NOW the Church tries to reconcile original sin with polygenism. There are “dissident” voices now claiming the doctrine of original sin itself needs to be re-interpreted. Oh no, says the current Magisterium, but who knows what will happen in the next 30 years? Anyway, here is what the Church says (de fide) about original sin:

(Council of Trent)

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

(Council of Orange)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

There was a real Adam and it was his sin, and his alone, that spread to the entire human race, his descendants, according to the Church and the way the teaching was understood.

 

[James_S_Saint]

There was a real Adam and it was his sin, and his alone, that spread to the entire human race, his descendants, according to the Church and the way the teaching was understood.

I have yet to see the CC declare that Ahdam was a human (as opposed to a governance much like a king). They seem to always skirt around the truth of it for some seemingly irrational cause. I would be interested if you are aware of such a declaration.

 

[Areopagite]

The phrase is “God cannot tolerate evil in his presence” - and that is why there is hell - to be separated from God. This seems to be pretty clear-cut to me.

Oh, I see what you’re saying. Fair enough. I would say that the phrase may be looked at in this way … it’s not so much God can’t stand evil things … but evil things can’t stand God. A soul with sin can’t stand God, and so thus God will not subject the soul to Him … but put him in hell. (I would be interested to know the origin of this phrase too … it may have some kind of ancient Church or even Scriptural root … or else it’s some modern Protestant lingo … I have no idea … do you know?)

Once again, the souls in hell are separated from God insofar as they completely lack divine grace, which includes knowledge of God, hope for God, and love of God (those are the main ones … there are other minor graces such as consolation). However, God is present in Hell only insofar as acts in Hell to maintain their existence. This is what I’ve always heard. And I’ve never heard differently. And it struck me as pretty reasonable too. But whatever.

The analogy is not accurate. I am rejecting the concept of God, for multiple reasons: the attributes are partially nonsensical (the omnimax ones, timeless yet active existence) …

There was probably a thread on this subject (which I failed to read), but I think the idea of that thing can be outside of time and yet be active is very reasonable. God acts once and the effect filters through time as a kind of multiplicity of effects, hitting their target at the right place and time. That’s the short of it.

… partially internally inconsistent (justice and mercy) …

Couple things about justice (correct me if I’m wrong, those who are learned in justice): it is perfectly just that the party that is wronged by the offender gets to decide the degree of punishment as long as the punishment does not exceed what the crime deserves. One may deserve a harsh price, but the offended party can reduce the punishment out of mercy, and yet still give punishment.

However, the offense against God is infinitely large, but God has mercy by giving us less suffering than we could get.

Something like that.

… and partially contradict everything we experience (benevolence).

Evil is due to human sin, not God’s malevolence. That’s kind of a theme in the Bible.

This is a far cry from not having exact and precise understanding of the sun’s nature.

I would agree that it is different if, in fact, God’s essence is contradictory (but I don’t think it is contradictory). However, my point was that just because we don’t understand something, doesn’t mean we can’t refer to it and talk about it with some degree of meaning.

In essence, the attributes of God are almost identical to the those of the Invisible Pink Unicorn…

I’m not quite sure why you say this based on what you said about God. You rejected the concept of God because (you claim) his essence is contradictory. Yet, I do not think the Invisible Pink Unicorn’s essence is contradictory. It may not exist, but it is not contradictory. Perhaps that’s a minor point.

If the “rules of conduct” are not presented in an unambiguous fashion, the demand to strict adherence to those rules in manifestly unjust. The only presented “rules” are certain passages of an ancient book, and human interpretations of those passages. And that is not sufficient. The saying that “ignorance of the laws excuses nothing” is not applicable here - because it presupposes that you should be aware of the law, and that does not apply. There is no other source of infornation than the ones I presented.

There are two kinds of law presented in the Bible. Natural Law and Divine Law (the names could be misleading … but so is everything else … I’ll explain what they mean). The laws that pertain to natural law are ones discoverable by human reason (stuff like … don’t murder). Any human, even if he is ignorant of Christianity, is expected to abide by those laws. The laws that pertain to divine law are to be followed by those who have become truly aware of the supernatural nature of the Christian faith (stuff like … believe that Jesus is God). Presumably, if no one ever hears of Christianity, then they will be judged solely on the natural law. Most people believe in a natural law … it’s an incredibly small minority who do not. Most atheists believe in natural law … at least the ones I’ve met.

Three observations. One: “omniscience” is nonsense.

Can’t really do much with this, except ask: “Why?”

Two, who says that those behaviors are against some “natural order”?

Nature. Natural reason. That kind of thing.

And three: why would God care?

He cares about getting people to heaven, loving the truth, etc. Sexually perverse acts kind of deter from that.

If two people express their love toward each other in an unorthodox way, that does not diminish the love they feel for each other. And God is supposed to cherish love over and above everything else.

Love is wanting what is best for a person. Certain sexual practices are unhealthy both in mind and body. So if you truly loved a person, you would not do certain things (even certain sexual things).

I am using blind faith according to Hebrews 11:1. (Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.) And “to be sure of what you hope for” - is wishful thinking and to be “certain” of what you don’t see (based upon some authority) is gullibility.

Faith is a combination of 1) knowing and 2) not knowing but believing. It is knowing part of some truth, but then accepting the rest of it that you do not yet understand. There is definitely an element of hoping and being certain of what you do not see, but, technically, you need to see at least some of it … otherwise it’s not really faith but pure belief. (I’m open to correction on this, but I’ve mentioned this definition many times and every Catholic has agreed with this definition).

 

[Matthias123]

You “sceptics” will never be satisfied –you criticize the Church for being anti-science, but when she accepts scientific teaching, you claim she is folding to “dissident voices”. In fact she is fulfilling her mission as proclaiming the Truth of God while accepting the truth of the natural world.

Polygenism was only influential in the work of Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel until the work of Carleton Coon and Charles in the 20th century. Darwin himself argued against polygenism. In the 1950s this was hardly an uncontested position.

Furthermore, do you expect Mother Church to run to reinterpret the scriptures every time there is a scientific theory? There was prudence behind her caution, just as there was prudence behind her slow acceptance of evolution.

You can quote Church councils to me all you want. I do not have a Doctorate in Sacred Theology; therefore I accept the conclusions of the theologians of the Church. I don’t have the time, or the expertise to interpret dogmatic theology.

Lastly your comment earlier on the Church fathers was in error. We are required to believe what the Church Fathers professed with authoritative unity. They never professed anything on Noah’s Ark with such unity other then it foreshadows the baptismal flood, and perhaps that the Ark symbolized the Church.

What this whole discussions has made very evident to me, is that you have not done your research properly. I know you claim that I only believe this because Vatican I told me so, but you know what? You can believe that if it helps you sleep at night. If you did your research properly, you would have come to realise that this was not a particular difficulty. Instead you result to classic sceptic deflection tactics that attempts to spin a genuinely noble action by the Church, namely not claiming authority outside of her competency, into an argument against the Church’s divine mission. This is purely rhetoric and lacks any hard substance.

 

[Fran65]

I was told somewhere on here that a literal interpretation of Genesis was catholic doctrine, is that not correct?

That is incorrect. A literal interpretation is not Catholic teaching - although Catholics are free to believe it if they wish i.e. if their conscience tells them to.

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.” CCC 283

Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation. CCC 289

Note this paragraph *does not say *that Genesis is literally true. Rather it asserts that the teaching that God is the Creator, that we have fallen from grace and that we have the promise of salvation is true.

 

[Alindawyl]

You cannot rationally believe in logical reasoning and believe in spontaneity at the same time.

Thus anything that is, had a cause. And anything that isn’t was merely void of a cause.

I agree that spontaneity is not reasonable, but some will still argue in favor of it.

No, the only reasonable option is a first cause of some sort. A cause which is itself somehow uncaused (ie, eternal). Anything else is some form of spontaneity.

The question then becomes what that first cause is. The most common statements are that either there is an eternal Creator or the universe itself is eternal. Of those two, I find the former much more reasonable than the latter. A being who has always existed and who created everything else with a design in mind is a much simpler explanation than an incredibly complex and impersonal universe which has always existed. Especially when that universe appears to have a beginning in the form of the Big Bang, which would mean it’s not actually eternal.

The concept of an eternal Creator is just too reasonable for me to reject. Any doubts I may have could only pertain to the nature of that Creator, not his existence.

 

[david_friol_1]

In another thread the following remark was made:

That is an interesting point. Let me ask you - mostly the believers, but whoever wishes to chip in - what do you consider as enough evidence to doubt? I have seen zillions of examples that believers consider evidence for belief. There is no need to go there. This time I would like to see the other side of the coin.

Hey Spock
I can honestly say this question is your best because it does not feel laced with animosity or a bunch of false premises. But my response will still be brief, I think!
Today I came home from work to see my wife standing over a pile of vomit with tears streaming down her face and her cheeks and lips quivering. You see we watched our old dog give birth to 10 puppies in 2001 and we kept two of them(the biggest and the smallest). Now Chubsy, the big boy, has a tumor in the abdomen and there is really no use doing surgery because of the 10% chance of survival. So we are trying to decide what to do. In the mean time he has not been able to digest any thing at all for like two weeks which brings me back to my wife standing over the vomit. It is very sad to watch my dog fall apart; his bones are sticking up and out every where. But it is harder watching my wife crying over it. We pray morning and night together and we pray before meals and we pray with our daughter and we pray the rosary together as a family and read Scripture throughout the day. I go to mass 6 days a week and confession at least every two weeks though I try to go weekly for receiving grace. My wife goes to mass on Sunday and once in a while during the week and confession I sometimes feel that I am dragging her to it although I know that is not really the case. My point is that prayer and faith and God is not some trivial thing in our house, It is a big part of our very lives. And yet when I come home to that situation questions come to my mind. I wonder if God is really helping my wife to grow in her faith because, and don’t get me wrong I love my dogs too, but it seems to take over her whole being to lose a dog. She has lost many dogs so it is nothing new for her. It may be just a silly story but this is what happened today and I really do feel the doubt trying to creep its way in. And not just about my wifes faith, I too pray for my wife and struggle with knowing whether God is really there for us when it seems he is not at times. But choosing to believe in the face of the circumstantial evidence that seems to say “Are you there God?” is the only way to deepen our faith and grow stronger. God always has come through in the past and helped me in difficulties so there is no good reason to persist in doubt. So I just said at that moment “Lord, help me to be compassionate with my wife and be there for her as best I can!”. Then I gave her my shoulder to cry on for a while and then helped with the vomit. That is my life and I thank God for it. Not so brief after all!
God bless you!

 

[Big_Dummy]

Luke 16

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If I am understanding the argument, then refusal of sending a loved one from the dead, resurrection would be the evidence of doubt.