Evidence against?

[liquidpele]

Sorry to say, either you are completely misinformed, or you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest. This I found quite a bit of among the Church’s supporters when I was struggling with a decision to stay in the Church or leave unfortunately.

Yes there is more than enough genetic evidence to come to conclusions about bottlenecks as severe as 2 or 8. There is way too much genetic diversity. You are using “polygenism” in the sense of multiple races evolving separately - yes, THAT has not been the consensus, but that has nothing to do with a genetic bottleneck of 2, which is the sense here, and thus you are using the term equivocally. The scientific consensus is that the founder population of homo sapiens sapiens is on the order of thousands. The same kind of nonsense is trumpeted by those who talk about “Mitochondrial Eve” or “Y-chromosome Adam” as thought that were some kind of support for a founder population of 2.
.

I just came to the sad realization that we must attempt to use genetics to convince people a story about a talking snake and people being made from ribs is not literally true.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
You still have the following conundrum:

1. God “desires” to save all.
2. God has the power to save all.
3. All are not saved.

This would be a conundrum if it was consistent with reality.

1. This is not accurate. It is more accurately stated “God desires all to be saved”
2. True and in fact in Jesus’ sacrifice has already accomplished it
3. Non sequitur: see above
   The argument is more accurately stated:
4. God desires all to be saved
5. God has provide the means to be saved
6. To be saved one must accept the means of salvation
7. Not all accept the means of salvation
8. Therefore, not all are saved
   The conundrum is resolved.

 

[liquidpele]

This would be a conundrum if it was consistent with reality.

1. This is not accurate. It is more accurately stated “God desires all to be saved”
2. True and in fact in Jesus’ sacrifice has already accomplished it
3. Non sequitur: see above
   The argument is more accurately stated:
4. God desires all to be saved
5. God has provide the means to be saved
6. To be saved one must accept the means of salvation
7. Not all accept the means of salvation
8. Therefore, not all are saved
   The conundrum is resolved.

But if God desired all to be saved, then there must be something he desires MORE for him to not force the salvation of all.

 

[davidv]

But if God desired all to be saved, then there must be something he desires MORE for him to not force the salvation of all.

I believe that what He desires more is LOVE.

By necessity, true love is not forced.

Our truest response to His love of us is to respond to His offer of salvation and love Him in return and align our will to His.

 

[Fran65]

Interesting. I’ve have to ask now, why do you think that is a reasonable position? It seems to me that someone that can’t even *imagine *evidence existing that could change their mind is stubborn to the point of being unreasonable. Would you also not change your mind about a political issue or medical issue even if new evidence was discovered that was airtight and refuted your position?

I consider myself to be a very reasonable and am a highly educated person. The only thing that I am ‘stubborn’ about is loving my family and my faith. There are many arguments made on this site against God’s existence and I’m familiar with them. I don’t consider any of them to be conclusive.

Can you elaborate on what you would consider ‘airtight’ evidence against God’s existence? Because it seems to me, as complained about by atheists, that any evidence cited can be explained in terms of God’s existence.

A ‘supernatural’ event could occur in which the words ‘There is no God’ are visible throughout the world and that would strengthen my faith. An alien race could arrive and tell us that there is no God and it would strengthen my faith. We could see the beginning of the universe, and it would also strengthen my faith. We could demonstrate the multiverse and I would think how cool it is that we have more evidence of God’s creativity.

Many people thought that evolution would eradicate faith, and it didn’t because it is compatible with God’s existence. The evidence from cosmology and from other natural sciences is also compatible with His existence.

My father in law (an Anglican priest) appeared to lose his faith when his wife died. That seems to be understandable, but unreasonable. People suffer and they die. Its agonising, but its still compatible with God’s existence.

I have a life threatening heart condition that severely limits my lifestyle, could kill me at any time and means that I take medication that makes me ill and heart surgery every 5-6 years. I’ve also had a lot of other trials in my life, some of my own making, some not. Although I have raged at God and begged Him and sometimes turned my back on Him I know that He is with me every step, and it has helped.

My faith is both reasonable (I have reasons to believe) and unreasonable (I have a deep feeling or intuition that God exists).

I’m sorry that some people never have faith and the comfort that it can bring. I’m not being patronising btw!

 

[liquidpele]

I believe that what He desires more is LOVE.

By necessity, true love is not forced.

Our truest response to His love of us is to respond to His offer of salvation and love Him in return and align our will to His.

So why punish anyone if what you desire most is love?

 

[Fran65]

I just came to the sad realization that we must attempt to use genetics to convince people a story about a talking snake and people being made from ribs is not literally true.

You see, there you have confused Catholicism with fundamentalism and a literal interpretation of the Bible!

They are two different things!

Sure, there are Catholics who believe those things to be literally true; but its not a tenant of the faith and many Catholics understand that the Bible was written in different historical periods, for different purposes and using reference points and knowledge that was available at the time!

For example, it states in the Catechism that the Old Testament contains “matters imperfect and provisional”. Our understanding of scripture is mediated through the Holy Spirit and through Church teachings and is constantly developing in response to increasing scientific knowledge.

 

[liquidpele]

I consider myself to be a very reasonable and am a highly educated person. The only thing that I am ‘stubborn’ about is loving my family and my faith. There are many arguments made on this site against God’s existence and I’m familiar with them. I don’t consider any of them to be conclusive.

Can you elaborate on what you would consider ‘airtight’ evidence against God’s existence? Because it seems to me, as complained about by atheists, that any evidence cited can be explained in terms of God’s existence.

A ‘supernatural’ event could occur in which the words ‘There is no God’ are visible throughout the world and that would strengthen my faith. An alien race could arrive and tell us that there is no God and it would strengthen my faith. We could see the beginning of the universe, and it would also strengthen my faith. We could demonstrate the multiverse and I would think how cool it is that we have more evidence of God’s creativity.

Many people thought that evolution would eradicate faith, and it didn’t because it is compatible with God’s existence. The evidence from cosmology and from other natural sciences is also compatible with His existence.

My father in law (an Anglican priest) appeared to lose his faith when his wife died. That seems to be understandable, but unreasonable. People suffer and they die. Its agonising, but its still compatible with God’s existence.

I have a life threatening heart condition that severely limits my lifestyle, could kill me at any time and means that I take medication that makes me ill and heart surgery every 5-6 years. I’ve also had a lot of other trials in my life, some of my own making, some not. Although I have raged at God and begged Him and sometimes turned my back on Him I know that He is with me every step, and it has helped.

My faith is both reasonable (I have reasons to believe) and unreasonable (I have a deep feeling or intuition that God exists).

I’m sorry that some people never have faith and the comfort that it can bring. I’m not being patronising btw!

Oh don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t claiming there was an airtight case against there being a God, but I do think for each person there is something that could possibly cause at minimum some doubt. What do you think the world would be like with no God, what aspects of reality or what situations would cause you to then think that there might not be a God? If you honestly can’t think of any, then are you not essentially saying that every possible situation and reality is evidence of God which is equivalent to just saying “because I said so” ?

 

[liquidpele]

You see, there you have confused Catholicism with fundamentalism and a literal interpretation of the Bible!

They are two different things!

Sure, there are Catholics who believe those things to be literally true; but its not a tenant of the faith and many Catholics understand that the Bible was written in different historical periods, for different purposes and using reference points and knowledge that was available at the time!

For example, it states in the Catechism that the Old Testament contains “matters imperfect and provisional”. Our understanding of scripture is mediated through the Holy Spirit and through Church teachings and is constantly developing in response to increasing scientific knowledge.

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

 

[davidv]

So why punish anyone if what you desire most is love?

Because to take away something that the other person dearly wants, the freedom of choose, is not love.

As an aside, any “punishment” meted out by God is meant as discipline to correct wayward behavior, much like any loving earthly father punishes a child to correct their wayward behavior.

Whatever punishment hell is, it is self-inflicted.

 

[davidv]

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

The Catholic teaching on how to read the Bible includes understanding the literal sense and the spiritual sense. The spiritual sense is always to be grounded on the literal sense. Note: literal sense does not mean “word-for-word” literal.

For a more complete explanation of this teaching please see Dei Verbum.

 

[liquidpele]

Because to take away something that the other person dearly wants, the freedom of choose, is not love.

As an aside, any “punishment” meted out by God is meant as discipline to correct wayward behavior, much like any loving earthly father punishes a child to correct their wayward behavior.

Whatever punishment hell is, it is self-inflicted.

It’s irresponsible to compare God’s punishment with that of a Father’s though, with the assumption that God’s punishment is forever. What is the point of punishing forever? There is no chance for a lesson to be learned or for the person to change. Are you suggesting that hell is not an eternal punishment?

 

[liquidpele]

The Catholic teaching on how to read the Bible includes understanding the literal sense and the spiritual sense. The spiritual sense is always to be grounded on the literal sense. Note: literal sense does not mean “word-for-word” literal.

For a more complete explanation of this teaching please see Dei Verbum.

Okay, so essentially you’re saying that you can interpret it differently as long as the interpretation is not contradicted with the literal wording (which basically comes down to that it can be interpreted differently). Thanks for the correction.

 

[NowAgnostic]

You see, there you have confused Catholicism with fundamentalism and a literal interpretation of the Bible!

They are two different things!

Sure, there are Catholics who believe those things to be literally true; but its not a tenant of the faith and many Catholics understand that the Bible was written in different historical periods, for different purposes and using reference points and knowledge that was available at the time!

For example, it states in the Catechism that the Old Testament contains “matters imperfect and provisional”. Our understanding of scripture is mediated through the Holy Spirit and through Church teachings and is constantly developing in response to increasing scientific knowledge.

I agree, let’s not get carried away here. My own post was against the Church’s own teaching on the bible, not fundamentalism as such, which is why I didn’t bring up young vs. old earth and so on. But the Church has continuously held though to the entire human race being descended from two original humans (Adam and Eve).

 

[Matthias123]

Now Agnostic, I am quoting G.K Chesterson when saying that all we can say to people like you is “you don’t understand”

Please give me a primary source that states that that the origin of the human race stems from 1000 people in the first generation. As far as I know, Mitochondrial Eve is the human-mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor. The difference between her and her female contemporaries is that there is no males in her line. There were other females living, but there is no mitochondrial decent left in the population for those women. The confusion was that since Allan Wilson named her “Eve” the public thought, and I bet many Christian apologists believed, that she was in fact the biblical eve, when this is clearly not the case.

Y-chromosomal Adam is the pariliner most recent common ancestor and lived 100,000 years apart from Mitochondrial eve – the same problem with the naming occured.

They are not Adam and Eve – but they do not disprove them either.

Considering evolution is a ordered process that develops by genetic mutation, it seems unlikely that there would be a simultaneous mutation of over 1000 pre-humans into anatomical modern homosapeins. It is most likely that the human race stems from a common pre-human primate that gave birth to mutated primates, who bread together and after many children that perished due to genetic deformities, begot children that begot other children hat eventually increased the population to a healthy diverse gene pool. Or perhaps they bread with other homosapiens tha existed separately after they were born. This is not against Catholic doctrine; polygenism was because it could not be reconciled with our doctrine of original sin. Although I must note that there is a possibility of this from reading an article by Jimmy Akin from the fact that a catechism cautiously allowing such a view has passed the local magestrium.

 

[davidv]

It’s irresponsible to compare God’s punishment with that of a Father’s though, with the assumption that God’s punishment is forever.

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

What is the point of punishing forever?

For the purpose of discipline, none.

There is no chance for a lesson to be learned or for the person to change. Are you suggesting that hell is not an eternal punishment?

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.

 

[James_S_Saint]

They are not Adam and Eve – but they do not disprove them either.

Especially when you realize that Ahdam and Eve were never even said to be mere human, but Man and Woe-Man.

 

[Matthias123]

It is most likely that the human race stems from a common pre-human primate that gave birth to mutated primates,

This should read as:

It is most likely that the human race stems from a common pre-human primate that gave birth to mutated human primates,

 

[Alindawyl]

Oh don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t claiming there was an airtight case against there being a God, but I do think for each person there is something that could possibly cause at minimum some doubt. What do you think the world would be like with no God, what aspects of reality or what situations would cause you to then think that there might not be a God? If you honestly can’t think of any, then are you not essentially saying that every possible situation and reality is evidence of God which is equivalent to just saying “because I said so” ?

The fact of existence is sufficient evidence for me to believe that there is a eternal Creator responsible for initiating all of creation. On that I have no doubts whatsoever. An eternal Creator seems more reasonable to me than an eternal universe, reality springing into existence spontaneously, or any other explanation. So yes, for me at least I see evidence for the existence of a Creator in everything I experience.

The nature of that Creator, his attributes, how he relates to us… if we change to something along those lines rather than just asking “Does God exist?” in a yes/no fashion, then and only then do I find myself able to entertain doubts.

 

[Matthias123]

Now Agnostic, I am quoting G.K Chesterson when saying that all we can say to people like you is “you don’t understand”

Please give me a primary source that states that that the origin of the human race stems from 1000 people in the first generation. As far as I know, Mitochondrial Eve is the human-mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor. The difference between her and her female contemporaries is that there is no males in her line. There were other females living, but there is no mitochondrial decent left in the population for those women. The confusion was that since Allan Wilson named her “Eve” the public thought, and I bet many Christian apologists believed, that she was in fact the biblical eve, when this is clearly not the case.

Y-chromosomal Adam is the pariliner most recent common ancestor and lived 100,000 years apart from Mitochondrial eve – the same problem with the naming occured.

They are not Adam and Eve – but they do not disprove them either.

Considering evolution is a ordered process that develops by genetic mutation, it seems unlikely that there would be a simultaneous mutation of over 1000 pre-humans into anatomical modern homosapeins. It is most likely that the human race stems from a common pre-human primate that gave birth to mutated primates, who bread together and after many children that perished due to genetic deformities, begot children that begot other children hat eventually increased the population to a healthy diverse gene pool. Or perhaps they bread with other homosapiens tha existed separately after they were born. This is not against Catholic doctrine; polygenism was because it could not be reconciled with our doctrine of original sin. Although I must note that there is a possibility of this from reading an article by Jimmy Akin from the fact that a catechism cautiously allowing such a view has passed the local magestrium.

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.