For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[itinerant1]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand and accept the Popes authority on this matter. With that being said, I am not refering to the usurped idea of the ID of the fundamentalist-creationist but that which existed before Michael Behe. Here are some excerpts in which ID was referred to: the words “intelligent design” had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase, distinct from the modern use as a label for “creationism”. The phrase “intelligent design” can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American,[58] in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[59] and even in an 1861 letter of Charles Darwin.[60] The phrase was used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[61]

The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design”. A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, “Teleological argument for the existence of God”: “Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer”.[62] Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: “Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design”.[63] The phrases “intelligent design” and “intelligently designed” were used in a 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design?

In the 17th century the English physician Sir Thomas Browne wrote a Discourse arguing the case for intelligent design. His 1658 The Garden of Cyrus is one of the earliest examples of ‘proof’ of the wisdom of God and gives examples of intelligent design in botany. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as a means to understand “the mind of God”. This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.

There is so much confused thinking about intelligent design it is difficult to know what another person’s ideas actually are. I think Intelligent Design theorists, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Philip Johnson, et al, are responsible for much of the current chaos in thinking.

For example, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn wrote a nice op-ed article in the NYT about intelligent design in opposition to Darwinian “ideology” which denies purpose in nature (There is an important difference between Darwinian ideology and Darwinian science.). Unfortunately, most NYT readers, it seems, interpreted Schonborn to be speaking about and supporting ID Theory.

However, Schonborn was actually speaking about design from the perspective of classical philosophy – Aristotelian-Thomistic concepts. Catholic Thomist philosophers correctly understand design, finality or purpose in nature. Here is a link to that article perchance you have not already read it: Finding Design in Nature

Cardinal Schonborn, as does the current pope, supports a theistic version of evolution.

Also, by studying creation we come to know at least something of the Creator’s unfathomable wisdom and power. It is sad that so many modern scientists in our secular times can know so much about creation while knowing nothing at all about its Creator.

 

[larkin31]

Now you are talking like a theist.

Some theists are quite sound in their thinking, so thank you.

This isn’t what any scientist says about his/her research. Maybe around a dinner table they say this…

that all came to be from one single cell. From everything that evolved, we are exclusively the only living creatures to have the intelligence to manipulate the world around us

. This isn’t even true of the earth. There are many well-known species that manipulate their environments to their advantage.

Animals cannot write novels, nor compose symphonies, nor send man to the moon

The human animal can, but none others that we know of here on this planet. Humans can’t do some things that ants can. So?

Thus in effect, through evolution, man is `at the top of the food chain.’

Sort of.

It neglects to suppose, as you have demonstrated, that there is

**another WORLD **with possibly greater beings than ourselves.You’re turning into a metaphor what I wrote literally. Science doesn’t deny the supernatural; it simply states that it does not investigate whether it exists. Science is interested in the material evidence of our existence and our cosmos. This includes planets and worlds that we have not visited yet (they are material).

Every generation wants proof of God. They are perverse in that way.

I am not interested in proof of God at all. And even if someone is, why is that “perverse”? Weren’t the gospels written down as witness to the Word of God and Jesus for subsequent generations? Even Jesus knew he had to materially present himself to his disciples after he had risen in order to persuade them. Why are you calling this very basic human need “perverse”? And God even goes so far as to present “proof” of his saving grace in the shape and form of a living being named Jesus who even then went through the throws of death. Was that sacrifice of Jesus “perverse”?

[/QUOTE]

 

[humble_maid]

There is so much confused thinking about intelligent design it is difficult to know what another person’s ideas actually are. I think Intelligent Design theorists, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Philip Johnson, et al, are responsible for much of the current chaos in thinking.

For example, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn wrote a nice op-ed article in the NYT about intelligent design in opposition to Darwinian “ideology” which denies purpose in nature (There is an important difference between Darwinian ideology and Darwinian science.). Unfortunately, most NYT readers, it seems, interpreted Schonborn to be speaking about and supporting ID Theory.

However, Schonborn was actually speaking about design from the perspective of classical philosophy – Aristotelian-Thomistic concepts. Catholic Thomist philosophers correctly understand design, finality or purpose in nature. Here is a link to that article perchance you have not already read it: Finding Design in Nature

Cardinal Schonborn, as does the current pope, supports a theistic version of evolution.

Also, by studying creation we come to know at least something of the Creator’s unfathomable wisdom and power. It is sad that so many modern scientists in our secular times can know so much about creation while knowing nothing at all about its Creator.

I agree with you, but no need to worry, new astrophysical discoveries are pointing into the direction that a singular force that is outside of space and time was needed to create and the universe. The universe is not infinite per se, because it started at some point and keeps expanding. On this science can agree with the “Big Bang Theory”. With new instruments to measure space and time many of the old scientific notions are changing and being refined.

Perhaps you could read this article and find out some more facts.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_astrophysical_discoveries_leave_little_to_no_room_for_atheism_expert_says/

 

[humble_maid]

humble maid;6591321:

Now you are talking like a theist.

Some theists are quite sound in their thinking, so thank you.

No, thank you. I am a theist but you are not.

This isn’t what any scientist says about his/her research. Maybe around a dinner table they say this…

Have you had dinner with them already? Look at mainstream science, perhaps some are coming out of the closet and starting to believe but it is not the norm.

.

This isn’t even true of the earth. There are many well-known species that manipulate their environments to their advantage.

The human animal can, but none others that we know of here on this planet. Humans can’t do some things that ants can. So?

Whatever happened to the dinosaurs?

Sort of.

IF you haven’t figured this one yet well…

You’re turning into a metaphor what I wrote literally. Science doesn’t deny the supernatural; it simply states that it does not investigate whether it exists

. Science is interested in the material evidence of our existence and our cosmos. This includes planets and worlds that we have not visited yet (they are material).

Science largely bases itself on the empirical model and needs to have a material evidence to prove something, as you stated, therefore the Biblical God does not exist because He is immaterial.

I am not interested in proof of God at all. And even if someone is, why is that “perverse”? Weren’t the gospels written down as witness to the Word of God and Jesus for subsequent generations? Even Jesus knew he had to materially present himself to his disciples after he had risen in order to persuade them. Why are you calling this very basic human need “perverse”? And God even goes so far as to present “proof” of his saving grace in the shape and form of a living being named Jesus who even then went through the throws of death.

Was that sacrifice of Jesus “perverse”?

I never stated that seeking the proof of God is perverse? You are the one who claimns to be agnostic not myself. I even wrote on my previous post to you that God came down on earth and still men don’t believe…:shrug:You obviously do not understand what I meant. The word perverse is a biblical reference to demonstrate those who are not willing to believe even with proof. Jesus was with His disciples who came to Him stating that they did not have the power to cast out demons on a particular boy. Jesus attributed this to their ‘little faith’. Sometimes perverse meant that people were not ‘just’ whether in their minds and hearts or through their actions.
Matthew 17:
14 And when he had come to the multitude, there came to him a man falling down on his knees before him saying: Lord, have pity on my son, for he is a lunatic, and suffers much: for he falls often into the fire, and often into the water. 15 **And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not cure him. 16 Then Jesus answered and said: O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? **Bring him hither to me. 17 And Jesus rebuked him, and the devil went out of him, and the child was cured from that hour. 18 Then came the disciples to Jesus secretly, and said: Why could not we cast him out? 19 Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible to you. 20 But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.

 

[larkin31]

these quotes are all screwed up

 

[larkin31]

Now you are talking like a theist.

you DID call seeking proof of God “perverse”. That is exactly what you wrote and I quoted you.

Secondly, science does NOT claim that God does not exist. Please indicate any study in modern science that declares that God does not exist. You are, in my opinion, erecting a strawman argument here.

 

[itinerant1]

I agree with you, but no need to worry, new astrophysical discoveries are pointing into the direction that a singular force that is outside of space and time was needed to create and the universe. The universe is not infinite per se, because it started at some point and keeps expanding. On this science can agree with the “Big Bang Theory”. With new instruments to measure space and time many of the old scientific notions are changing and being refined.

Perhaps you could read this article and find out some more facts.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_astrophysical_discoveries_leave_little_to_no_room_for_atheism_expert_says/

I don’t agree with Fr. Spitzer’s conclusions. He goes too fast and makes an ontological leap from singularity to creatio ex nihilo, thinking that his conclusion is “scientific.”**: **“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion."

The conclusion is actually a philosophical reflection on the scientific data. Thus, it is not science that says we need to posit a Creator. In fact, we don’t even need science to tell us that any more than we need science to tell us that there is design in nature.

Fr. Georges Lemaître advised Pope Pius XII, an avid supporter of Big Bang theory, that Big Bang or the initial singularity is not Creation and “in itself” does not prove Creation. Pius XII agreed and was more cautious with his future statements.

Big Bang cosmology strongly points to a temporal beginning of the universe, but it cannot, in its scientific properties, prove creatio ex nihilo, or the existence of God. Science cannot treat of creatio ex nihilo, which is a philosophical and theological notion, and also because, for one reason, science cannot deal with the “nothing”.

Perhaps you can read this linked explanation, which contrasts Big Bang cosmology with Creation and thereby understand the nature of what is a meta-scientific reflection on the initial singularity, and not a* scientific* one as Fr. Spitzer wrongly claims: Aquinas and the Big Bang by William E. Carroll.

 

[humble_maid]

you DID call seeking proof of God “perverse”. That is exactly what you wrote and I quoted you.

Secondly, science does NOT claim that God does not exist. Please indicate any study in modern science that declares that God does not exist. You are, in my opinion, erecting a strawman argument here.

This is my quote exactly:
There is only one problem, with all the authentic miracles and sound testomonies of witnesses the unbelieving scientists will not admonish even the slightest possibility of ANOTHER REALM. THEISTS call this the SPIRITUAL WORLD. After all, the spirit realm in which the Biblical God dwells is another dimension of the universe in which greater beings than humans exist. Should God Himself come down to earth and proclaim this YOU unbelievers would not believe it anyway. But wait He did do such a thing
Every generation wants proof of God. They are perverse in that way. I have no objections with regards to investigating our world through scientific measures to better understand humanity

Perhaps you didn’t read my quote and understand it as a whole. If you follow the underlined phrases you will see that I stated that there is material proof of authenticated miracles which atheists(scientists alike) will simply negate.

I mentioned that God came in the flesh and people still don’t believe. Must God come to earth for every generation and die before their eyes to witness for it to be true? This is what is meant by perverse. I went further to explain that those very words were used by Jesus Himself to those disciples with little faith. Exploring the facts to piece the evidence so as to get a whole picture is absolutely necessary but then much of deism is based on faith as well. Not everything can be proven with absolute material means.

You may be right about science making no claims that God does not exist. However you must agree that there are many scientists who disbelieve because there is no evidence and promote this notion. If you can, please explain to me why teachers in classrooms teach that we do not come from God but evolved from apes? Is this an error on the part of teachers or was it a deliberate attempt by the secular environment to discredit religion? Did science promote this view? If not, who then?

 

[larkin31]

You may be right about science making no claims that God does not exist. However you must agree that there are many scientists who disbelieve because there is no evidence and promote this notion. If you can, please explain to me why teachers in classrooms teach that we do not come from God but evolved from apes? Is this an error on the part of teachers or was it a deliberate attempt by the secular environment to discredit religion? Did science promote this view? If not, who then?

I AM a teacher in high school. I would love to discuss this, but it is for another thread. And you should read the Constitutional court cases that have rendered opinions on whether we can teach religious dogma in state-funded schools. There are plenty of schools across the country that do teach that God created humans. They just can’t take federal money and say this.

 

[itinerant1]

You may be right about science making no claims that God does not exist. However you must agree that there are many scientists who disbelieve because there is no evidence and promote this notion. If you can, please explain to me why teachers in classrooms teach that we do not come from God but evolved from apes? Is this an error on the part of teachers or was it a deliberate attempt by the secular environment to discredit religion? Did science promote this view? If not, who then?

The science curriculum cannot properly teach that we came from God, or that the universe was created by God. God and Creation is the subject matter for philosophy and theology. The natural sciences can teach that man’s body has a pre-history in evolution. However, there is a critical problem here, and it is not the science per se, but the attempt to explain man’s total nature by means of unguided, purposeless evolution. This is a false understanding of biological evolution that finds its way into some textbooks but not all.

Such a view of evolution goes beyond evolution science, and it is where the extreme Darwinian conflates his ideology with science. That is, many Darwinians believe that the scientific method of “methodological naturalism” requires or necessitates a “philosophical naturalism” (or metaphysical materialism). Materialism is a presumption many modern scientists bring to science rather than it resulting from science itself. They just find support for their atheistic religion in a materialist version of evolution theory.

Darwin, in his Descent of Man, attempted to redefine man as no longer essentially a “rational animal” but a “brute animal”. Darwin thought he could disprove the fact of the human soul by a downgrading of the human mind. He called it “attacking the citadel” of the mind.

Thus Darwin tried to make a convincing argument that the mind of man differs in “degree” only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals. In so doing, Darwin showed that he had not the least notion of the proper limits of the natural sciences.

Ever since Darwin’s systematic reductionism in the *Descent of Man, *humans have been popularly viewed as physical beings in their totality, or glorified apes. This is a fundamental tenet of secular humanism and the education establishment. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, is a signatory to Humanist Manifesto II. Traditional religious views cannot be taught in public schools because such views conflict with the religion of secular humanism espoused by the A.C.L.U., the NEA and the federal Court’s. The U.S. Supreme Court has been skewing (and skewering) the U.S. Constitution especially since the early 20th century.

One gets the idea that in this brave new world nothing is sacred; certainly not the human person, or the Constitution.

On another subject, that is, miracles, G.K. Chesterton once said: “The most incredible thing about miracles is that they happen.”

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

you DID call seeking proof of God “perverse”. That is exactly what you wrote and I quoted you.

Secondly, science does NOT claim that God does not exist. Please indicate any study in modern science that declares that God does not exist. You are, in my opinion, erecting a strawman argument here.

But athiests use scientific terms to try and explain that God does not exist.

By the way, I noticed it says next to your profile there that you’re a former protestant. Why exactly did you begin to doubt God’s existance?

 

[larkin31]

But athiests use scientific terms to try and explain that God does not exist.

Some atheists might do this, but it is not convincing. But scientists don’t.

By the way, I noticed it says next to your profile there that you’re a former protestant. Why exactly did you begin to doubt God’s existance?

Dunno why. Just happened in an organic process. I was even “born again” for a while. It all wore off over about a 6-month period.

 

[itinerant1]

Some atheists might do this, but it is not convincing. But scientists don’t.

Actually, science gets misused by theists who believe that science itself can prove God’s existence, and also by atheistic scientists who attempt to prove by means of science that God does not exist. An example of the latter case is Hawking’s “Brief History of Time” the whole purpose of which was to elaborate his “scientific” theory of a cosmos that has no place for God.

 

[larkin31]

Actually, science gets misused by theists who believe that science itself can prove God’s existence, and also by atheistic scientists who attempt to prove by means of science that God does not exist. An example of the latter case is Hawking’s “Brief History of Time” the whole purpose of which was to elaborate his “scientific” theory of a cosmos that has no place for God.

That’s not a research book, right? I know that some scientists themselves do this (both ways). I mean that science itself in its endeavors does not. I think we are agreeing.

 

[itinerant1]

That’s not a research book, right? I know that some scientists themselves do this (both ways). I mean that science itself in its endeavors does not. I think we are agreeing.

We seem to agree as to how science should be conducted.

Science itself is and must remain neutral about super-natural realities, because science properly studies only the natural world. That is why people with various beliefs or no beliefs at all can work together in science.

The foregoing is a picture of the ideal situation, when in fact scientific interpretations of data are often heavily laden with philosophical presumptions. But at least we have an ideal to strive for. I think that ideal is well expressed by a scientist’s observance of a “methodological naturalism”.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Dunno why. Just happened in an organic process. I was even “born again” for a while. It all wore off over about a 6-month period.

Born again is a term used exclusively by protestants. Maybe you didn’t feel comfortable at a protestant service? That might be your issue.

 

[larkin31]

Born again is a term used exclusively by protestants. Maybe you didn’t feel comfortable at a protestant service? That might be your issue.

No, that is not it. I was born and raised Protestant, and my father was a Protestant minister, and I was raised in the parsonage. No, Protestant was very much where I felt at home. I married a Catholic, and I do not feel at home at all in the Catholic church. Interestingly, nor does she now.

 

[humble_maid]

I AM a teacher in high school. I would love to discuss this, but it is for another thread. And you should read the Constitutional court cases that have rendered opinions on whether we can teach religious dogma in state-funded schools. There are plenty of schools across the country that do teach that God created humans. They just can’t take federal money and say this.

I am not aware of the cases that you mentioned perhaps you could guide me and offer some links. It would seem that the Canadian government is in the same position. Actually where I am from it differs from the rest of the country. While other provinces have a right to public catholic schools, here we are not allowed unless it is private.

 

[larkin31]

I am not aware of the cases that you mentioned perhaps you could guide me and offer some links. It would seem that the Canadian government is in the same position. Actually where I am from it differs from the rest of the country. While other provinces have a right to public catholic schools, here we are not allowed unless it is private.

try a google search

 

[humble_maid]

The science curriculum cannot properly teach that we came from God, or that the universe was created by God. God and Creation is the subject matter for philosophy and theology. The natural sciences can teach that man’s body has a pre-history in evolution. However, there is a critical problem here, and it is not the science per se, but the attempt to explain man’s total nature by means of unguided, purposeless evolution. This is a false understanding of biological evolution that finds its way into some textbooks but not all.

Such a view of evolution goes beyond evolution science, and it is where the extreme Darwinian conflates his ideology with science. That is, many Darwinians believe that the scientific method of “methodological naturalism” requires or necessitates a “philosophical naturalism” (or metaphysical materialism). Materialism is a presumption many modern scientists bring to science rather than it resulting from science itself. They just find support for their atheistic religion in a materialist version of evolution theory.

Darwin, in his Descent of Man, attempted to redefine man as no longer essentially a “rational animal” but a “brute animal”. Darwin thought he could disprove the fact of the human soul by a downgrading of the human mind. He called it “attacking the citadel” of the mind.

Thus Darwin tried to make a convincing argument that the mind of man differs in “degree” only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals. In so doing, Darwin showed that he had not the least notion of the proper limits of the natural sciences.

Ever since Darwin’s systematic reductionism in the *Descent of Man, *humans have been popularly viewed as physical beings in their totality, or glorified apes. This is a fundamental tenet of secular humanism and the education establishment. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, is a signatory to Humanist Manifesto II. Traditional religious views cannot be taught in public schools because such views conflict with the religion of secular humanism espoused by the A.C.L.U., the NEA and the federal Court’s. The U.S. Supreme Court has been skewing (and skewering) the U.S. Constitution especially since the early 20th century.
One gets the idea that in this brave new world nothing is sacred; certainly not the human person, or the Constitution.

On another subject, that is, miracles, G.K. Chesterton once said: “The most incredible thing about miracles is that they happen.”

Peace be with you,

Here is a quote from allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate “life-or-death” determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.

Here the writer states that science still accepts the ‘evolution of man’ theory. What does he mean by the ‘metaphysical implications’.

Do you believe that the bible holds scientific knowledge that we were not aware of? Take for example, “The Star of Bethlehem”. A scientific approach to explain the supernatural event of the birth of Our Lord. The Bible recounts unusual, or even impossible astronomical events at Christ’s birth. For many doubters, the account of the Star is easily dismissed as myth. For many believers, it’s a mystery accepted on faith. But what happens if we combine current historical scholarship, astronomical fact and an open mind?You can watch this documentary; this is part 1. youtube.com/watch?v=KRk4ZBCxO3s&feature=related

Psalms 19:1-6
The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declares the work of his hands. 3 Day to day utters speech, and night to night shows knowledge. 4 There are no speeches nor languages, where their voices are not heard. 5 Their sound has gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the world. 6 He has set his tabernacle in the sun: