God is not dead!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poustinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Poustinia

Guest
GOD IS NOT DEAD!

I wish to address the challenge that Nietzsche put forth when he stated that “God is dead”.

To say that God is dead presupposes belief in a creator who created from nothing, but then stopped creating/caring for his creation, or simply is unwilling or unable to continue for a number of reasons, one of which is death. This is merely another version of “the clockmaker creating and then leaving his creation to run on its own” theory. Usually, the claim is made that God doesn’t care for His creation. The evidence presented is the classic and apparent “contradiction” between the idea of an all-good-God and the existence of evil and suffering or the “Problem of evil”. But that is something to cover in another post.

EDUCATION IN THE TRUTH:

Education in the truth is freeing people to believe in God, rather than freeing them from belief in God.
  1. The laws of the conservation of mass and conservation of energy say that in an isolated system, mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
  2. Cosmological redshift indicates that the universe is expanding. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space
If 1 & 2 are true, then, where is all this mass and energy coming from that is causing the universe to expand at 3 x 10 to the 8th power meters per second?

EXPOSING THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVINGROOM:

By definition the universe is an isolated system. (But the scientific community doesn’t want to talk about it.) In theory, it should be constant in its mass and energy over time. But it is expanding. That means that its mass and energy are increasing. Since matter cannot create itself, that means that creation isn’t finished. Therefore, God can’t be dead because He is still creating.

WHY THEY DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT:

God’s chosen people, throughout Salvation History, were always struggling with their addiction to false gods. Atheism demands faith from its adherents, and is it no less idolatry than worshipping bulls, or gold and silver images. Atheism is failing to meet people’s needs for the truth and is showing itself to be impotent, and people will start looking for truth elsewhere. Some will turn to truth and others will cling to the only things they know even if they realize that it’s not true, just as it was when Jesus walked on the face of the earth.

I’m not a scientist or a philosopher, but in the light of this evidence I am worried and having serious doubts about the viability of atheism’s existence. Do you think that this qualifies as existential angst? 🙂 😃

[SIGN]Congratulations Fr. John on your 25th Anniversary of Ordination to the Presbyterate. “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Psalm 110:4.[/SIGN]

Poustinia
 
Poustinia said:
By definition the universe is an isolated system. (But the scientific community doesn’t want to talk about it.) In theory, it should be constant in its mass and energy over time. But it is expanding. That means that its mass and energy are increasing.
Click to expand...
No, scientists are deliriously happy to talk about it. And no, energy doesn’t appear to be increasing, it’s conjectured that the total sum of energy in the universe is, always was, and always will be exactly zero.

In any case it seems a bit weird to use science to argue against science. I mean, if you equate science with atheism does your use of conservation laws and red-shift mean you’re posting as a theist or atheist? Now that would probably quality as existential angst. 😃

How we interpret scientific results is up to us, there’s no agenda. The whole reason why it works is to follow the evidence – the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But then why some folk want to think that physical truths deny spiritual truths has always gone straight over my head. 😊
 
inocente said:
How we interpret scientific results is up to us, there’s no agenda. The whole reason why it works is to follow the evidence – the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that many scientists (and non-scientists) think it is the whole truth!
But then why some folk want to think that physical truths deny spiritual truths has always gone straight over my head.
Click to expand...
For the reason I’ve just given. 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
The trouble is that many scientists (and non-scientists) think it is the whole truth!
Click to expand...
Yes, religion is failing badly, but of course that’s got nothing at all to do with religionists. 🙂
 
Nietzsche did not mean to say that God once existed but is now dead or uninterested in man.

He meant to say that belief in God, the taking Faith seriously as it was taken in past centuries, was dead. However, the world-view that depended on that belief was still alive; people’s metaphysics and language were still theistic, and they didn’t know it. That is why he spoke of the corpse of God that is still with us.

Sure, as Catholics, we cannot agree with his assessment that true belief, serious faith, no longer exists. But we can agree with his keen perception: if someone really wanted to get rid of God, he would have to change almost everything about the way we think and speak.
 
inocente

**Yes, religion is failing badly, but of course that’s got nothing at all to do with religionists. **

It has everything in the world to do with religionists. The fragmentation of religion, thanks to the rise and proliferation of Protestant sects, has immeasurably weakened Christianity.

That so astute military genius Satan has always relied upon his ancient strategy … it worked when he attacked Eve in the absence of Adam.

“United they stand, divided they fall.”
 
Charlemagne_II said:
It has everything in the world to do with religionists. The fragmentation of religion, thanks to the rise and proliferation of Protestant sects, has immeasurably weakened Christianity.
Click to expand...
That’s what I meant, it is the fault of religionists – maybe I should have used a :rolleyes: instead of a :). But religionists always blame the rest of the world, nothing’s ever their fault. See, you just did it too dude, as if the RCC is completely powerless to change anything.

Leaving aside turf wars, in Spain there’s no ready alternative to Catholicism but people still don’t go to church. I think it goes way deeper, all this warring against science and modernity puts religion in a self-imposed bubble, but of course that’s nothing to do with religionists. :rolleyes:
 
inocente
**
all this warring against science and modernity puts religion in a self-imposed bubble**

Not sure what you are talking about here. It seems to me that science and modernity are warring against religion … and winning the war to the extent that the Churches are failing and irreligion is growing.

As a self-described Baptist, are you in favor of that?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
inocente
**
all this warring against science and modernity puts religion in a self-imposed bubble**

Not sure what you are talking about here. It seems to me that science and modernity are warring against religion … and winning the war to the extent that the Churches are failing and irreligion is growing.

As a self-described Baptist, are you in favor of that?
Click to expand...
Inocente is correct. Some religious folk out there are Ascience. They feel they must be to defend their faith. They are limited to bible literalism, their entire belief system depends upon a full out attack on Science. Teaching children bad science does put them in a self imposed bubble. Christians who see this want no association with that kind of promotion of ignorance, and see it hurting the cause for Christianity in general.
 
Strawberry

Some religious folk out there are Ascience.

And some science people out there are Areligious.

Circle the wagons, because it surely seems the scientific community is more interested in demolishing religion than the religious community is interested in demolishing science. 😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Strawberry

Some religious folk out there are Ascience.

And some science people out there are Areligious.

Circle the wagons, because it surely seems the scientific community is more interested in demolishing religion than the religious community is interested in demolishing science. 😉
Click to expand...
I understand that the goals of Areligious scientists are to promote an understanding of science and to overcome the misinformation machine of Ascience. The perception from those Christians is that there is a war going on because in the past religion was given special treatment in terms of it being above criticism or testing for truth as it has been used to. God can not be tested, therefore religion can’t be criticized either. While that may still be true, the claims of Ascience can be tested. And this results in Ascience making a bad name for christianity in general. The dishonesty involved in Ascience is exposed.

I do not understand the goals of theistic Ascience. Other than teaching children bad science, many people are now antivaccine, antimedicine and a host of other troubling things due to their distrust of the scientific community spread in large part by the bible literalist theists.

Because of these things, and others the Areligous and Religious science community is alarmed and should be. Ken Miller is an excellent example of a Religious scientist who is fighting Ascience.

Faith is something that science does not deal with. So, I am really not sure what a non literal theist has to fear from Areligious scientists.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I understand that the goals of Areligious scientists are to promote an understanding of science and to overcome the misinformation machine of Ascience.
Click to expand...
No. Atheism has nothing to do with science; the two are not synonymous. The goal of some Areligious scientists, like Richard Dawkins, is to promote disbelief, and they do this by creating a compelling red herring; that being the idea that some core religious doctrine is in contradiction with an item of human knowledge, an item which is supported by compelling evidence. Many religious people in the name of God have aided in giving power to the illusion of that Red herring, causing considerable damage to the faith of many intelligent people.

The game is still the same (defeat religion), the battle field has merely changed. Science just happens to be the weapon of choice.

To that i have only one thing to say. Big-Bang.
 
Strawberry

**Faith is something that science does not deal with. So, I am really not sure what a non literal theist has to fear from Areligious scientists.
It’s nothing to get hung about.**

Somewhat naive.

Many in the scientific community are actively hostile to religion, and atheism is the religion of choice among many scientists.

That is something to get hung up about when certain scientists think science suggest atheism more than religion.

You surely have read up lately on Stephen Hawking, not to mention Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud who actively campaigned against religion.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
No. Atheism has nothing to do with science; the two are not synonymous. The goal of some Areligious scientists, like Richard Dawkins, is to promote disbelief, and they do this by creating a compelling red herring; that being the idea that some core religious doctrine is in contradiction with an item of human knowledge, an item which is supported by compelling evidence. Many religious people in the name of God have aided in giving power to the illusion of that Red herring, causing considerable damage to the faith of many intelligent people.

The game is still the same (defeat religion), the battle field has merely changed. Science just happens to be the weapon of choice.

To that i have only one thing to say. Big-Bang.
Click to expand...
I agree that Atheism has nothing to do with science. I think you need to read my post again and read the Areligious scientists and religious scientists parts again. How did you miss the mention of Ken Miller and where did I say all Scientists were atheists?

Give me an example of Dawkins using a red herring.

You are summarizing his entire life’s education and contribution to the science community into his few years spent telling bible literalists how wrong they are about the world?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Strawberry

**Faith is something that science does not deal with. So, I am really not sure what a non literal theist has to fear from Areligious scientists.
It’s nothing to get hung about.**

Somewhat naive.

Many in the scientific community are actively hostile to religion, and atheism is the religion of choice among many scientists.

That is something to get hung up about when certain scientists think science suggest atheism more than religion.

You surely have read up lately on Stephen Hawking, not to mention Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud who actively campaigned against religion.
Click to expand...
Still not seeing the reason for the non literalist to be worried about their personal thoughts on a non scientific topic.
It would be just as silly if people worried about what type of things the pope thought about that were outside of theology. Like his preference or rejection of outdoor dining. He’s just sharing his viewpoint on a personal matter outside of his specialty.
 
Strawberry
**
You are summarizing his entire life’s education and contribution to the science community into his few years spent telling bible literalists how wrong they are about the world? **

If I’m not mistaken, it was Dawkins who famously (or infamously) said that the theory of evolution had made atheism respectable.

I could give you another dozen doozies from Dawkins if I had the time. 😃

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.” Max Born, Quantum Physicist
 
Charlemagne_II said:
It seems to me that science and modernity are warring against religion … and winning the war to the extent that the Churches are failing and irreligion is growing.

As a self-described Baptist, are you in favor of that?
Click to expand...
As a self-described Catholic and a person of some caliber, are you having me on here CII? 🙂

How is it possible for something as squishy as modernity to war against religion? Globalization, education, democracy, freedom of speech, longer life spans – these are dark conspiracies warring against religion? Religionists losing such a war deserve to lose, big-time.

Teresa said God never changes, and the previous line says everything passes, not everything is set in stone. Spiritual needs can’t die. If organized religions don’t meet those needs they can change or they can dig in their heels and cry in their beer, turning away even more by being downright glum and antagonistic.

What do these helpless frozen defeatists want then? Oopsie-daisy diddums, did nasty modernity make you cry? Come back in your nice cozy bubble where nothing bad ever happens, oh no it doesn’t! no it doesn’t! There there, go beddy-byes, etc. etc. :rolleyes:
 
inocente
**
How is it possible for something as squishy as modernity to war against religion? **

Squishy? Tell that to the millions of murdered unborn children. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top