God Is Not Dead

[wanstronian]

Check your private messages.

Checked; responded. As I surmised, you just level a claim of anger against anybody who disagrees with you. Basic ad hominem, an infantile response.

The irony is that when atheists are angry, they (like me) are angry about an unproven religion using its baseless, patriarchal, misogynistic, morally bankrupt superstition to oppress others and promote bigotry. When theists are angry, they’re angry that they’re being prevented from using their religion in this way!

So, for the avoidance of doubt:
I am not angry that you believe in a god, although I do not share your belief
I am not angry that you choose to defend your truth claim, although I find your defence woefully inadequate
I am not angry that you are calling me angry, although I know you are wrong because I am me and you are not.
I **am **angry that many religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, Islamic fundamentalists, and so on, use their religion as an excuse to oppress others. That does not make me angry with the religion, just with the immoral way it is used by certain people and groups. This is a justifiable anger and I do not apologise for it. It doesn’t make me an angry person, any more than laughing at a good joke makes me a constantly giggling idiot.

Are you angry that some people kidnap and molest children? If so, then that makes you just as much of an “angry person” as me. No more, no less.

It doesn’t take a genius to work that that a discret emotion of anger directed towards immoral actions by a specific person or people, does not make one a fundamentally angry person. Until you can overcome this illogical defence mechanism, you won’t be able to contribute meaningfully to any discussion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Another theist trope - the atheist isn’t bright enough to understand the theologist! Typically, against all the evidence, the theist makes an outlandish claim.

The five ways truly are a terrible defence of god’s existence. They all just follow a philosophical musing, then declare, “And ta-da! that’s God!!” It’s utter nonsense, total PRATT.

Well, your tongue is as sharp as ever, can’t say the same for your rational processes. In spite of the glitter of the pied piepers of modern cosmology there is renewed interest in the works of Aristotle. Perhaps the interest will eventually come to the works of Aquinas - but that is asking alot from our secular culture. Still, one can hope.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Until you can overcome this illogical defence mechanism, you won’t be able to contribute meaningfully to any discussion.

Until you can overcome this illogical anger mechanism, you probably won’t be able to contribute meaningfully to any discussion. :sad_bye:

 

[DrTaffy]

First of all no one has ever been able to detect " gravity, " science has never been able to measure it. And susceptibility to measurement is the marker to physical reality. All things in the universe, aside from the human soul, are material or physical in some manner, even waves and magnitism. All we can do is measure the effects of gravity.

Don’t be daft. We measure ‘gravity’ all the time. Every time you weigh something, you ‘measure gravity’. You may as well say that ‘all we can do’ is measure the effects of light, or temperature, or the apple sitting on the table.

God, on the other hand, has yet to produce any reproducible measurable effect. So if that is the standard you wish to set for accepting the reality of anything, then you have just scored one whopper of an own goal!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Don’t be daft. We measure ‘gravity’ all the time. Every time you weigh something, you ‘measure gravity’. You may as well say that ‘all we can do’ is measure the effects of light, or temperature, or the apple sitting on the table.

God, on the other hand, has yet to produce any reproducible measurable effect. So if that is the standard you wish to set for accepting the reality of anything, then you have just scored one whopper of an own goal!

I think you do not credit Linus with understanding what he is talking about.

If I’m not mistaken, all Linus said is that, like God and the human soul, you cannot put gravity under a microscope and measure it. You can measure its effects, but you cannot handle it, see it, touch it, smell it, or hear it. You can infer its existence however, just as you can infer the existence of atoms, or the human soul, or God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

First Aquinas, now, “science has never measured gravity!”

" First Aquinas " ?

When have gravity " waves " or " particles " ever been detected? That is what I meant. If gravity is a real substance, a material object, we should be able to find a " graviton. " And if it is not a part of the material world, what would it be then? Perhaps it might be the actual power of God holding the universe together. I know that is a revolutionary thought, but until we can positively detect gravitons that would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

I think, on the basis of this, that most of what you claim can be safely discarded.

Well, everyone can be wrong, if you prove me wrong, I will happily acknowledge it. But even if I am that would not mean that I am wrong on every thing. I doubt whether you would want to be judged by that impossible standard.

You really should get into Aquinas, should give you plenty of laughs.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Where did this “simple Intelligent Mind” come from? Of what is it made? How did this “mind” create the universe? Where is it now, what is it doing? When did it first exist? Why does it exist? How can it be “simple” and yet create an entire universe?

And so on, and so forth, with a myriad of questions to which you do not, and cannot, know the answers.

" Simple " as in uncomposed of parts or matter, not subject to change, in which essence and existence are one, pure spirit. He has always existed and because he exists, we exist. He created the universe by willing it to exist. It exists because He IS ( As he told Moses), there is no " why " to his existence, he just IS.

" How can it be “simple” and yet create an entire universe? " Really! If the universe, pure dumb matter, can create itself, then it should not be beyond reason that God could. If the universe can, God can.( Not that I think that the universe can, that is your opinion. )

Cheers.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you do not credit Linus with understanding what he is talking about.

If I’m not mistaken, all Linus said is that, like God and the human soul, you cannot put gravity under a microscope and measure it. You can measure its effects, but you cannot handle it, see it, touch it, smell it, or hear it. You can infer its existence however, just as you can infer the existence of atoms, or the human soul, or God.

Thank you my friend, you are right on spot. Think of this, if gravity is not a material object, then might it not be the actual creative power of God holding the universe together. Even Newton speculated that it might simply be the power of God.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

I think you do not credit Linus with understanding what he is talking about.

If I’m not mistaken, all Linus said is that, like God and the human soul, you cannot put gravity under a microscope and measure it. You can measure its effects, but you cannot handle it, see it, touch it, smell it, or hear it. You can infer its existence however, just as you can infer the existence of atoms, or the human soul, or God.

All we ever measure is something’s effects. Can you name a single force, or even an elemental particle, that we detect other than by its effects?

Even light, which we see ‘directly’, is only seen by its effects on the rods and cones in our eye.

We see no such directly measurable effect that is obviously due to God or the soul.

 

[Faith1960]

Don’t be daft. We measure ‘gravity’ all the time. Every time you weigh something, you ‘measure gravity’. You may as well say that ‘all we can do’ is measure the effects of light, or temperature, or the apple sitting on the table.

God, on the other hand, has yet to produce any reproducible measurable effect. So if that is the standard you wish to set for accepting the reality of anything, then you have just scored one whopper of an own goal!

Enough of the sniping. I need some help here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Don’t be daft. We measure ‘gravity’ all the time. Every time you weigh something, you ‘measure gravity’. You may as well say that ‘all we can do’ is measure the effects of light, or temperature, or the apple sitting on the table.

Didn’t mean to overlook you Dr. but Charlemaign came to my aid. I expressed myself rather clumsily. So put your " graviton " under the microscope, then you can speak more positively. You are aware that the great Newton speculated that gravity may be nothing more than the power of God. After all, there are photons for light and we know what causes heat, so where is the graviton?

God, on the other hand, has yet to produce any reproducible measurable effect. So if that is the standard you wish to set for accepting the reality of anything, then you have just scored one whopper of an own goal!

Oh come now, the entire universe is the Effect of God’s action and presence. You know Dr. you need to get away from your periodic table for awhile and look into Thomas Aquinas. You will find much wisdom there. Or perhaps even the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That will open your eyes for sure.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Enough of the sniping. I need some help here.

As far as the science goes, space, time, energy and mass came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.

If, besides space, time, matter and energy, there is “nothing,” then the universe inexplicably “popped into existence” at that first instance.

The other possibility is that an atemporal, immaterial, non-spatial reality exists with the power and wherewithal to create space, time, matter and energy and direct their course.

It seems the choice is between the “pop” theory of being where things just pop into existence without explanation or “cause,” in the widest possible definition of the term, or a non-material explanation exists.

Proponents of the “pop” theory seem to go to great lengths to rationalize away alternative possibilities or fudge the language to endow “nothing” with apparent and ambiguous explanatory power.

The question is, Which reality (material or immaterial) is foundational? Given that we use mind to seek all answers and matter, devoid of mind, seems to go nowhere, eliminative materistic explanations seem always to run aground in terms of sufficient explanation.

It is necessary to “have a mind” to even ask about the explanation for anything that exists. Matter seems resolutely disinterested in the question and lacks the intention for offering one. It ultimately seems mindless to use matter as the “go to” and final say on the matter. Except, of course, unless you have an ulterior motive to do so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Enough of the sniping. I need some help here.

We have given you a number of sources. Have you accessed the video by Fr. Barron, mentioned above or the Fr. Spitzer videos? What else can we do? And if every thing we have suggested is too difficult, then you must follow the advice I gave you - ignore the boorish comments of your professor and go about your life as God wants you to and forget about everything else. Leave the great intellectual battles to those equiped to handle them.

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

We have given you a number of sources. Have you accessed the video by Fr. Barron, mentioned above or the Fr. Spitzer videos? What else can we do? And if every thing we have suggested is too difficult, then you must follow the advice I gave you - ignore the boorish comments of your professor and go about your life as God wants you to and forget about everything else. Leave the great intellectual battles to those equiped to handle them.

Linus2nd

Yes, I read/listened to them but I wanted something more scientifically definitive than what has so far been posted.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, I read/listened to them but I wanted something more scientifically definitive than what has so far been posted.

Well, I promise I will watch the movie some time today.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All we ever measure is something’s effects. Can you name a single force, or even an elemental particle, that we detect other than by its effects?

Even light, which we see ‘directly’, is only seen by its effects on the rods and cones in our eye.

We see no such directly measurable effect that is obviously due to God or the soul.

A great many people down through history will disagree with you. It has always seemed to the mass of mankind fairly obvious that God(s) is a creative force in the universe. It has been inferred in most cultures that time had a beginning, that Deity had stirred things up to create the universe, and that while man’s body may perish his soul lives on.

It has only been since the advent of modern atheism and scientism that science can make no sense at all as to how the universe came to be. Truckloads of theories have been trotted out, but not one of them is provable (except for the Big Bang) and some are downright ridiculous.

More to the point, as Francis Crick noted in 1980, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Now of course Crick, being a scientist, had to say almost a miracle.

But being a philosopher and a theist, I don’t have to pull back from the obvious inference.

 

[Aloysium]

I suspect I know as much as you. . . .

I am completely not surprised that you would think that. That’s your problem.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, I read/listened to them but I wanted something more scientifically definitive than what has so far been posted.

Well, I am just about half way through the movie and I will make some preliminary observations. 1. The sound quality is horrible!
2. ( error in numbering )
3. The " Big Bang " is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory.
4. Fr. Georges Lamaitre never suggested that the " Big Bang " proved that
God created the universe. In fact, he warned Pope Pius XII not to argue
that it did.
5. Newton did indeed theorize that gravity explained the motions of the
planets. However he also said he did not know what gravity was. He
described it as a power that may well be God’s own act of causality.
6. Josh should dump his " girl friend. "
7. Josh said something you should pay attention to. He said he took his
stand to defend God, because Jesus was his friend and he didn’t care
what anyone said or thought. And that is good advice for you. Who
really cares what Hawkings and Dawkins think about God? What fools
we would be if we let idiots like them persuade us that God did not exist.

               8. Oh by the way, what Hawkings and Dawkins are preaching are nothing
                   more than speculations, not even of the status of theories. No one should
                   not feel obilged to prove a theory wrong, let alone a speculation.
               9. Really funny about the minister and his cars :).

P.S. The K.C. Royals really are terrible!~!!

Finished, but will post this so I don’t loose the info.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

                4. Fr. Georges Lamaitre never suggested that the " Big Bang " proved that   
                   God created the universe. In fact, he warned Pope Pius XII not to argue 
                   that it did. Linus2nd

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

At the time that Lemaitre pleaded with Pope Pius XII not to jump the gun with his Big Bang theory, the theory was not fully vetted by the scientific community. Lemaitre was a member of that community and knew well enough how hostile that community could be if it thought a Catholic priest and the Pope were taking over the Big Bang theory as a vindication of Genesis.

Pius died in 1958, as I recall. Lemaitre died in 1967. Between those dates a great deal of movement was going on with respect to the Big Bang. Not only was background noise of the Big Bang predicted in the 50s, but Penzias and Wilson actually detected the noise and won a Nobel Prize for their efforts. All this news was brought to Lemaitre on his deathbed, and it must have been deeply gratifying to him that his theory was, in a general way at least, somewhat vindicated. Even Einstein had come to accept the Big Bang long before he died.

Anyone is free to assume that Lemaitre went to his grave never having overcome his caution to Pope Pius. But we are not bound by Lemaitre’s view as it existed at the time of that caution. As astronomer Robert Jastrow, by no means a Catholic, pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

 

[Faith1960]

Well, I am just about half way through the movie and I will make some preliminary observations. 1. The sound quality is horrible!
2. ( error in numbering )
3. The " Big Bang " is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory.
4. Fr. Georges Lamaitre never suggested that the " Big Bang " proved that
God created the universe. In fact, he warned Pope Pius XII not to argue
that it did.
5. Newton did indeed theorize that gravity explained the motions of the
planets. However he also said he did not know what gravity was. He
described it as a power that may well be God’s own act of causality.
6. Josh should dump his " girl friend. "
7. Josh said something you should pay attention to. He said he took his
stand to defend God, because Jesus was his friend and he didn’t care
what anyone said or thought. And that is good advice for you. Who
really cares what Hawkings and Dawkins think about God? What fools
we would be if we let idiots like them persuade us that God did not exist.

               8. Oh by the way, what Hawkings and Dawkins are preaching are nothing
                   more than speculations, not even of the status of theories. No one should
                   not feel obilged to prove a theory wrong, let alone a speculation.
               9. Really funny about the minister and his cars :).

P.S. The K.C. Royals really are terrible!~!!

Finished, but will post this so I don’t loose the info.

Linus2nd

Idiots? Hawking is probably the most intelligent person on earth!