Help With A Question?

[AnAtheist]

Genesis315:

I have a question: why would human beings invent something they couldn’t understand (God) to explain things they couldn’t understand (ie the gaps you speak of)?

Because they want to understand. If they lack the understanding, they come with some mythical “explanation”, because that’s better than nothing they think.

 

[AnAtheist]

Genesis315:

Also, how can godless science explain things like incorruptible bodies of saints, the Our Lady of Guadalupe tilma, the bilocation of Padre Pio, the Eucharistic miracles, the sun phenomena at Fatima, etc.

Well it declares them as not existing. It as easy as that.

Plus, science and God are not mutually exclusive…

I know of no scientific theory, that is based on some god.

There was a study about something in mitochondria that can be traced back to a single female… Have you heard of it?

I’m no biologist, but afaik mitochondria can be traced back throughout the evolutionary chain to the earliest forms of higher organised life.

Religion and science go hand in hand, they are not enemies.

I’d say they occupy different aspects of human thinking. Science explains nature, while religion comforts people who can’t live with the nature the way it is, so they invent the supernatural.

 

[wolpertinger]

AnAtheist:

Because they want to understand. If they lack the understanding, they come with some mythical “explanation”, because that’s better than nothing they think.

“Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer …”

— George Santayana

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

AnAtheist:

I know of no scientific theory, that is based on some god.

That doesn’t mean there is no God. Atheists do in one breath say science can’t deal with the supernatural, yet at the same instance demand scientific evidence for God. That isn’t playing fair.

Science explains nature,

Correct. That’s what science is for. Why, then, do atheists elevate it to infallible arbiter of truth and falsehood?

while religion comforts people who can’t live with the nature the way it is, so they invent the supernatural.

Unsupported assertion.

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

If you believe and there is a different God than you expected,
when you die, you’ve lost everything.

No, you did not lose anything by your belief. Atleast you made a choice. If you do not make the choice then you have a much greater chance of losing. You lose nothing by making the choice.

 

[jimmy]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Chris,How would you feel if this fellow passed away this night knowing that you have missed oppurtunities to share the Good News with him? Would his blood be on your hands? Something to think about? Personally I believed you already have missed some oppurtunities God Bless

I agree with Chris. You have to be careful with your opportunities. If you are not careful, you may push them further away and it will be much tougher to evangelize. You can’t just walk up to someone and say “repent, turn from your ways, or burn in hell.” You won’t exactly get too many conversions like that.

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

It is as false as the initial argument. What if the Muslims are correct, and you have never made a pilgrimage to Mecca? Then you are in serious trouble.

Atleast we made the choice. You are in trouble whether the Christians are right or the muslims are right. For us it is a 50/50 chance. For you it is a 0/100 chance because you have not made the choice. Now there is a chance of there not being a god, but you gain nothing by being athiest, you can gain the world by believing in God.

Bringing up the muslims is pointless because you are not adressing the question. The statement was that you can only lose as an atheist and you can only win as a theist. The question is between atheist and theist, not between Christian and Muslim. Its only a two sided coin with the muslims and Christians on the same side.

 

[jimmy]

wolpertinger:

Your math is flawed.

Atheists consider the probability of god existing to either zero or infinitesimally small; further, they consider the temporal cost of religious belief as a negative and the lack of religious strictures as a positive.

Amazingly, we theists would consider the chances of there being no God to be amazingly low, even zero.

Who is right? Who has the correct math?

 

[Genesis315]

Originally Posted by AnAtheist
I know of no scientific theory, that is based on some god.

Intelligent design is a scientific theory based on some god.

Originally Posted by Genesis315
Also, how can godless science explain things like incorruptible bodies of saints, the Our Lady of Guadalupe tilma, the bilocation of Padre Pio, the Eucharistic miracles, the sun phenomena at Fatima, etc.
Well it declares them as not existing. It as easy as that.

Well that’s stupid. Only a quitter would take that attitude. You can’t just pretend something doesn’t exist when in fact it does. You can go to Mexico yourself and check out the tilma. The stuff with sun at Fatima was witnessed by 70,000 people including non-believers. It was even predicted 7 months in advance by three little kids. People were also soaking wet from rain and they became dry. Here’s a bunch of newspaper articles and witness testimony:

ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/October.htm

Anyway, maybe here’s some proof of God. A hardcore atheist has become a major contributor on a Catholic discussion forum. Obviously this atheist has been here long enough that if nothing interested him he would have left. And yet, he still engages in discussion. Maybe the grace of God has given you a push in the right direction. Maybe one of these times someone will make a post that softens your core just a little. Maybe you’ll even show up at a Mass and see what all the fuss is about that these weirdo Catholics keep making. Maybe you’ll have mystical experience! How awesome would that be!

Keep an open mind and heart!

 

[jimmy]

I think the greatest proof of God is, the human mind. The fact that we have the ability to make decisions is amazing. Science is based on natural processes and reactions that happen for a reason, but the human mind can not be explained by natural processes and reactions.

Look at the ability that I have to make decisions. How can I make the decision to press the k rather than the m. This can not be explained by natural chemical reactions and atomic physics because all these processes are directed by what I decide. They are not random as science would define most things. It is not possible, as science is defined, for a process to be dictated and controled without another process interfering. But my decisions are made starting completely from nothing, and nothing is guiding my decisions.

Scientists have no idea how you go about making a decision.

 

[wolpertinger]

jimmy:

Atleast we made the choice. You are in trouble whether the Christians are right or the muslims are right. For us it is a 50/50 chance. For you it is a 0/100 chance because you have not made the choice. Now there is a chance of there not being a god, but you gain nothing by being athiest, you can gain the world by believing in God.

The Christian’s chances are much poorer than 50/50. First you have to satisfy the probability of any god existing, then you have to worship the right one.

Bringing up the muslims is pointless because you are not adressing the question. The statement was that you can only lose as an atheist and you can only win as a theist. The question is between atheist and theist, not between Christian and Muslim. Its only a two sided coin with the muslims and Christians on the same side.

Anybody who bases life-changing decisions on a wager can but lose.

 

[wolpertinger]

jimmy:

Amazingly, we theists would consider the chances of there being no God to be amazingly low, even zero.

Who is right? Who has the correct math?

Atheists, of course.

 

[jimmy]

wolpertinger:

The Christian’s chances are much poorer than 50/50. First you have to satisfy the probability of any god existing, then you have to worship the right one.

Well the choice is made and there is no harm making the choice. Its like on a multiple choice test. You may not know the answer to one of the questions but you are much better off making a choice than leaving it blank. Whether you were right or wrong, your chances of getting it right are much higher than those who chose not to answer. An atheist is like someone who thinks, “this is a trick question, they all seem wrong, I’m not answering”. There is no chance that you are gonna get anything out of being an atheist and not making the decision, but if you make the choice, you could be right.

wolpertinger:

Anybody who bases life-changing decisions on a wager can but lose.

What are you gonna lose? Sixty, seventy, possibly eighty years of pleasure? Is that all you can lose? Well, when I die, I will not be worried about whether I lost a little pleasure from being a Christian. There is a possibility that I will be wrong, but I am losing nothing and I won’t be worried about pleasure when I die. If anything I will be worried about whether I was too worried about pleasure on earth.

 

[jimmy]

wolpertinger:

Atheists, of course.

Well, we will see.

 

[wolpertinger]

Heathen Dawn:

That doesn’t mean there is no God. Atheists do in one breath say science can’t deal with the supernatural, yet at the same instance demand scientific evidence for God. That isn’t playing fair.

AnAtheist does not speak for all atheists.

However, if you wish to convince an atheist, you have to satisfy the individual’s standard of proof. Too bad if that’s not playing fair.

Correct. That’s what science is for. Why, then, do atheists elevate it to infallible arbiter of truth and falsehood?

Actually, it’s the scientific method, not science per se, that we hold dear. Theology can be a beautiful pseudo-science if you suspend disbelief and accept some speculative axioms, like god exists.

Unsupported assertion.

In general, yes. In particular, who knows.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

I leave the wagering to atheists, Christians and Muslims. I don’t wager, I place 100% confidence in the goodness of God, and consequently have 0% belief in either hell or oblivion after death.

wolpertinger:

AnAtheist does not speak for all atheists.

True, but most atheists say as he did. I’m a veteran of IIDB, I should know.

However, if you wish to convince an atheist, you have to satisfy the individual’s standard of proof. Too bad if that’s not playing fair.

Whadda———?!

This is solipsism, wolpertinger. The way you have it, every accused person would invent his own standard of proof to evade conviction. No, standards of proof should be objective. It is objectively true that, if science cannot touch the supernatural, and God is supernatural, then science is not the right tool for determining the existence of God. That’s simple logic.

Of course advocating science as the standard for all claims including supernatural ones is fair to the atheist. Yes, like that famous line in Spaceballs:

Lone Star: a million space bucks by tomorrow?! That’s unfair!

Pizza the Hutt: unfair to payor, but not to payee!

Gotcha?

 

[wolpertinger]

jimmy:

Well the choice is made and there is no harm making the choice. Its like on a multiple choice test. You may not know the answer to one of the questions but you are much better off making a choice than leaving it blank.

You can keep asserting this, but that doesn’t make it so.

What are you gonna lose? Sixty, seventy, possibly eighty years of pleasure? Is that all you can lose? Well, when I die, I will not be worried about whether I lost a little pleasure from being a Christian.

Membership in a religion incurs a very real personal cost. I will not compromise my beliefs in this life for the sake of fire insurance (as somebody else put it), no matter the cost in some alleged afterlife.

Anyway, since you seem to sincerely believe in Pascal’s Wager and I summarily reject it, we have nothing left to discuss.

 

[jimmy]

wolpertinger:

Membership in a religion incurs a very real personal cost. I will not compromise my beliefs in this life for the sake of fire insurance (as somebody else put it), no matter the cost in some alleged afterlife.

Anyway, since you seem to sincerely believe in Pascal’s Wager and I summarily reject it, we have nothing left to discuss.

I would like to know what you would be losing. Pride? Compromising your beliefs in this life means absolutely nothing if there is no god.

 

[wolpertinger]

Heathen Dawn:

I leave the wagering to atheists, Christians and Muslims. I don’t wager, I place 100% confidence in the goodness of God, and consequently have 0% belief in either hell or oblivion after death.

I don’t wager, either. I am 100% confident in own (lack of) beliefs.

True, but most atheists say as he did. I’m a veteran of IIDB, I should know.

So you know the smartasses that hang out on IIDB. I don’t know how that justifies a sweeping generalization towards all other atheists, but whatever.

Whadda———?!

You heard me. My house, my rules - whatever they may be.

This is solipsism, wolpertinger. The way you have it, every accused person would invent his own standard of proof to evade conviction. No, standards of proof should be objective. It is objectively true that, if science cannot touch the supernatural, and God is supernatural, then science is not the right tool for determining the existence of God. That’s simple logic.

Strawman. Accused people come up with the most interesting excuses indeed, some of which happen to be a case of truth being stranger than fiction - however, this is an entirely different scenario.

Out of morbid curiosity, what is an objective standard of proof for the supernatural?

Of course advocating science as the standard for all claims including supernatural ones is fair to the atheist.

Gotcha?

No, but I’m beginning to see why IIDB frustrated you - not that I could stomach the place myself. Science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural and I’m not asking you to try. I am puzzled, however, what other avenues of proof you wish to embark on.

 

[wolpertinger]

jimmy:

I would like to know what you would be losing. Pride? Compromising your beliefs in this life means absolutely nothing if there is no god.

If you have to ask…