S
Signum_Crucis
Guest
The man who came up with the Big Bang Theory was Catholic. A Belgian priest, in fact, named Georges Lemaitre.
Siggy
Siggy
- Status
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Live a holy life.
Z
zeek
Guest
God. God = Love. Love one another. Without Love there is nothing.
In this universe, all things are in motion, everything that is moved is moved by another mover. If therefore, everything that is moved is moved by a mover, there must be an unmoved mover. This we call God. If there is not an unmoved mover causing all motion in this universe, consequently, we proceed to infinity, or there must be an unmoved mover. It is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
Brief quotations and paraphrasing from Saint Thomas Aquinas “Summa Contra Gentiles” Book One: God
Aristotle, Physics, VII 1 (241b 24).
In this universe, all things are in motion, everything that is moved is moved by another mover. If therefore, everything that is moved is moved by a mover, there must be an unmoved mover. This we call God. If there is not an unmoved mover causing all motion in this universe, consequently, we proceed to infinity, or there must be an unmoved mover. It is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
Brief quotations and paraphrasing from Saint Thomas Aquinas “Summa Contra Gentiles” Book One: God
Aristotle, Physics, VII 1 (241b 24).
T
trogiah
Guest
I have been following this thread a while. Some of the perspectives given by atheists/agnostics have been interesting. I threw in my two cents here and there.
The quote above is without doubt the best answer to the original question.
-Jim
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Perhaps a more cooperative approach would be useful.
Now, James, I believe every Thomistic follower could agree that God is a ‘primitive source’.
Primitive:
adj:
It is also true, that people tend to think of unexplained as being caused by God. ( The answer to the unknown ).
If, as you have asserted via quoting, the universe is not a closed system (because of gravity or whatever), then it is clear that the fluctuating gravity has a source outside the system (in your own words it is an open system). And hence there is a source --outside the system–, but the system is the universe.
Even with the atheistic reconciliation, a cause – outside the system is required --. It doesn’t matter to me that a glimpse of this cause is found as a variable in an eqation. The cause is unknown, and outside our universe.
The question of a finite or infinte universe has come up,
and so I view the question in two ways.
If the universe is finite, then it could not exist without outside help - God.
If the universe is infinite then there will always be something unknown – room for God --.
No one can prove that science is able to fill in all the gaps in mans knowledge.
If ‘I don’t know’ is the best answer, then so is God.
The required unknown. The uncaused cause. The primitive source.
I have faith in science, although the scientific method is built on a fallacy. ( Fallacy does not mean the results are wrong ).
No one has ever proved that science will fill in all the gaps in mans knowledge. To even do science one must make assumptions ( which are error prone ) - and subject them to trial.
I don’t make fun of scientists on the grounds that they can’t prove the scientific method is a valid way to do things.
The reason is simple, we are all under the same sentence.
… Faith …
I do object to the habit of atheists I have encountered in choosing words which are caustic. For example.
The word primitive carries connotations which are unnecessarily insulting…
Now, James, I believe every Thomistic follower could agree that God is a ‘primitive source’.
Primitive:
adj:
- a) of or relating to an earlierst or original stage or state.
b) archetypical. - marked by simplicity or crudity. unsophisticated.
- …
It is also true, that people tend to think of unexplained as being caused by God. ( The answer to the unknown ).
If, as you have asserted via quoting, the universe is not a closed system (because of gravity or whatever), then it is clear that the fluctuating gravity has a source outside the system (in your own words it is an open system). And hence there is a source --outside the system–, but the system is the universe.
Even with the atheistic reconciliation, a cause – outside the system is required --. It doesn’t matter to me that a glimpse of this cause is found as a variable in an eqation. The cause is unknown, and outside our universe.
The question of a finite or infinte universe has come up,
and so I view the question in two ways.
If the universe is finite, then it could not exist without outside help - God.
If the universe is infinite then there will always be something unknown – room for God --.
No one can prove that science is able to fill in all the gaps in mans knowledge.
If ‘I don’t know’ is the best answer, then so is God.
The required unknown. The uncaused cause. The primitive source.
I have faith in science, although the scientific method is built on a fallacy. ( Fallacy does not mean the results are wrong ).
No one has ever proved that science will fill in all the gaps in mans knowledge. To even do science one must make assumptions ( which are error prone ) - and subject them to trial.
I don’t make fun of scientists on the grounds that they can’t prove the scientific method is a valid way to do things.
The reason is simple, we are all under the same sentence.
… Faith …
I do object to the habit of atheists I have encountered in choosing words which are caustic. For example.
The word primitive carries connotations which are unnecessarily insulting…
R
Riley259
Guest
I would recommend reading “Handbood of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli - this should answer all your questions and provide you with ample examples of how to respond to an atheist. After reading this book you’ll understand the absurdity of atheism. Other books by Michael Behe and William Demski point out the vast likelihood of intelligent design. Hope this helps.
W
wanerious
Guest
Ew. Perhaps this ought to be in another thread, but there are also good links refuting any likelihood of intelligent design as representing good science.
R
Riley259
Guest
It sounds like your a scientist so correct me if I’m wrong but I just want to clarify what I meant by intelligent design - it is definitely not the same as creation science which focuses on a young earth and special creation. Intelligent design for the most part acknowledges progressive evolution but just not the strictly blind Darwinian mode of random natural selection. Michael Behe talks about irreducible complexity while referring to certain simple forms of life (cilia) and Dembski outlines empirically based criteria to determine whether something is probably designed by an intelligent agent. Even though both men are Christians, they make no judgement on who the “designer” is when evidence for it exists. Of course, atheists would likely dismiss this theory outright. If this is old news to you, please forgive the pedantic discourse. Thanks.
W
wanerious
Guest
Yes, I appreciate the distinction between creation science and Behe et al, with whose arguments I am familiar. I just strongly disagree with the axiom of irreducible complexity as applied to the biological sciences. This might be a good seed for a separate thread, or perhaps this is a good place for a discussion since, as you point out, the subtext of the intelligent design movement is to posit some kind of designer, which is certainly one way to “combat” atheism. My own opinion is that bad science will do a very poor job of rightly convincing anyone of one’s positions.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Thank you for your kindness.
Pretty much, yes. The reasons why are just a few Google queries away.
R
Riley259
Guest
Can you elaborate on why the concept of irreducible complexity is bad science. I’ve read the biologist Kenneth Miller’s criticism of it but I thought Behe responded well to this criticism in an essay I read recently. Just so I know what I’m dealing with - are you an atheist?
S
squirt
Guest
Why would good vs bad science have anything to do with religious beliefs?
I know a guy that I sit and chat with once in a while who has doctorates in theology and (evolutionary) biology, who is also highly critical of Behe’s approach. Not being a biologist, I get a bit lost in the details … but his criticisms are based on which he believes is better science.
R
Riley259
Guest
I know I’m digressing a bit, but enlighten me on what the “good” or better science is in rebuttal to Behe’s ideas or better yet why it is bad science. It’s relevant to religious beliefs because if Behe’s ideas are flawed or just plain wrong then that’s one less piece of evidence in the design debate.
S
squirt
Guest
Like I said earlier, I’m not a biologist and it is the biologist who is making claims about ‘better’ science. The gist of his argument is that Behe is basically using a “God of the gaps” approach …
C
Carl
Guest
Religion is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.
– Sigmund Freud
Interesting quote: Now read it this way:
Atheism is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.
Just as interesting. Strangely, Freud never thought so. Why? Because he was an atheist!
– Sigmund Freud
Interesting quote: Now read it this way:
Atheism is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.
Just as interesting. Strangely, Freud never thought so. Why? Because he was an atheist!
C
Carl
Guest
Those who hold that the universe is infinite and eternal have a long scientific road to hoe, since all the scientific evidence points to a finite universe of a limited age. The Big Bang.
As someone earlier indicated, it takes lots of faith that science is dead wrong to be an atheist.
As someone earlier indicated, it takes lots of faith that science is dead wrong to be an atheist.
B
buffalo
Guest
A :tiphat: to Carl
R
Riley259
Guest
“god of the gaps” is a convenient answer for most atheists and they’ve been using that one for a long time. It’s a little tougher to apply that to one of Behe’s examples that I alluded to earlier. He described the cilia, a simple organism that needs to function properly for other things to function and so on. If even one part or piece of the cilia is removed, the organism ceases to function. The individual parts are about as simple as you can get - in other words, irreducibly complex. The description of this process by Behe (and others explaining his theory) is pretty convincing. I need someone to show me otherwise. As I said before, Kenneth Miller’s rebuttal didn’t seem to hold up on closer examination and Behe easily refuted it.
W
wanerious
Guest
No, I’m not an atheist (I’m protestant).
For one thing, intelligent design (ID) is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a physical one. It does not purport to explain any mechanism behind observable behaviors nor any additional phenomena that would be predicted if it is valid. In this sense it is really not a theory, but an assertion. The fundamental issue is whether one can imagine valid evolutionary processes that eventually result in a given biological structure or process. The refutation then is easy — we need only, for each supposedly irreducibly complex phenomenon, to posit a valid evolutionary scenario. The following reference, for example, itself has a reference #7 (a Nature article from last year) in which just this sort of refutation is documented.
ID refutation link
Even if this strategy fails us for a particular example, it is possible that it is only a failure of imagination or a limitation of current biological knowledge instead of positive evidence for design.
A common and generic rebuttal comes from the world of software. One may examine the source code to a particular program and remark that it must have come into existence in final form, since the network of subroutine calls and functional dependence is very fragile and would break with some arbitrary change of functions. This neglects to appreciate the evolutionary process of software development, where subroutines and classes are routinely borrowed from other programs and possibly slightly modified for a new purpose. These changes are then a dependent condition for subsequent modules, and we eventually arrive at an irreducibly complex product that has, indeed, evolved from a prior condition.
ID is bad science only in the sense that it is championed as scientific when it is really metaphysical. It also lacks some rigor in that particular systems are identified as having been designed, but the null is never clearly shown; we don’t have clear evidence of non-design for a system. If we are brave enough to admit that we will never successfully model the evolution of a process, are we brave enough to assert that we do have a complete model of another process we are sure is not designed? Otherwise, we just shrug our shoulders, say everything is designed at some level, and we’re right back where we started. We must be able to draw that distinction.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Umm… Aren’t the programmers who copy the code, intelligent?
I mean, humans are the designers of programs, after all.
- Status