Who is yelling?Please… PLEASE don’t make this thread a 150-post “Did not!” “Did too!” yelling match about stamp collecting and the definition of atheism!
You’re the one who is making the angry face.
I wasn’t shouting
. Shouting would be using the word in all caps, like this: SUPERFICIAL And you are going to read Genesis literally? And who told you that way is the only way?
Are you trying to change the meaning of the words to fit what you believe to reality you observe? How did people interpret these words a thousands years ago? What if Big Bang theory comes to be not true and another theory Zig Zang becomes a proper theory that explain the state of matter better? Are you again going change the meaning of words to adopt your belief with what is real?
Atheists are a funny breed. They’ve got it all backwards. Instead of not having to believe that other religions are entirely wrong, atheists believe that all religions are directed to a false belief, with the perception reversed when it comes to their own religion, for they have denied what others affirm and they affirm what others deny.Aloysium;12010355:
Except, of course, for there not being “one huge mistake” in the atheist religion.
wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
You’re welcome.Could you please please cool down? Thank you.
How could there be a mathematical proof for something we assign all our ignorance to?Too many great mathematicians have been baffled by mathematical problems to imply that demonstrating mathematical proofs is easy.
Since God is the source of all mathematics as well as everything else, why should demonstrating the metaphysical assertions of religion be easy?
Where the God’s knowledge come from? The knowledge is a state of mind acquired from the exposure of a being to external reality.
That is in fact the easiest way to hide our ignorance to what really God and creation is. How God could be simple at the same time infinitely intelligence?
The same way a simple equation leads through sequence to an entire board filled with complex mathematics and from a known to the unknown resolves at another known. That’s how we elevate theory to law.
Are you trying to say that we and God are completing each other?
The randomness cannot create knowledge since the knowledge is the correlated states of mind from outside reality. Simply, randomness is against correlation. So one option is gone. Supernatural God could not exist since absolute knowledge is exhaustive and don’t allow the existence of anything else. Simply, absolute knowledge suffice itself and does not need anything else. So another option is gone too. We and God however could complete each other constructing knowledge and understanding knowledge from pure void.
With the difference that you have a chance to understand God natural but no God supernatural.
Christianity, specifically the Catholic church, recognizes the fundamental failing that is depicted in the Garden of Eden…that being it is the perogative of God alone to determine Good vs Evil. When any religion takes it on itself to assert it knows THE WAY it is eating the proverbial apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - attempting to position itself like Eve at God’s level. The Catholic church alone attempts to communicate itself as a deposit of the faith and truth, a mere vicar or agent of God, that people can turn to in order to find for themselves a place to “practice” their faith through sacramental living and encounters through all five senses of the rituals, prayers practice and the Word that aid us in our approach and relationship with Jesus.
Where is this radical doubt of yours? Why must knowledge be acquired by exposure to outside reality? Merely because it works that way with humans does not mean it must with all minds. The order and function of the universe was (name removed by moderator)utted into it from another source. Big Bang cosmology shows that the universe came into existence. The cosmological constants that order it were either highly highly improbable accidents or determined by an external, non-material agent. Have you some candidates in mind?
Merely because you or I cannot explain something does not mean it cannot be. Where, again, is your radical doubt? Why does it simply disappear whenever a tough question arises, as if it MUST be true either that 1) humans have all the answers or 2) humans can have no answers?
I still hold my doubt until otherwise a better explanation that how the knowledge could be constructed is provided. Why should I hold the old explanation once the new one explain the old one and even more?
The acquired knowledge has to be like this, otherwise it has to be intrinsic which we don’t call it knowledge but instinct.
Read previous comment.
Please read this for origin of universe. What we have learn from science history is that it does not talk and does not claim that it wants to find the absolute truth, if there is any, but claims that there exist a theory that explain the current state of experiment well. That is all. I don’t think if science is a good approach to answer question like what is the origin of existence, knowledge, etc, because it tries to understand the current subject of study by focusing on one subject matter, ignoring the effect of whole which we don’t know what it is exactly.
That is true but we should not strive on something we can neither explain nor experience too. We should however be open to how things evolve and what we could understand in future and doubt on current state of our understanding is the key point toward accepting and understanding the new concepts.
How said that our current understanding of existence is the word of God. We know from history of knowledge in general that our understanding changes by time hence we are open to changes hence there is no need for radical doubt.
Why aren’t you honestly attempting to seek the truth, rather than simply attempting to elevate your particular religion above others?
Exactly.
The truth is embodied and handed down through story, tradition and ritual. Given all choices possible it is our nature to seek and find the source(s) of truth that have withstood the scrutiny of time. In the Catholic tradition we find saints, mystics, theologians, scientists, and doctors of the church that from all time profess heroic virtues that are not subject to the passing whims of any one generation. This trait is born in Judiasm and is held sacred in the magesterium (authentic teaching) that transcends the last 2000 years.
Because I have sought the truth, and concluded that Catholicism is the truth. Why would I not want to evangelize and elevate it, which I believe it deserves?