How To Deal With This Old Canard

[Charlemagne_III]

Not really…I can observe that human being have attained the state of sentience, the stage where we are self-aware, have a notion of good and bad, can create, etc…some might call that a soul. Whether it can maintain enough coherence post-death to allow for an after-life, I’m not certain.

You think this is a safe agnostic position?

If I thought for a moment it was possible that the soul survives the death of the body, I would move heaven and earth to find out why God made me so that I might think it possible.

I would begin by visiting Catholic Answers, as you are doing, to find out if they have an answer.

 

[oldcelt]

Something that can be created by chance rather than design is created by the universe which can also destroy it, and it will be destroyed since it is scientifically known that the universe will expand forever and disintegrate into chaotic energy, even, in the very distant future, protons will decay to energy. The universe is doomed.
So is a “soul” created by and dependent on the universe.

In any case, the corruption of a dead body would quickly destroy this “soul”.

( Yes, friends, I know oldcelt will deny any argument. I write these posts for those who are still searching and are open to ideas. )

We may agree on the ultimate fate of this universe. The best studies I have read (some tine ago) indicate that the universe will stretch itself to the breaking point and either collapse on itself, starting the whole process over or take your course.

So far as the soul in the Deist version of the universe,there are scientists looking into the cohesion of electrically charged particles. Since these are essentially what out thoughts are, can they survive death an remain in some cohesive form? Time will tell.

BTW, I am hardly the only one disagreeing with arguments here. Tactics such as that by the other person always make me feel at ease in a discussion.

 

[oldcelt]

You think this is a safe agnostic position?

If I thought for a moment it was possible that the soul survives the death of the body, I would move heaven and earth to find out why God made me so that I might think it possible.

I would begin by visiting Catholic Answers, as you are doing, to find out if they have an answer.

Since I am not an agnostic, I really couldn’t tell you. So far as CAF, I read a great deal more than I post.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not really…I can observe that human being have attained the state of sentience, the stage where we are self-aware, have a notion of good and bad, can create, etc…some might call that a soul. Whether it can maintain enough coherence post-death to allow for an after-life, I’m not certain.

To plead uncertainty of an afterlife is to plead agnostic. An agnostic does not know.

 

[tonyrey]

You seem to be contradicting yourself! How can you respect a God who either doesn’t know, doesn’t care or cannot rectify what is happening? In at least one respect you must be superior to your Creator.

You haven’t explained** how **an accident-free, disease-free world is feasible.

My God is more than adequate. He doesn’t create children who get leukemia at four weeks of age and He set in motion what turned out to be a rather nice universe. No, I respect a God who does not create sentient life so they will love Him, doesn’t include a comprehensive statement, leaves the system to others of his creation, then creates a place of torment for those who don’t get it.

Your “god” does absolutely nothing and there is no reason to believe it even exists because there are no traces of its existence. If the universe is as appalling as make out it would have been far better not to create it at all - or regard the Creator as diabolical rather than indifferent… “By their fruits you shall know them” is still true.

 

[tonyrey]

It doesn’t require much insight to realize that people down through the ages have not been able to prove the existence of any deity, regardless of the religion. That is why mankind invented philosophy…the legal profession of free thought.

What can you prove that is certain beyond all shadow of doubt?

 

[oldcelt]

To plead uncertainty of an afterlife is to plead agnostic. An agnostic does not know.

I lean heavily toward it due to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nut I can’t say with certainty. In truth, it is not something I think about much.

 

[tonyrey]

Your belief that “things that should not exist” implies that you are aware of feasible

If you cannot offer any alternatives you are not justified in condemning the present system because you imply that every single case of rape, murder, abortion, war and plague can be prevented without interfering with free will and disrupting the laws of nature.

 

[tonyrey]

*The incredible power required to create an immensely complex and orderly system of development which has produced rational beings implies the power to intervene. Otherwise the effect is greater than the cause. *

You are overlooking the subsequent development of the universe as it had to occur for no reason or purpose whatsoever. If you attribute it all to Chance you are not justified in believing in any type of Creator at all.

Just how rational the human race is can be demonstrated on this board and throughout human history.

Are you excluding yourself? If so why? If not you have no reason to regard your opinion as superior to anyone else’s and should admit you have no idea whether there is a Creator.

I don’t believe in a God who would knowingly create such a system (omniscience again).

Your rejection of the system is equivalent to rejecting the God who created it yet you don’t follow your argument to its logical conclusion. You want to have your cake and eat it even though it is unpalatable!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

…you have no reason to regard your opinion as superior to anyone else’s and should admit you have no idea whether there is a Creator.

This is a relevant point. For the Deist there is no reason to believe in a God at all, since this God appears to be a slug with no mind or heart for humanity. So why does the Deist choose to believe in God without any convincing evidence that God even exists?

More to the point, why would a former Catholic (presumably taught for many years the extent to which this God showed his profound love and concern for our welfare by laying down his life for us) decide that such an expression of God’s love was downright phony when it ought to be the one thing one expects of what God should be like if God truly exists?

In other words, why would anyone admit the existence of God, then deny God all the qualities that any first rate God should own, and insist rather that this same God has less feeling and intelligence than any earth father would have for his own children?

 

[oldcelt]

If you cannot offer any alternatives you are not justified in condemning the present system because you imply that every single case of rape, murder, abortion, war and plague can be prevented without interfering with free will and disrupting the laws of nature.

I haven’t condemned what you call the present system. I just don’t believe in the same one you do.

 

[oldcelt]

You are overlooking the subsequent development of the universe as it had to occur for no reason or purpose whatsoever. If you attribute it all to Chance you are not justified in believing in any type of Creator at all.

Why not? Who are you to say that God has to carry out a task the way that you think He should? I attribute everything beyond the initial creation (Big Bang) to chance, but I still believe that God was necessary to jump-start the whole thing.

All the other questions have been answered again and again, and are easily found on this board,

 

[oldcelt]

This is a relevant point. For the Deist there is no reason to believe in a God at all, since this God appears to be a slug with no mind or heart for humanity. So why does the Deist choose to believe in God without any convincing evidence that God even exists?

More to the point, why would a former Catholic (presumably taught for many years the extent to which this God showed his profound love and concern for our welfare by laying down his life for us) decide that such an expression of God’s love was downright phony when it ought to be the one thing one expects of what God should be like if God truly exists?

In other words, why would anyone admit the existence of God, then deny God all the qualities that any first rate God should own, and insist rather that this same God has less feeling and intelligence than any earth father would have for his own children?

So, you are determining what a first-rate God is for all of humanity? How do you get a job like that?

Regarding my education in the faith, it dates back to the time when nuns still taught the classes.Despite that, I was able to see the inconsistencies in the teachings that were being promoted. You know, where God created the system, but had to send His son to fix the system.

Deists, and there are many variations, are thankful to God for initiating creation. That creation eventually resulted in the world we see. Even though he did not one by one create everything we see, he set the wheels in motion and the universe and our little world evolved…and it turned out pretty well for the most part.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, you are determining what a first-rate God is for all of humanity? How do you get a job like that?

Probably the same way you got your job of demoting God to an absentee Landlord.

It just makes sense, doesn’t it? If you’re going to have a God, shouldn’t he be first rate?

Not some ancient Greek or Egyptian or Roman or Deist knock-off.

 

[oldcelt]

Probably the same way you got your job of demoting God to an absentee Landlord.

It just makes sense, doesn’t it? If you’re going to have a God, shouldn’t he be first rate?

Not some ancient Greek or Egyptian or Roman or Deist knock-off.

Sometimes you have to step back to finish your journey.

Be well…time for bed.

 

[tonyrey]

I haven’t condemned what you call the present system. I just don’t believe in the same one you do.

You imply that every single case of rape, murder, abortion, war and plague** could be prevented **without interfering with free will and disrupting the laws of nature. Therefore you are condemning this universe because of its supposedly unnecessary evil, notably children who get leukemia at four weeks - yet you are unable to explain how such misfortunes could be eliminated.

 

[tonyrey]

Even though he did not one by one create everything we see, he set the wheels in motion and the universe and our little world evolved…and it turned out pretty well for the most part.

“pretty well”? How about all the rape, murder, abortion, war, plague and children who get leukemia at four weeks?

How did you calculate there is sufficient evil to eliminate theism and insufficient evil to justify atheism? What is your benchmark for deism?

 

[tonyrey]

You are overlooking the subsequent development of the universe as it had to occur for no reason or purpose whatsoever. If you attribute it all to Chance you are not justified in believing in any type of Creator at all.

That is precisely what you are doing by assuming God did no more than jump-start the universe and then left its billion-year development entirely **to chance **with the disastrous consequences you have condemned: rape, murder, abortion, war, plague and children who get leukemia at four weeks. That would be the work of a Devil who couldn’t care less about what happens to his unfortunate victims.

I attribute everything beyond the initial creation (Big Bang) to chance, but I still believe that God was necessary to jump-start the whole thing.

An unfortunate analogy because jump-starting implies the existence of a motor that has been designed!

All the other questions have been answered again and again, and are easily found on this board.

You haven’t answered these:

1. What can you prove that is certain beyond all shadow of doubt?
2. How do you **know **that an accident-free, disease-free world is feasible?
3. How can you respect a God who either doesn’t know, doesn’t care or cannot rectify what is happening in this world?

 

[surritter]

I attribute everything beyond the initial creation (Big Bang) to chance, but I still believe that God was necessary to jump-start the whole thing.

I think this is the fatal flaw in the argument. Maybe Tony or Charlemagne can help flesh out why, but this statement (about jump-starting but then pure chance) makes no sense from the point of philosophy.

 

[fnr]

It implies nothing of the sort, but rape, murder, abortion ,war, plague, etc. are a real issue for an omniscient God. If I had the alternatives, beyond untried theories I mean, I would have said so long ago.

Ah, the problem of evil. Tricky one.

Without increasing disorder in the cosmos (2nd law of thermo), there would be no life.

Without the chaotic churning of the early universe implied by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, there would be no galaxies.

Without earthquakes, we’d have no Van Allen belts. The churning of the earth’s iron core makes both happen.

Are we more like the warlike chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) or gentle and music-loving bonobo (Pan paniscus)? They’re both our closest evolutionary relatives. To me, humanity is pretty well explained by saying that once we got smart, we figured out how to be savage before we figured out how to love. A biological typology for original sin?