S
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Please stop holding out on me, A! You sound so certain you have evidence that God does not exist, but you continue to keep it a secret from me. You must have some good reason for holding so dogmatically to your belief.
I believe i have been extremely patient until now. Won’t you please give me my desire and tell me why you believe there is no God?
P
porkscratchings
Guest
God does not exist because:
- While science can show that there are patterns in the universe - fibonacci sequences in plants, laws of physics etc. none of this proves that this occurs as part of creation, nor that there is a creator.
- There are many holy books that claim to come from God, despite it being pretty obvious these originate from a specific time period dealing with specific issues within a specific community. If there’s a God, why would he concern himself with minor matters of a small group of Jews? Also - which of these books should we accept as God’s word? And why doesn’t God let the world know which of these books he actually wrote/inspired so we can end the confusion?
- Prophecy is coming true is not proof of God. As with the case of the Nostradamus predictions, people usually pick an event and make it fit the prophecy or vice versa. This means than any prophecy can be made to seem as if they have come true many years down the line. Nostradamus predict Hitler - I don’t think so.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Unfortunately seeing is not believing, but believing is seeing. UN less God choses to make a personal appearance to you there is not proof that i can offer or can anyone for that matter.God does not exist because:
I do not believe in God. To convert me it is necessary for any theist to prove there is a God, not for me to prove to them there isn’t a God. After all, if I had sufficient proof that God exists, I wouldn’t be an atheist.
- While science can show that there are patterns in the universe - fibonacci sequences in plants, laws of physics etc. none of this proves that this occurs as part of creation, nor that there is a creator.
- There are many holy books that claim to come from God, despite it being pretty obvious these originate from a specific time period dealing with specific issues within a specific community. If there’s a God, why would he concern himself with minor matters of a small group of Jews? Also - which of these books should we accept as God’s word? And why doesn’t God let the world know which of these books he actually wrote/inspired so we can end the confusion?
- Prophecy is coming true is not proof of God. As with the case of the Nostradamus predictions, people usually pick an event and make it fit the prophecy or vice versa. This means than any prophecy can be made to seem as if they have come true many years down the line. Nostradamus predict Hitler - I don’t think so.
On the upside if you start to take a sincere look for Him he will make Himself know to you.
Peace in the Lord
Scott
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Pork:
Thanks for giving me some reasons to consider! I see you have given this some thought.
In response to your objection (1) i’d like to ask you to take a moment to consider this: Have you ever stopped to think that the Web browser you are viewing, and the operating system running on your computer, and the Web page you download from catholic.com are all, in essence, computer language that is merely a series of ones and zeros? I mean, these numbers
100010001001010010101011001000011101000111001110101011001101000011101100001011110101101110111000010110111010111011011100100010101101000101110100010101101100000101110100010110110100000000110110111101101001011101001101011011111101011010100100010101110001100110101110010110101000110110101110110100010110
could actually mean something to a computer. It might be the binary code to display one simple graphic of the Web page you are now viewing, or it might be only garbage that means absolutely nothing. What gives binary language meaning is the order of the numbers. Get one number out of place or remove one number from the code and it is completely meaningless. Get all the numbers right and in exactly the correct order and the result is a Web page or software application on a PC, Mac, or SmartPhone that does some pretty impressive stuff!
My question to you is this:
If you could consider the binary computer language behind all programming code that is behind all the Graphic User Interface you take for granted every day, these series of ones and zeros are no accident. Would you agree?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, Pork! Why would God (if he, she or it exists) choose a group of smelly, ignorant, nomadic sheep herders to develop the most sophisticated form of monotheism in the ancient world?
For that matter, how possibly could a group of smelly, ignorant, nomadic sheep herders develop the most sophisticated form of monotheism in the ancient world?
Hmmmm
Regarding the second part of objection (2) i would think that before you or i accept some written work of being divine, rather than human, in origin, we should first be given some proof. Don’t you agree?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Agreed! Nostradamus could not even get the name Hitler right! He came up with the name Hissler. Moreover, many of his so-called predictions were either too vague, or written in such a way that they could not be confirmed as true or false.
For a prophecy to be considered good evidence that it is more than a good guess, it would have to be specific and verifiable. I think we are on the same page, here. What do you think?
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
This section of the forums is for Non Catholic Religions.
Is this thread pertaining to a non Catholic religion?
Is athiesm and non belief and non religion, a religion?
If not, then why is it in here?
Again, the title of this entire section of the site is for non catholic RELIGIONS.
If you are not religious A then why do you post in this section?
Is this thread pertaining to a non Catholic religion?
Is athiesm and non belief and non religion, a religion?
If not, then why is it in here?
Again, the title of this entire section of the site is for non catholic RELIGIONS.
If you are not religious A then why do you post in this section?
M
mgrfin
Guest
Who else is He going to reveal Himself to? Some kings, or military leaders who were interested in fulfilling their own lust for money, gold, sex, and orgies?
In a dim way, God revealed Himself to ancient philosophers. Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, the god of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. If the Revelation were given to them, they would have believed.
As for those atheists out there who are trying to prove that God does not exist, maybe you can show me one negative that is provable, or ever has been proven?
You can’t prove a negative. I don’t know why you guys are wasting our time?
peace
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I did not see an Atheist and Agnostic discussion forum at Catholic.com, Justin. Where else should an atheist post a topic?
N
notself
Guest
I here by declare A to be an honorary Buddhist. Atheists can easily be Buddhists as well as the other way around.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
It is not my fault nor my concern that an athiest posting place is not here. The fact that the section he posts in is titled :non catholic religions" is just that, a fact. he claims no religion and belief in nothing, therefore does not in any way qualify for this thread.
P
Pax
Guest
Check out the following website…this is fascinating stuff for the believer and non-believer alike:
bethlehemstar.net/stage/stage.htm
bethlehemstar.net/stage/stage.htm
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
A
Not being a religious person, or adhering to any beliefs whatever, should be posting in the philosophy section of the website.
Can this entire thread pleas be moved to the philosophy area since this entire thread is about no religion, no belief, and a person who adheres to nothing pertaining to a non catholic religion. This section is for non catholic religions, not athiests who are not adherents to any beliefs.
Am I incorrect?
Not being a religious person, or adhering to any beliefs whatever, should be posting in the philosophy section of the website.
Can this entire thread pleas be moved to the philosophy area since this entire thread is about no religion, no belief, and a person who adheres to nothing pertaining to a non catholic religion. This section is for non catholic religions, not athiests who are not adherents to any beliefs.
Am I incorrect?
O
ontologysue
Guest
No problem! Happy New Year!
C. S. Lewis wrote a short little book, (80 pages, can be read in a day) called “The Abolition of Man,” all about the question of moral absolutes. He argues that common moral standards are self-evident from practical reason. He has a large appendix where he gives over 118 examples of 8 moral absolutes ascribed to by cultures from ancient Egypt, Greek, Roman, Hindu, Chinese, Babylonian, even Australian Aborigines, (ERE, v 441.)
But he also points out that the presupposition that cultures originate independent of each other is misleading since cultures tended to be derived from previous cultures.
Basically the “ought” is hard wired; when man attempts to step outside the “ought” he is left with only “want.” The only thing that matters at that point is “power.”
The fact that you are so outraged by Pope Innocent VIII 's complicity with the witch burnings demonstrates that you have an existential repugnance to this horrendous evil. You function at the deepest level with a sense of right and wrong. The witch burnings offend** the Tao(Lewis borrows this term for the 'Natural Law, ie rational moral imperative,) so deeply ingrained in your being.
I agree.
Actually, I was making a joke,
Hard-wired natural law manifested as conscience. Yes.
That kid was abusing, corrupting the moral law, his conscience. The fact that a moral imperative is abused, defied, does not mean it doesn’t exist. A more pertinent question might be, would an increase in a particular moral imperative, ie the golden rule, resolve the conflict? If yes, that validates that moral imperative as the standard.
Or, the “rational imperative?”
Seems like a distinction without a difference. Acknowledging certain facts of applied science does not preclude being flexible to further discovery.
Dante wrote in the “Inferno,” about a Pope, “Your avarice brings grief upon the world,crushing the good, exalting the depraved…Ye Shepards it was…playing whore with Kings.” No man, Pope or otherwise, Protestant or Catholic, Atheist or Buddhist, is exempted from the assent to evil. Nothing in the Christian Creeds condones these evils. As G K Chesterton said, “it’s not that Christianity has been tried and failed, it’s that it has never really been tried.” These souls, whether inside or outside the visible church were not “trying Christianity.” Our Lord isn’t interested in what people say they believe, He’s invested in what they “are.”
Finally, A, I couldn’t disagree with you more on your views on abortion. But that’s another thread entirely. I would see no point debating it with you, if, in fact, you concede no moral absolutes, since that’s a prerequisite to that debate.
Once moral imperatives are debunked, all that’s left, is who can grab the power and do what he likes? Whether it’s an atheist, like Stalin who grabs it, or, a Christian in name only, like Popes of witch burning fame, the result is the same…the “abolition of man,” and the horror of “Kurtz” in Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.”**
P
phooney
Guest
@Socrates4Jesus
Hi Again,
Sorry about the delay in responding, I’ve been visiting the in-laws this weekend!
“Right, i was doing just a bit of fun “what ifs” but not trying to prove anything, here. I agree it’s a possibility, but not a certainty.”
Yes, but in this context “possibility” is also assigned to such things as the tooth fairy and the flying spaghetti monster.
“Question: Do you think this would be strong or weak evidence that this book of the Bible was copied carefully and accurately over that 1,000-year period?”
No offence man, but this really just sounds like you’re trying to get me to say “Yes, that would be strong evidence that that book of the bible was copied carefully and accurately over that 1000 year period” and then you’ll use that agreement to imply that the whole thing is accurate across the entire range of its existence. If you want to bring out an example (perhaps a scroll of isiah?) then please go ahead.
“I think we might be talking about apples and oranges, here. I’m not sure how you would define the word prophecy, but i would define it this way:”
That is possible, perhaps even probable.
At a most basic level, I would just say that a biblical prophecy is anything that is in the bible that makes a statement about the future or about facts they couldn’t possibly know about otherwise. However, there must be conditions imposed for me to consider it a ‘valid’ prophecy.
Hi Again,
Sorry about the delay in responding, I’ve been visiting the in-laws this weekend!
“Right, i was doing just a bit of fun “what ifs” but not trying to prove anything, here. I agree it’s a possibility, but not a certainty.”
Yes, but in this context “possibility” is also assigned to such things as the tooth fairy and the flying spaghetti monster.
“Question: Do you think this would be strong or weak evidence that this book of the Bible was copied carefully and accurately over that 1,000-year period?”
No offence man, but this really just sounds like you’re trying to get me to say “Yes, that would be strong evidence that that book of the bible was copied carefully and accurately over that 1000 year period” and then you’ll use that agreement to imply that the whole thing is accurate across the entire range of its existence. If you want to bring out an example (perhaps a scroll of isiah?) then please go ahead.
“I think we might be talking about apples and oranges, here. I’m not sure how you would define the word prophecy, but i would define it this way:”
That is possible, perhaps even probable.
At a most basic level, I would just say that a biblical prophecy is anything that is in the bible that makes a statement about the future or about facts they couldn’t possibly know about otherwise. However, there must be conditions imposed for me to consider it a ‘valid’ prophecy.
- The prophecy must be made BEFORE the events it prophecises! For prophecies about a previous event or fact, the propheciser must not be able to possibly know about the event or fact they are prophecising about. The reasons for this should be self-evident.
- It must have a date or time limit attached to it. For a mere human making a prophecy I would probably be a bit more lenient on the accuracy level of the dating, but for a human channelling an omnipotent, omniscient propheciser, I think it is reasonable to expect a higher level of accuracy. The reason for requiring a date is twofold. It saves time in debating “Is this event what he meant? Is that event what he meant?”. More importantly, it provides a key component of falsifiability. Prophecies with dates that have come and gone can be obviously written off as false. Prophecies with no date have too easy a “get out of jail free” card, and this makes them pretty weak in my opinion. Prophecies with future dates at least give us something to look forward to, though I suppose that if the prophet wants his distant-future prophecy to be remembered, he had better make some good predictions during his lifetime!
- It must not be fulfilled by people who could have heard of the prophecy. It would be preferrable if people, who naturally have an interest in the prophecies, had nothing to do with it. An example would be “On the 3rd of June 2008 a pig will fly, under its own power, around the world visiting every major house of parliament and will be seen by millions.”
- Ambiguity, vagueness, repetition, theatrics and poetry demonstrate a different purpose for a “prophecy”, such as a Nostradamus style all-purpose prophecy, or intimidation purposes, or allegory.
- It must be correct!
P
phooney
Guest
continued @Socrates4Jesus
How does the Tyre prophecy fare? Not too well I’m afraid.
(emphasis is mine)
So basically, this prophecy is a failiure as far as I am concerned. Sure, if you presuppose a God, and intentionally take the most favourable interpretations, you might be able to make this work on the level of a demonstration of internal consistency. Sort of the verbal equivalent of squinting your eyes just right and tilting your head to the left to try to make a magic-eye picture work.
Are my conditions for prophecy “fair” and my applications reasonable?
How does the Tyre prophecy fare? Not too well I’m afraid.
- As far as I can gather with a brief search, the oldest copy of Ezekiel is on some papyrus called P967 and is dated at early in the third century. This is WELL after Alexander the Great. I, of course, concede that there is nothing to say that P967 is the original document, and I would actually be surprised if it was. However, that being the case, who knows what the original wording was? And who had control of the texts? I don’t think that those in control were unbiased!
- No date attached. We can try to use the text itself to see what date was intended, and the most glaringly obvious is the name Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, which at least gives us a date range to work with. The prophecy did not come to pass within this particular date range. It is clear from Ezekiel 20:7-12 that it was supposed to be Nebuchadnezzar doing the fulfilling. The obvious defence is that Ezekiel also says “many nations” and though it is more parsimonious to suppose that this refers to the ‘many nations’ under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, like the many nations under the rule of Queen Elizabeth today, it also potentially opens the prophetic window to “from now until the end of time” which is just ridiculous.
- Fulfilled by people or a person. Note that I don’t believe that Alexander had heard of the prophecy beforehand. That said, the evidence that you have pointed to for God having spoken to Ezikiel is that the prophecy “came true” but if that is the only evidence that is required, it equally well supports the speculation that Alexander heard the prophecy from some unknown source. We know people spoke. We know people spoke about prophecies. We know Alexander spoke to people. We know he lived and invaded in and around the areas relevant to these prophecies. I want to repeat that I do not have evidence for Alexander hearing about the prophecy beforehand, and consequently do not believe that was the case, it is just a simpler explanation that matches with the “fulfillment” equally well.
- Ambiguity, vagueness: “found” ??? Going by your defence of this, God could have been saying “The square will never be a circle” because it could not be found purely by definition of what it was.
Is the water going over the city, or is the city going under the water? Yes I do think this is an important difference.
“throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.”
“when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you”
Repetition: “like the sea casting up its waves” “Out in the sea” “throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea” “bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you”
“make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets” “make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets”
“pull down her towers” “demolish your towers” etc
Theatrics and poetry: Pretty much the entire passage you directed me to. biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=26&version=31 - “You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.”
““The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur.” (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p9)”
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3…&t=h&z=16&om=1
(emphasis is mine)
So basically, this prophecy is a failiure as far as I am concerned. Sure, if you presuppose a God, and intentionally take the most favourable interpretations, you might be able to make this work on the level of a demonstration of internal consistency. Sort of the verbal equivalent of squinting your eyes just right and tilting your head to the left to try to make a magic-eye picture work.
Are my conditions for prophecy “fair” and my applications reasonable?
P
phooney
Guest
yet more continuation @Socrates4Jesus
“(1) How can a question be wrong? I can see how an answer can be wrong, but not how a question can, unless, of course, you are saying my questions are morally wrong. In that case, i’d be interested in knowing what sin i have committed so that i might learn from my mistake and repent of it.”
Maybe he is suggesting that you should do your questioning with a stone liberally applied to the skulls of non-believers, I’m not sure, he hasn’t really said anything coherent in this thread yet.
“Remember that you and i are trying to determine what Ezekiel meant by what he wrote. Do you think it is more reasonable to conclude that Ezekiel presupposed God or that he was an atheist like yourself?”
Well… when he was writing, he already believed in God, or was perhaps using common superstition for his own purposes. I don’t know? What is the relevance? I was talking about those interpretting what they can from Ezekiel, not what Ezekiel thought himself.
“He did not write that it would remain a bare rock forever, only that it would become one.” Um…“I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt”
You are starting to sound desperate, S4J! Don’t worry, we’ll welcome your intellect and considerate demeanour if you do stay true to your word and throw your lot in with us
“Here is a 19th century A.D. engraving of the site where the ancient city once stood:”
I wish the picture was bigger. From what I can see, it looks like a picture of a coastline FROM the coastline, which wouldn’t show any city detail anyway.
“If you could consider the binary computer language behind all programming code that is behind all the Graphic User Interface you take for granted every day, these series of ones and zeros are no accident. Would you agree?”
Come on now, I thought you were above a watchmaker argument!
“(1) How can a question be wrong? I can see how an answer can be wrong, but not how a question can, unless, of course, you are saying my questions are morally wrong. In that case, i’d be interested in knowing what sin i have committed so that i might learn from my mistake and repent of it.”
Maybe he is suggesting that you should do your questioning with a stone liberally applied to the skulls of non-believers, I’m not sure, he hasn’t really said anything coherent in this thread yet.
“Remember that you and i are trying to determine what Ezekiel meant by what he wrote. Do you think it is more reasonable to conclude that Ezekiel presupposed God or that he was an atheist like yourself?”
Well… when he was writing, he already believed in God, or was perhaps using common superstition for his own purposes. I don’t know? What is the relevance? I was talking about those interpretting what they can from Ezekiel, not what Ezekiel thought himself.
“He did not write that it would remain a bare rock forever, only that it would become one.” Um…“I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt”
You are starting to sound desperate, S4J! Don’t worry, we’ll welcome your intellect and considerate demeanour if you do stay true to your word and throw your lot in with us
“Here is a 19th century A.D. engraving of the site where the ancient city once stood:”
I wish the picture was bigger. From what I can see, it looks like a picture of a coastline FROM the coastline, which wouldn’t show any city detail anyway.
“If you could consider the binary computer language behind all programming code that is behind all the Graphic User Interface you take for granted every day, these series of ones and zeros are no accident. Would you agree?”
Come on now, I thought you were above a watchmaker argument!
P
phooney
Guest
@ontologysue
“Since, serrendipitously, I have both a dog and a 2 year old grandson at the moment, I can assure you, there is no relation between the language/consciousness development of the dog and the human.”
Cool. I assume you don’t also serendipitously have one of the more linguistically accomplished chimps that I was talking about, so your example is somewhat irrelevant unfortunately.
“I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying, Phooney, by continuing to use the term “immaterial.” I’m trying to demonstrate that some provable realities are not physical, therefore, not physically observable by the scientific method.”
That is entirely possible. You may need to clarify for me what you think there is besides the material though. I mean, those logical abstractions you mention are still representations of the material realm.
“The only reason the non-evolutionary explanation of language was pertinent was not because of a “God in the gap” argument, but simply to demonstrate that together with new discoveries in quantum theory and neuro-biology, a purely physical explanation of language is becoming less and less likely.”
It wasn’t an explanation though, was it? It was a “there is a mystery about the precise origins of our language, therefore goddidit.” When you say "Your “buts” here make my point, “it doesn’t appear to be used for language,” etc. " It kind of sounds like you are expecting other primates and animals to be naturally using some kind of human language, which would be far more mysterious than the current unknown origins, if you ask me.
Human language isn’t the only form that complex communication could take. It’s not like evolution had the goal of producing humans and human language, and I’ve given evolutionary reasons why the planet isn’t overrun with complex language.
Quantum theory really is some pretty crazy stuff, I’ll grant you! It has, however, yielded some wonderfully accurate theories/predictions, so it may not be beyond our understanding in the end. As Richard Feynman is supposed to have said "“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” but rather than postulating the non-physical (if you prefer that term?) it is perhaps better to rethink “what IS physical?”
I’m not sure what findings in neuro-biology you are referring to, unless of course you are classifying electricity and organic chemistry, etc outside the scope of material concepts?
“besides ,we know how you feel about “hypotheses!” (Is that the plural spelling?)”
Yes
“I do have question for you however, as a “materialist.” Why is it you enjoy the repartee of debating ideas, since, as a materialist, you should depict thoughts as “irrational products” of electro-chemical process in the brain?”
I might need to read that C.S. Lewis book you mentioned, as this doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would they be irrational products?
“( since everything is a result of meaningless, random and blind evolution,)”
This fragment is like fingernails on a blackboard.
“Since, serrendipitously, I have both a dog and a 2 year old grandson at the moment, I can assure you, there is no relation between the language/consciousness development of the dog and the human.”
Cool. I assume you don’t also serendipitously have one of the more linguistically accomplished chimps that I was talking about, so your example is somewhat irrelevant unfortunately.
“I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying, Phooney, by continuing to use the term “immaterial.” I’m trying to demonstrate that some provable realities are not physical, therefore, not physically observable by the scientific method.”
That is entirely possible. You may need to clarify for me what you think there is besides the material though. I mean, those logical abstractions you mention are still representations of the material realm.
“The only reason the non-evolutionary explanation of language was pertinent was not because of a “God in the gap” argument, but simply to demonstrate that together with new discoveries in quantum theory and neuro-biology, a purely physical explanation of language is becoming less and less likely.”
It wasn’t an explanation though, was it? It was a “there is a mystery about the precise origins of our language, therefore goddidit.” When you say "Your “buts” here make my point, “it doesn’t appear to be used for language,” etc. " It kind of sounds like you are expecting other primates and animals to be naturally using some kind of human language, which would be far more mysterious than the current unknown origins, if you ask me.
Human language isn’t the only form that complex communication could take. It’s not like evolution had the goal of producing humans and human language, and I’ve given evolutionary reasons why the planet isn’t overrun with complex language.
Quantum theory really is some pretty crazy stuff, I’ll grant you! It has, however, yielded some wonderfully accurate theories/predictions, so it may not be beyond our understanding in the end. As Richard Feynman is supposed to have said "“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” but rather than postulating the non-physical (if you prefer that term?) it is perhaps better to rethink “what IS physical?”
I’m not sure what findings in neuro-biology you are referring to, unless of course you are classifying electricity and organic chemistry, etc outside the scope of material concepts?
“besides ,we know how you feel about “hypotheses!” (Is that the plural spelling?)”
Yes
“I do have question for you however, as a “materialist.” Why is it you enjoy the repartee of debating ideas, since, as a materialist, you should depict thoughts as “irrational products” of electro-chemical process in the brain?”
I might need to read that C.S. Lewis book you mentioned, as this doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would they be irrational products?
“( since everything is a result of meaningless, random and blind evolution,)”
This fragment is like fingernails on a blackboard.
P
phooney
Guest
@mgrfin
“You can’t prove a negative. I don’t know why you guys are wasting our time?”
Which is why the burden of proof is on the side of those making the positive claim.
“You can’t prove a negative. I don’t know why you guys are wasting our time?”
Which is why the burden of proof is on the side of those making the positive claim.
- Status