I am an atheist.

[Peter_Burke]

1. Why do you believe in god?
   There is no simple answer for my personal conviction that an almighty God exists and if I were to give a longer answer would require a response in itself. But I guess for one reason it it because of the impossibility of the opposite conclusion. In my reasoning I feel it it absolutely impossible for a God not to exist due to the assumptions we human beings clearly make about existence and life that tend to go unjustified, save for the fact that a God would exist. Take for example the scientist. What do scientists do? Well for one they assume that the universe in its whole is an intelligible entity, being that the universe can be known. Secondly they assume that there is the uniformity of nature. That the universe “somehow” sustains it uniformity and does not change. Lastly they depend on the general trustworthiness of the senses to reach any kind of scientific conclusion. In my view all 3 of these thing are assumptions that HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY, and yet are believed by every single scientist.

1.1 How is your religion different from any others?
Catholicism engages the mind and the soul. It deepness and theological wisdom surpasses any other theological system of belief in relation to man, God and the universe. It in my eyes is the only religion on the planet that can logically make any authoritative claims of faith and morals without falling to prey to inbreed contradiction and circular logic.

1. Do you believe that god will send me to hell, even if I live my life really well, but I just don’t believe in him?
   Can’t say. I’m not God. But even more so no human person has ever been sent to Hell. Confused? I don’t see why you would be since you are once a Catholic. The Church doesn’t oblige to believe anyone is actually in Hell. Why? Because human beings cannot see into the hearts of other human beings and that any human that could be in Hell is there on their own accord. Please research into the Catholic doctrine of Hell. Your views on Hell seem far to Protestant for this forum to swallow and act as if they are Catholic.
2. For what would you send a person for eternal torture?
   Like I said. No one is sent to Hell. Hell is the necessary place for people who choose to reject God. Hell is locked from the INSIDE not the outside.
3. Why do you think religion tends to contradict science?
   It doesn’t. Both deal with aspects of God’s truth. Science deals with the physical truths of the universe while religion deals with the spiritual truths as they are related to the spiritual and physical truths of the universe and since truth is not contradictory I am forced to conclude science and religion, when in their proper contexts, should never be at odds.

4.1 Do you think science tends to be correct, in fact a lot more than religion? (if no, why not?)
Your question is vague. If you could supposedly give an example of the inherent “rightness” of science and “wrongness” of religion we can continue with the question.

1. Do you think bible is the source of all moral?
   No. God is the source of all morals. The Bible is just where a lot of it is written down and Sacred Tradition is also a conduit of God’s revelation to man on the morals and faith of humans. And I also wont forget the human conscience instilled in all men to decide between right and wrong.
2. Do you think the ten commandments are perfect, and more than enough to guide your life?
   The Ten commandments are summarized as such: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart and soul and love you neighbor as you love yourself. In that light all the commandments fall into their proper place.

 

[legendashmore]

Uhh…ok. I’ll give some current ones… (once again this is from SOME religions, not catholics) Creationists, some christians believe that prayer works better than medicine. Some people thinks gays can help being gays. All kinds of useless rituals to help sick people. (that replace modern medicine) For example.

But I am referring much more to history, when science wasn’t so important.

Human curiosity. We always want to explain things. First it was by religion, now it is more and more with science.

Rape was also very common…have you read history books at all? Part of the reason some men used to war, was so they could rape the women!

Because people have always thought that gods needed sacrifice. It was very simple, they wanted something, lets say food, they look at stars, of so mighty, must be made by very powerful gods, so they thought gods could help them with their power, but gods must want something in return too.
(basic example)

Well, I did that. No, I didn’t read it, I have hardly time to reply everyone! (I will read it, when I have time)

Okay Really Stop it. You keep sidestepping my questions. I don’t want to keep quoting and quoting so I am making a new list we can quote from. (If I quote anymore from our already very fragmented conversation I would just confuse everyone)

1. I am talking about SCIENCE. What scientific belief contradicts religion? I am not talking about miracles or homosexuality. Is it the big bang theory - Oh Darn That was put out by a catholic priest. Is it the heliocentric Universe? - Nope, That is accepted by the church. Is it the theory of Relativity? - Nope Einstein himself believed that the theory of relativity helped prove God. My point in listing those scientist was to prove that those scientists themselves believed that science complimented and Proved the existence of God.
2. Where did that curiosity come from. Why do we have it?

3.Rape may have been common, but it was never considered okay. Many people rape people today, but do we consider it okay? Nope.

1. Let’s look at the causality of change. When you have a cause, you always have an effect. And that cause in itself was the effect of another cause. Something caused you to do that cause which was the effect of the first cause. Think of it like this: You need to write something on a piece of paper, so you pick up a pencil and write a word. That word on the paper is the effect of you picking up the pencil and you picking up the pencil was the effect of you needed to write something on the piece of paper.

So follow me on this one. If we see pollen being taken by a bee. The effect o fthe bee landing on the flower was pollen being taken. And the cause of the bee landing on the flower was it needed to make hone. And the cause of the bee needing honey was that they needed it for the queen. And the cause of the Queen needing the honey was she needed to eat. And so on and so on. We get all the way back to that first cause. There has to be a first cause, because we see the effect. That first effect, today, is considered the Big Bang Theory. You can’t have an effect without a cause and that cause is what we call GOD.


God Bless You!

 

[Contarini]

So why am I here? Well, I wanted to know if there is any reason for me to believe in a god. Most of the people here are Catholics, and it is one of the biggest religions, so I came here.

Well, for starters we need to straighten out this “god” business.

People have used the word “god” to refer to all sorts of beings who are more powerful than humans. So when you say that you want to know if there’s any reason to believe in “a god”–well, I’d say keep an open mind and watch Star Trek A very powerful alien would no doubt count as “a god” by many definitions.

But the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions are based on the idea that “gods” should not be worshiped. Just being more powerful than humans doesn’t make you worthy of worship. So even if there are such beings hanging around in the universe, that isn’t of religious significance from a monotheistic point of view. Such beings, like any other beings, should be honored or opposed or left alone based on their moral character and their relationship to ultimate truth, beauty, and goodness.

Monotheists believe that this ultimate truth, beauty, and goodness (hereafter TBG) does not just exist inside our minds, but rather that our minds and everything else that exists derive from TBG. We further believe that since TBG includes all perfections, it includes those perfections which are characteristic of persons. In other words, it isn’t just some kind of abstract thing, because then it couldn’t be the source of our personhood. Hence, we use personal language about TBG, and we believe that TBG is at the very least no less active and capable of interaction than we are. Since humans have used the word “god” to describe beings closer to TBG (sometimes just in very specific ways, like power or aesthetic beauty) than humans, monotheists have come to use the word “God” (always capitalized in English) to refer to TBG.

When atheists assume that the big question is whether there’s a class of beings called “gods” (of which monotheists, oddly, believe there to be only one true member), you’re determining the result of your inquiry before you ever start. The starting question, in my opinion is whether it’s reasonable to believe that TBG exists. Is it reasonable to believe that our moral intuitions, our aesthetic judgments, our capacity to think, and our very physical existence all derive from a common source, which is possessed of all perfections in an unlimited degree?

It’s fair to say that not all Christians agree with me that this is the way to approach apologetics. Many Christians (mostly Protestants) today think that this is an antiquated way of thinking overly dependent on Greek philosophy. And certainly you can start from the other end. We could look at the Hebrew Scriptures and the remarkable history of the Jewish people and ask whether it doesn’t look very much as if something beyond normal historical contingency was at work here. We could look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. We could look at the moral influence of Christianity in history–along of course with the dark side of Christianity and the way it’s been invoked to justify various forms of evil. And so on. There are lots of places where we could start. But to me the best place to start, if you’re an atheist, is with the question of whether TBG is a reasonable assumption in the first place.

I loved debunking other religions and supernatural beings, and laughed at the ease of destroying these things.

Did you understand them? Which religions are you talking about? I do not find Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, to be easy to debunk at all.

C. S. Lewis had a similar experience to yours, by the way.

I began to notice the huge difference between science and religion. I was thinking thoughts like these; "All these scientific things have clear rules, results, proof and logic, why doesn’t religion work like that?

Have you read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? He would argue that science looks like that because most science is done within certain assumptions which are not questioned most of the time.

How it effected science, and still does. (currently it effects evolution, yes I know only some Catholics don’t believe in it, but still a pretty huge percentage)

Wait a minute: you admit that many Catholics believe in evolution. So how can you blame the Catholic Church for the fact that some Catholics don’t? The Catholic Church has never denied evolution as far as I know.

And I wonder how fair and accurate your picture of the historical relationship between Christianity and science is. Often only selected instances are picked out. Ever wonder why we hear so much about Galileo? If there are so many examples of the Church condemning science, why don’t you hear a long list? The other examples given are usually fallacious–Bruno, for instance, was not condemned for his scientific theories.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

There are so many cases, where doctors say chances are zero…(what it actually means is, it is extremely likely that we can’t heal you, so we wont even bother)

And as I said, miraculous healing-type of things happen with every religion, care to explain?

They follow the tumors - by imaging methods, biopsies, biochemical lab tests. And they see that the tumors continue growing. They try various therapies, and if nothing works, they discontinue the therapy. The patient is on her own, the follow-up tests show the tumors growing and spreading. And then, the tumors suddenly disappear. There are certain kinds of cancers that go on spontaneous remission, e.g. testicular cancer. But not terminal liver cancer. Not bone-metastatic breast cancer. It has never happened. Except for Angela Boudreaux, and her terminal liver cancer in 1966. Except for a lady from Louisiana a few years ago, with recurrent breast cancer metastatic to the bone, who also prayed for Bl. Francis Xavier Seelos’ intercession.

I know of people of other religions (Muslims), miraculously healed at Zeitoun (Egypt) and Soufanieh (Syria), where the Virgin Mary appeared, and these people were praying for her help. God loves all of us, including Muslims. Holy Mary will intercede for all of us.

 

[legendashmore]

Peter Burke:
Good Answer!!
God Bless

 

[kildare]

• 1. Why do you believe in god? *
     Upbrining, experience, reading about history, though I think if I was shipwrecked alone on a desert island as a baby I would have grown up believing in a God. I think society (bad society) which separates us from Him).
  • 1.1 How is your religion different from any others?*
    I dont think you can compare or pick and choose religions. It has to touch your heart as being true. The other religions are all ok, and all preferable to no religion at all.

•  1.2 Do you actually have any logical reason to believe in god?*

I’ve no logical reason for not beleiving in God. I tried really hard to be an atheist but it ran counter to too much logical thought and personal experience. I cant accept that the Universe just sprung out from nothing. The history of science teaches us to beware of being so certain. I actually think I’m more of a scepetic than atheists. Catholicism is Faith and Reason. Science actually requires faith. The atheists are totally wrong.

• 1. Do you believe that god will send me to hell, even if I live my life really well, but I just don’t believe in him? *
     No, but its not important what I believe. I havent any idea what your situation is. There is one perfect judge and we’ll leave it to HIM to decide.
• 2.1 Do you think this is just?*
  He is also a most merciful God. You’ll get what you deserve, as we all will.
• 2.2 Would you do the same?*
  Read the book of Job. I wasnt there at the creation of the world etc. My brain cant accumulate all the information required to even judge myself let alone other people.

As for being in heaven, obviously it occurred to me that you cant bring angry (non loving thoughts). Time, unlike with us now, is standing still. Your choice is made.
*
3. For what would you send a person for *eternal ** torture?
The afterlife is not temporal, its outside time. Hell is separation from God, and I think you send yourself really.

*3.1 Would you send your child, who you love, also there?*

No point in answering these questions. Its like asking a chimp to write a novel or solve a complex equation.

4. Why do you think religion tends to contradict science?
I dont think it “tends” to. But on the rare occasion because the scientist or the religionist has insufficient information and makes unwise inferances from that information.

• 4.1 Do you think science tends to be correct, in fact a lot more than religion? (if no, why not?)*
  Science is about How? Religion is about Why? Apples and Oranges.
• 1. Do you think bible is the source of all moral?*
     Its got a lot in it, thats for sure.
• 5.1 If so, how do you explain my moral?*
  How do we know you are really moral?
• 1. Do you think the ten commandments are perfect, and more than enough to guide your life?*
     Perfect, because they come from God.
• 6.1 You see, the bible states, ‘thou shalt not kill’, yet on this and similar situations, you must use your own judgment. *
  Wrong, you are not willingly murdering someone.
  
  6.2 And what if the other person on the second track is your mother/father/child?

 

[Contarini]

1. Why do you believe in god?

Because I think it’s more reasonable to believe that our being has an eternal, unchanging, infinite source than that consciousness, aesthetic judgments, etc., evolved randomly. (Note: I have no problem with evolution as an explanation of how things happened. I’m saying that it’s most reasonable to believe that evolution happens in the first place because all of reality derives from ultimate TBG and has a tendency to move toward TBG.) Of course I could be wrong. But belief in TBG gives me a unified approach to life which a materialistic option does not. If I’m wrong–well, I guess I’ll never know, will I?

 1.1 How is your religion different from any others?

That’s a very complex question. Most basically, because I believe that God (TBG, who revealed himself to the Hebrews as “Yahweh”) became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, and that the historical Church is the body of Jesus on earth (though we have often failed miserably in this mission). On a somewhat more abstract level, my religion differs from the various traditional “pagan” religions in believing that God is not simply the preserver of the order of the universe but is acting to transform and redeem creation; from the Eastern religions in believing that God does this within a concrete historical narrative, and that God is most truly spoken of in terms analogous to personhood (this is complicated, because Eastern religions vary a lot among themselves); and from Judaism and Islam by believing that matter can be sacramentally imbued with the divine. (This is the basic assumption that allows me to believe in the Incarnation.)

However, my faith is not rooted in the belief that other religions are false. I am not required to have some account of whether and how they are false. On many points, many of them may be the “other side of the coin” from my own in ways I have trouble grasping or articulating.

  1.2 Do you actually have any logical reason to believe in  god?

Yes–Aquinas’s Five Ways are not a bad place to start, though do yourself the favor of actually reading them and trying to understand their cultural assumptions before you dismiss them (atheists typically misread them through modern lenses). I differ with Aquinas in thinking that these arguments are not solid proofs but merely probable. Duns Scotus has a much more complex and abstruse argument, which made sense to me when I read it fifteen years ago! And many modern philosophers have come up with “updated” arguments–I’m not as familiar with their work as with the medievals.

1. Do you believe that god will send me to hell, even if I live my life really well, but I just don’t believe in him?

I don’t believe that God “sends” people to hell. I think that at the end of the day either you have become the kind of person whose life is saturated with TBG, or you haven’t. If you have rejected TBG in whatever form you have known it in life, then when you see it more fully you will be less able to delude yourself into thinking that you can be happy without it. I think that it’s possible to “close in on oneself” in such a way that one is no longer capable of union with other humans or with God. (See Sartre’s No Exit.) And I think that it’s possible to do this while “living your life fairly well” by the rules of your society (or indeed by those of Christianity, if Christianity is seen just as a system of rules).

So I don’t agree with how you put the question in the first place. But if you mean “does God torture eternally everyone who hasn’t chosen consciously to believe in Christianity in this life,” then the answer is, “No, of course not–what on earth did they teach you in that Catholic school?”

 

[NotReligous]

I had to shorten some of your quotes…

…So I will try to answer your questions but at the end of the day no one but you can decide what you should believe and how you should live.

Ok.

1. Why do you believe in god?

…If you can prove god exists won’t you negate our free will? How can we prove an all powerful God exists and then not feel compelled to worship him? You will never find indisputable proof that God exists.

Yes, but if you leave no proof, how am I supposed to you?? Once again, millions of religions, even if I found out one was true, which one?

… I can’t tell you how many times I have had a close call or witness one for a family member and yet we came out alright.

I have almost died…hmm…I’d say four times. Luck, that is all…(I’d even say bad luck, I mean who almost dies four times at this age??)

…- I’m not just talking about I suddenly figured out a way to solve the problem. I don’t think the law of probability works that way. It seems to happen too often and too well.

Examples, please?

Religion (usually doesn’t matter what) does increase the happiness of your life. This is usually due the lack for fear of death.

…helps you out whenever you ask, sometimes sends you help and aid even when you don’t ask, is always willing to forgive you. But you never call this parent, you never thank them, you take all their gifts for granted or you outright mock/insult/waste their gifts.

To compare this to god, the parents would first have to leave me as an orphan, and the secretly help me by sending money or good friends etc. to me. Then when they’d wonder why I don’t love them, all I could say would be; “I never knew you helped me. You never even hinted me of your existence.”

…" Someone said earlier that God does not send us to Hell we send ourselves. This is very true, we choose not to accept God…so we have no protection from Satan and thus we are in hell.

I would choose him, if I would have any reason to assume he exists, and the knowledge of what religion is the correct one…

… It is about accepting there is more to life than just you. It is about thanking and serving the Lord who has given you a great gift of life.

I know there is more to life than me. The only thing ‘missing’ from my life is faith.

I do think it is just. If you are going to scorn the gift given to you, why should you continue to get gifts?

What about gifts I don’t even know I am receiving?

Would I do the same? I’d probably do worse…I’m human and don’t have God’s capacity of forgiveness.

I’d better watch out then.

I can’t send anyone to hell. I am not God. I do not have his knowledge, power or understanding. Frankly, it is a job I am not qualified for and would never ever want. No one can tell you who will be saved and who will be damned- we just don’t know.

There is a difference between would and could. I asked ‘for what’, this means you could even choose the situation. And also this is opinion related, it does not require infinite wisdom.

I’m probably going to get slammed for this. The Church run by humans, at times it ventures out of the religious and into the social, economic and political. Sometimes it makes mistakes.

Agreed…

… A lot of science is our best guesses and theories and there have been times it has been wrong. It wasn’t just the religious that thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe and it wasn’t only the religious that criticized new ideas.

Science is very, very rarely wrong when it is supported by evidence. There is a difference between hypothesis and a **scientific ** theory.

I

think God is the source of all moral. The Bible isn’t God it is the Word of God. You came from God so your moral starts with God but you can corrupt it. Read up on Catholic literature on the importance of developing a good conscience- it is really interesting (and it is good psychology too).

Sigh…I keep getting slammed for this mistake; I meant Is God the source of all moral?

Can the person on the other track hear me? If so I’ll shout out to him.

No.

… First of all, how do I know the five people can’t hear me? How do I know all I have to do is hit the switch? How can you be sure my brain is going to process everything that fast? Most people in this situation merely react they don’t have time to think things through. Most Catholics will probably be saying a lot of "Hail Mary"s very fast as they move to do something. Some people will just freeze in the horror of it.

Indeed, it was a very quick example, but the whole point was; can you kill one to save five people. I am sure there are mole likely scenarios.

…But can science tell me what to do either?

Ok, and no science can’t tell you either. This is a moral judgment thing.

Well I hope that helps. I’ll try to answer any other questions you have but it really is a matter of faith.

Which I don’t have…

Kat

[/QUOTE]

 

[estesbob]

What makes you so sure that the beginning if there was such a thing to “existence” was initially nothing? why is nothing existing more likely than something existing? you assume a creation to require a creator

before we can discuss how life comes from non-life we must first define what life is…there is no clear delineation in any school of thought what even constitutes life…sure people know life when they see it…but do they see non-life when they see it? do we ALWAYS recognize life as life?

to most people these are nothing but oddly shaped rocks…they are actually some fairly complex organisms that make rock as a by product of their food production…would you recognize this as a life form if you saw it along a beach?

LOL-so since you cant answer the questions you want to change the definitions!

Many people think this is an image of a lifeform becuase of the trail behind it. Actually its a rock

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Contarini]

1. Why do you think religion tends to contradict science?

I don’t think that’s a true assumption in the first place. Religious belief and specific scientific theories often wind up conflicting, because they start from somewhat different bodies of evidence and work by different rules. They correct each other. Stanley Jaki has made the case that Christianity is responsible for the existence of modern science in the first place. I think he may have overstated that case, but it’s not as absurd as a selective, secularized history of science would lead you to think.

Often a scientific theory appears to contradict religious belief because of hidden assumptions in both, which no one thinks to question. So, for instance, it’s not true that medieval Christians generally believed in a flat earth. But Christians did see problems with the standard round-earth theory, which said that there was another hemisphere on the other side of the world, inhabited by human beings who couldn’t possibly be related to us because we were separated from them by a fiery zone (the equator, which people logically but mistakenly assumed to be uninhabitable). The most common medieval view was that the world was round but that no one lived on the other side. A few Christians, such as Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius, rejected the round-earth theory outright, and some others, like Augustine, maintained an uncommitted stance. But few if anyone thought to question the assumption that the equator was uninhabitable, which was the simple solution to the whole problem.

The belief that all humans were descended from Adam and Eve made a difference when America was discovered. There’s a reason why, for all the oppression and degradation of which Spanish and Portuguese Catholics were guilty, they were more likely to recognize the basic humanity of Native Americans than were the English Protestants. The Catholic Church insisted that Native people were fully human and possessed of certain rights by natural law. This was implemented very imperfectly, but it did make a difference. So a belief that appeared to conflict with science in the Middle Ages turned out to be, by our standards, a highly “progressive” one.

4.1 Do you think science tends to be correct, in fact a lot more than religion? (if no, why not?)

First of all, the terms are too broadly worded. After all, there is a lot of bad science and a lot of bad religion. If “science” means “human beings using reason and evidence to explain the natural world” and “religion” means “human beings talking about and interacting with what they believe to lie behind the natural world” then I think that the question is a nonsense one.

I think that it is easier to construct scientific paradigms that will lead to accurate results most of the time than it is to discover/discern religious truth. But that’s because science a more limited endeavor. Where science most closely approaches religion–in theoretical physics–it starts running into the same sorts of difficulties and paradoxes.

Again, have a look at Kuhn sometime. He questions the whole idea of science as a progressive enterprise that leads to more and more truth. And he’s not doing so from a religious perspective, but as a historian of science.

1. Do you think bible is the source of all moral?

No, but I believe that the Bible is inspired by the source of all morals. However, the Bible has to be rightly interpreted. (Again, what were they teaching you in that Catholic school? As far as I know it has never been Catholic teaching that the Bible is the source of all morals.) For instance, the Bible appears to teach that sticking javelins into people while having sex (because an Israelite man is having sex with a pagan woman) is a highly praiseworthy act. In fact, what is praiseworthy is to be totally committed to the truth, but we are to do this as Jesus did–by giving ourselves over to death if necessary, not by sticking spears into other people.

 

[Contarini]

  5.1 If so, how do you explain my moral?

Since I know nothing about your morals, they do not require explanation
However, there are certainly moral people who know nothing of the Bible. Morality in someone who rejects the Bible is a less clear-cut case, since of course one can be deeply influenced by something that one formally rejects

Again, just who is teaching that the Bible is the source of all morals?

6. Do you think the ten commandments are perfect, and more than enough  to guide your life?

Not in their bare, literal sense, of course not. Again, this is such a silly proposition, and so far from anything that most Christians have historically believed, that it’s hard to take you seriously.

Furthermore, you misinterpret the nature of moral principles in the first place. They form the judgment–they do not give us absolutely specific guidelines for every real situation, let alone every difficult situation a clever person invents as a hypothesis!

It is a general moral principle that acting to kill people is much graver than allowing people to be killed. But Catholic ethics also speaks of the “double effect”–you can do something that will have an evil result as an indirect side effect. Indeed, apart from that principle we couldn’t do anything at all, since everything we do will have evil effects. You have to look at how direct the effect is.

In the case you describe, I don’t think I would flip the switch unless there was a slightly better chance that the one person could get out of the way. But that’s my own judgment. Again, the flaw in the way you put the question is that you assume that religion’s job is to provide some specific set of guidelines which will make judgment unnecessary.

And yet again: what did they teach you in Catholic school? What made you think that Catholic Christians claim this in the first place?

Edwin

 

[NotReligous]

I always find it ironic that those who embrace science the most cant answer questions the uneducated sheep herder of 2,000 years ago could answer with ease.

Yes, an millions of other people contradicting each other, with no actual proof to back up their star looking.

 

[Contarini]

Haha, I knew this question would come. Nevertheless, I shall answer it. First thing though, you did not reply to my questions, shame on you!

The short answer is; “I don’t know.” And before you start jumping for joy in your chair, I will tell you that you don’t know either. You say that god created it. But you don’t have any proof that god actually created it. You say it is because we don’t know anything that could have created the universe, so it must have been god. Well…no. You only presume god created the universe. As long as you have no proof, of the specific thing that created the universe, your ‘god’ does not mean anything.

Let me explain. Scientists don’t know what created the universe. They only say; “Something created it.” You say that that something is ‘god’. But as long as you don’t define your god, and give proof why it must be ** that** particular god, you are also saying; “something created it.” Why? Because god can mean so many different things. I can say my socks are god! God can be defined as anything, therefore it does translate to; ‘something created it’.

Indeed. And that’s basically how Aquinas defines God–the “something” that is the source of the universe we know. Aquinas thinks that we can deduce certain things about that “something.” However, as long as you agree that there is such a “something,” you are not an atheist, are you?

Your socks can’t be that “something.” Do I really need to demonstrate that to you, or are you just being silly?

Edwin

 

[legendashmore]

Hey NotReligious:
Those Quotes weren’t mine. They said legendashmore, but they are not mine. There must have been an error on the system Could you answer my questions?

 

[NotReligous]

1. I am talking about SCIENCE. What scientific belief contradicts religion? I am not talking about miracles or homosexuality. Is it the big bang theory - Oh Darn That was put out by a catholic priest. Is it the heliocentric Universe? - Nope, That is accepted by the church. Is it the theory of Relativity? - Nope Einstein himself believed that the theory of relativity helped prove God.

Once again, the only thing I was saying, that some religions go against science. That is it. I never said that science and religion are always in conflict.

My point in listing those scientist was to prove that those scientists themselves believed that science complimented and Proved the existence of God.

The best way for me to reply you, is by this video. Watch it all. It is called; “Why don’t scientists fear hell?”

[

1st page, 4th post.[

1. Where did that curiosity come from. Why do we have it?

]()

3.Rape may have been common, but it was never considered okay. Many people rape people today, but do we consider it okay? Nope.

1. Let’s look at the causality of change. When you have a cause, you always have an effect. And that cause in itself was the effect of another cause. Something caused you to do that cause which was the effect of the first cause. Think of it like this: You need to write something on a piece of paper, so you pick up a pencil and write a word. That word on the paper is the effect of you picking up the pencil and you picking up the pencil was the effect of you needed to write something on the piece of paper.

So follow me on this one. If we see pollen being taken by a bee. The effect o fthe bee landing on the flower was pollen being taken. And the cause of the bee landing on the flower was it needed to make hone. And the cause of the bee needing honey was that they needed it for the queen. And the cause of the Queen needing the honey was she needed to eat. And so on and so on. We get all the way back to that first cause. There has to be a first cause, because we see the effect. That first effect, today, is considered the Big Bang Theory. You can’t have an effect without a cause and that cause is what we call GOD.


God Bless You!

](

)

 

[Contarini]

Uhh…and what makes you think that these people actually were close to god? For there are millions of religions, and only one of them would be ‘close to god’

What is your reason for this assumption?

And there aren’t “millions” of religions. There are only three that have spread far beyond their original cultural contexts: Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Add Judaism and Hinduism, which are more culturally limited but which make claims that fit will with the beliefs of others outside the religions proper and do not fit very well with each other, and you have five. I suppose you could argue that Jainism and Zoroastrianism are different enough from the others to count, in spite of their much more restricted historical appeal. I would say that tribal religions across the world fit in quite well with one of the above, but if you want to we can count them all as more or less one religion. That makes eight. Any other candidates?

Of course, I assume that you are defining this reasonably, to mean “religions with mutually incompatible claims and approximately equal claims to truth in the eyes of a reasonable outsider.” Of course anyone can make up some silly idea and call it a religion, just as anyone can come up with a crank idea and call it science. But if you are talking about religions that have some degree of staying power and have appealed to a significant number of not obviously silly or dishonest people, then the number is much more limited than you think.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“Will god send me to hell, if I don’t believe in him.? If you don’t know, why should you believe in him in the first place?”

Are you under the impression that the main reason to believe in God is so as not to go to hell?

And in the second place, there is obviously a huge moral difference between disbelieving in God because you think the evidence doesn’t support belief, and disbelieving in God because you don’t think it’s worth the trouble unless the threat of hell is held over you.

A person in the second category is likely to be in serious spiritual trouble whether they believe (intellectually) in God or not.

Edwin

 

[NotReligous]

Indeed. And that’s basically how Aquinas defines God–the “something” that is the source of the universe we know. Aquinas thinks that we can deduce certain things about that “something.” However, as long as you agree that there is such a “something,” you are not an atheist, are you?

Your socks can’t be that “something.” Do I really need to demonstrate that to you, or are you just being silly?

Edwin

The only difference is, that I don’t define god as the beginning, but many of you tend to. I define god as the god of any religion.

 

[NotReligous]

Are you under the impression that the main reason to believe in God is so as not to go to hell?

No, but that does not reply my question.

 

[SOTER502]

Haha, I knew this question would come. Nevertheless, I shall answer it. First thing though, you did not reply to my questions, shame on you!

The short answer is; “I don’t know.” And before you start jumping for joy in your chair, I will tell you that you don’t know either. You say that god created it. But you don’t have any proof that god actually created it.

from my personal virtual library :

Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem

elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/godels-incompleteness-theorem-t274.htm

**We have plenty of evidence of Gods existence. **

elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-t5.htm

one, no atheist has topped , is this one :

cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2. All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.