Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[Sair]

Yes, the lack of evidence is quite telling.

This is especially egregious from someone who has demanded evidence for so many other areas of thought here on the CAFs.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8490554&highlight=evidence#post8490554
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6209852&highlight=evidence#post6209852
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6199508&highlight=evidence#post6199508
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6151271&highlight=evidence#post6151271
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6149127&highlight=evidence#post6149127
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5976353&highlight=evidence#post5976353

Does that mean it’s egregious for you to reject faith in the ability of an atheist to “jump off the high dive”, as you put it, since you believe in so many other things without evidence? Tertullian must be turning in his grave…

 

[ReapReason]

Does that mean it’s egregious for you to reject faith in the ability of an atheist to “jump off the high dive”, as you put it, since you believe in so many other things without evidence? Tertullian must be turning in his grave…

Why do you describe yourself as a pantheist? What does that mean to you and where is your evidence?

 

[PRmerger]

Wow. When it comes to other posters, you are well researched. Me, I forget who said what.

Search function. Very easy.

 

[PRmerger]

Does that mean it’s egregious for you to reject faith in the ability of an atheist to “jump off the high dive”, as you put it, since you believe in so many other things without evidence? Tertullian must be turning in his grave…

Right now, I am using the atheist paradigm.

I thought you got that.

So you can see how untenable your atheistic position of “I’m not going to believe in something unless I have evidence for it. And the evidence must be of criteria A, B, and C” is.

When *you *are placed in the position of providing evidence using your own atheistic criteria, you see how ludicrous what you have been demanding as an atheist is.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Search function. Very easy.

It’s a tradeoff – how much I care v. how much effort it takes.

Alan

 

[Sair]

Right now, I am using the atheist paradigm.

If you were, you’d see immediately why your “argument” is invalid…

 

[Sair]

Why do you describe yourself as a pantheist? What does that mean to you and where is your evidence?

What it means to me is primarily an emotional response to the natural world, an awareness that it is nature upon which I depend for every aspect of my existence - including the sense of awe that comes from appreciating the vastness and complexity, the intricacy and beauty of the universe. I have no need, and no desire, to ascribe these things to an ultimately anthropomorphic supernatural deity. As for evidence, it is all around us - what religious believers take to be evidence of their god(s), I take to be evidence of entirely natural phenomena, the more remarkable for being so.

 

[atheistgirl]

What it means to me is primarily an emotional response to the natural world, an awareness that it is nature upon which I depend for every aspect of my existence - including the sense of awe that comes from appreciating the vastness and complexity, the intricacy and beauty of the universe. I have no need, and no desire, to ascribe these things to an ultimately anthropomorphic supernatural deity. As for evidence, it is all around us - what religious believers take to be evidence of their god(s), I take to be evidence of entirely natural phenomena, the more remarkable for being so.

Oh.

I might be a pantheist



Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a tradeoff – how much I care v. how much effort it takes.

Alan

It’s the easiest thing in the world, Alan. It even highlights the word for you; in this case, it highlighted the word “evidence” as Sair used it over, and over, and over again…demanding evidence for Christian belief du jour.

Yet, the evidence for her belief in the possibility of the existence of the PAK is, curiously, not forthcoming.

 

[PRmerger]

As for evidence, it is all around us - what religious believers take to be evidence of their god(s), I take to be evidence of entirely natural phenomena, the more remarkable for being so.

And there you go: I will apply that to any evidence you provide for this Phantom. I will proclaim it to be just a natural phenomenon.

You cannot deny me this paradigm, can you, Sair?

 

[ivebeenshown]

an awareness that it is nature upon which I depend for every aspect of my existence

How would you demonstrate that nature depends only upon itself for its existence (if that is in fact what you hold to?)

 

[PRmerger]

If you were, you’d see immediately why your “argument” is invalid…

Right.

The atheistic argument that demands proof for God’s existence that requires, for example, no eyewitness accounts (for they are “notoriously unreliable”) is invalid.

 

[Sair]

And there you go: I will apply that to any evidence you provide for this Phantom. I will proclaim it to be just a natural phenomenon.

You cannot deny me this paradigm, can you, Sair?

Of course I won’t deny this - what other reasonable option is available, than to say that selfless love and sacrifice is part of the natural spectrum of human capabilities?

 

[Sair]

How would you demonstrate that nature depends only upon itself for its existence (if that is in fact what you hold to?)

The burden of proof is upon those who claim undemonstrable sources for the existence of natural phenomena…

 

[ivebeenshown]

The burden of proof is upon those who claim undemonstrable sources for the existence of natural phenomena…

I didn’t ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to demonstrate a proof for your implied positive assertion that the natural universe is self-sustaining.

 

[Sair]

I didn’t ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to demonstrate a proof for your implied positive assertion that the natural universe is self-sustaining.

First of all, it is the most parsimonious assumption, given the preponderance of evidence for natural phenomena in contrast to the near absolute lack of evidence for supernatural phenomena - and this despite millennia of human curiosity and investigation as to the origins of our existence. Secondly, actual cosmological research is increasingly pointing to the capacity for the universe as we know it to have been self-generating. Lawrence Krauss’s A Universe From Nothing is only the most recent popular work on the subject.

Indeed, in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary, it is with absolute sincerity that I would ask, why believe in any supernatural god? What does such a hypothesis bring to the overall human experience, except as an intellectual artifact?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I won’t deny this - what other reasonable option is available, than to say that selfless love and sacrifice is part of the natural spectrum of human capabilities?

Good.

Then if you could provide the name of this person in question, evidence for his atheism, what he did that was a great act of sacrificial love in dying for another (oh, and the name of the person for whom he died)…then I will consider the evidence using the atheistic paradigm–of which you stated, above, you will not deny me use of.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary, it is with absolute sincerity that I would ask, why believe in any supernatural god?

Well, because it’s true.

Is there any other valid reason to believe something, Sair?

 

[ivebeenshown]

First of all, it is the most parsimonious assumption, given the preponderance of evidence for natural phenomena in contrast to the near absolute lack of evidence for supernatural phenomena - and this despite millennia of human curiosity and investigation as to the origins of our existence.

Regardless of any particularly proposed phenomena (such as the resurrection of Jesus), you can easily infer from observing natural/physical reality that there must be some supernatural being, even without going to the point of ascribing personality to it.

Secondly, actual cosmological research is increasingly pointing to the capacity for the universe as we know it to have been self-generating. Lawrence Krauss’s A Universe From Nothing is only the most recent popular work on the subject.

But do you understand what they propose, or do you trust them in faith?

If you can observe that you are not self-sustaining, your house is not self-sustaining, this planet and solar system and even galaxy are not self-sustaining, and that each of these physical things I have mentioned are made up of smaller physical things that are not self-sustaining, why would you assume that anything physical could be self-sustaining?

Indeed, in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary, it is with absolute sincerity that I would ask, why believe in any supernatural god?

Why believe?Because it is good to believe what is true; thus far there is no effective demonstration for a self-sustaining property in any physical thing or being. One can accept one of two propositions – that physical being is self-sustaining, or that physical being is sustained by some non-physical self-sustaining being – but the acceptance of either proposition is done in faith and not in the face of cold, hard evidence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Lawrence Krauss’s A Universe From Nothing is only the most recent popular work on the subject.

Just heard of this book today on Colbert Report. Now that it’s gotten the Colbert Bump (video here. see time marker 13:41 is you are in the USA)I’m curious and plan to check it out. The audio book is only 5.5 hours. The interview looked kind of interesting. I can’t say I am familiar with his work. But his name is mentioned in these forums so much it will be nice to have some reference to who is being discussed.