My name says it all

[PennitentMan]

as to the other questions, how long are we going to keep dancing like this? you want to insist there must be a “who” where we dont have the answer yet. i simply cant do that

Correct. We can admit that we don’t know. We don’t necessarily have to ascribe that what we don’t know to an all-powerful god-being…that essentially just complicates the issue. There are many theories, including perpetual matter, parallel universes, etc.
The crux is that we don’t know, but just because we don’t know does most certainly not mean that by default it was god…or that there even is a god.

 

[RosaryFan]

i think its a good thing i finally did this. it definitely has me thinking.

That’s wonderful! I’ll pray for you. I’m going to Adoration this evening and I’ll say a prayer for your enlightenment.

Incidentally, if you have the opportunity to visit a parish that offers Eucharistic Adoration, you might want to consider a visit to the Blessed Sacrament. I find that sitting before the Blessed Sacrament really opens my heart and my mind to Jesus. It’s a tough road for those who feel they are losing their faith and a visit to the Blessed Sacrament (even if you doubt) is a perfect opportunity for our Lord to place some stepping stones in front of you.

 

[CentralFLJames]

there are lots of people claiming to be teachers and they all teach conflicting things which cannot be proven.

as to the other questions, how long are we going to keep dancing like this? you want to insist there must be a “who” where we dont have the answer yet. i simply cant do that

Something told me I just had to peek back in…

This so reminds me of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (by Doug Adams). I won’t give the story away but the “The Ultimate Answer” to *“Life, the Universe and Everything” *is 42. But the problem is the answer is mostly useless since no on truly knows “The Ultimate Question”. We do however have it on perfect authority that “it is known to be about the same universe (compare the uncertainty principle) as they will cancel each other out and take the Universe with them to be replaced by something even more bizarre (as described in the first theory) and that it may have already happened (as described in the second).”

Sorry I digress…

So just how long must we “keep the faith” and wait for science to deliver us from our bondage to utter ignorance to bring us out of the dessert of wandering into the long promised Unified Field Theory or the Theory of Everything?

Is faith in science any different than a false faith in a false god and idol worship?

In Christianity we know that there is an objective end and that the faith gets us to all the answers. Does science really offer us any realistic hope of doing the same? How many $100’s of billions of dollars are we going to invest in science to form theories about the universe? How many tithes will we collect to cover the $6 billion or so on the Hubble Telescope to watch spectacular images of God’s Creation before we get more than just a E-ticket tour through the cosmos? When do we get to go visit these place?

Christians have know for 2,000 years that God and His works are awesome - with much more to come on the other side. But where are the answers from Science? It’s been thousands of years and so far all we can do is launch the modern equivalent of Chinese bottle rockets to put people on the moon for a few days or go cloister them in space stations for a few months. Science is not delivering a return on the devotion we are giving it. At least in The Church we had the certainty of our metaphorical “flesh pots” (Exodus 16:3 ) with morning prayers and uplifting hymns. What has Science done for us lately?

How long “is fair”? How long must we wait for Science to give us the same certainty some here demand NOW from God and His Church ?

I have a fair amount of scientific background. I know that as scientific pursuit keeps peeling away the proverbial onion it just keeps on finding more mystery, more subatomic particles. It looks more and more like it’s all held together and ordered by principals and forces that have more a nature like faith and mystery than like anything who’s full physical nature we will ever understand. What if we find out the entire material world is held together by faith? What happens if atheists manage to obliterate faith?! Giant sucking sound?

My theory:
Science will never be able to create a single thing from nothing and if it did it would never be able hold onto it longer than an interval of time implied by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principal (6.626 068 96(33) × 10−34 J s ). Nope - not even an single cell creature. All humans will ever be able to do is emulate and exploit from somthing allready existing in nature.

**“As for Me and My House We Will Serve the Lord” – Joshua 24:15 **



James

 

[anEvilAtheist]

So just how long must we “keep the faith” and wait for science to deliver us from our bondage to utter ignorance to bring us out of the dessert of wandering into the long promised Unified Field Theory or the Theory of Everything?

Is faith in science any different than a false faith in a false god and idol worship?

Most atheists I know do not have faith that science will ever have all the answers. There is one question that I think both science and religion will never be able to solve: why does something exist rather than nothing?

In Christianity we know that there is an objective end and that the faith gets us to all the answers.

So does every other religion. What is important is whether those answers are correct.

 

[North_of_Nod]

Hi, fadingfaith.

I posted this elsewhere, but I think it might help you too. Here is some scientific evidence for God and against random life formation:

It is common knowledge (thanks to satellite data) that the universe had a beginning, so whatever (Whoever) created it could not have been subject to time or space. The laws of physics did not exist before the beginning of the universe, nor did anything physical. As God told Moses, “I AM,” meaning He is the infinite Creator of a finite universe. The sun, moon, and stars were positioned perfectly, and the earth was formed from a formless mass, as Genesis describes. It has also been proven that the order in which Genesis discusses creation is, in fact, scientifically accurate. There were no astronomers at the time of Genesis’ recording to have creatively hypothesized any other way. Also, the probability that any kind of life could have formed by chance is so minute, that the possibility is hardly worth considering. Please let me know what you think of this information:

Simply assembling the components to create the simplest kind of a cell would have about 1 chance in 10^112,827 chance of randomly happening. Any mathematician would agree that these odds are virtually zero. The reason for this improbability is that many things are necessary for the key components of DNA and protein chains to work properly. First, molecular orientation must be perfect for both. Second, only *life-specific *amino acids must be used. Third, the amino acids must be put in the proper place. Fourth, the correct material must be put in the right place for the DNA molecule. Fifth, the sequencing of genes must be correct for the DNA molecule to function. ALL of these requirements MUST be fulfilled. Further complicating the problem of proper assembly of the components of the first cell of life is the fact that time is limited. Even taking the largest scientific estimate of the age of the universe – fifteen-sixteen billion years, there is not nearly enough time for such an improbable event to even happen. Finally, even if everything miraculously came together, life would still need to be added to non-living matter. We have never seen this happen, nor do we know how to make it happen. The only alternative to the random “evolution” of the first living cell is special creation by a supernatural Source. (source: 101 Reasons You Can Believe by Ralph O. Muncaster, former atheist.)

If that is what it would take to form the simplest, single cell, there is no way that intelligent beings complete with a conscience could have formed by chance. Creatures do not evolve features for which they have no use. Personality, for example, is not vital to survival. The Lord created Man in His Image, giving him a personality and general likeness to Himself. Chemicals/chance do not yield personality; only personality begets personality. Additionally, the Bible, unlike the writings of false religions, does not contradict itself on any significant points during its span of thousands of years. Any claim to such fault is almost always the result of gross misinterpretation on the part of the individual. The Old Testament predicted Christ’s birth, crucifixion, and resurrection with 100% accuracy. We can be sure of this, because the Dead Sea Scrolls have been examined by many scientists (non-Christian included) and were proven to have been recorded long before Christ’s life.

There is definitely ample proof of God’s existence. If He provided anything more obvious, He’d be taking away our free will. God is all powerful, but He desires that we love Him by choice – not by force. After all, isn’t that the essence of real love? In short, it is a lot easier to prove God’s existence than to disprove it.

I hope this helps! I apologize for the length of my post. Gets off soapbox

 

[PennitentMan]

Hi, fadingfaith.
I posted this elsewhere, but I think it might help you too. Here is some scientific evidence for God and against random life formation:

It is common knowledge (thanks to satellite data) that the universe had a beginning, so whatever (Whoever) created it could not have been subject to time or space.

But your argument is based on the assumption that that “someone” actually created the universe. That’s not proof, it’s just another assumption or theory…just like parallel universes or perpetual matter are theories. It’s unproven.

 

[North_of_Nod]

But your argument is based on the assumption that that “someone” actually created the universe. That’s not proof, it’s just another assumption or theory…just like parallel universes or perpetual matter are theories. It’s unproven.

Well, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that there was absolutely nothing. We can measure when matter and time began to exist based on cosmological radiation left over from the beginning. Something cannot come from nothing; that is impossible. There would have to be material to make the something. Matter and energy cannot be created from *within *a closed system like the universe.Combined with the fact that Christianity fulfills Biblical prophecy down the smallest detail (i.e. the piercing of Christ’s side, unbroken legs, etc.), I’d say it’s hard to disprove the accuracy of the Bible - especially since the Old Testament has been dated without a shadow of a doubt. A recent calculation of Christ’s genealogy alone came out to be something like 1 in several trillion chances of being guessed correctly. The whole picture is really quite compelling.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Simply assembling the components to create the simplest kind of a cell would have about 1 chance in 10^112,827 chance of randomly happening. (source: 101 Reasons You Can Believe by Ralph O. Muncaster, former atheist.)

You really need to get a better source. Merely because someone is a former atheist does not give them credentials to assess things like this. If you were to ask scientists, I bet most of them would tell you that the odds are nowhere near this low.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that there was absolutely nothing.

We don’t know this. We have no idea what happened before Planck time.

Something cannot come from nothing; that is impossible.

This is also not something we know to be true. Physics doesn’t always behave as we expect it to, and if we discounted every theory that seemed weird to us, we never would have progressed beyond Newtonian physics.

With these two points, you are trying to make the Kalam cosmological argument. That argument is heavily debated, and even a lot of Christian philosophers or theologians (like Richard Swinburne) do not think it is a valid argument.

 

[North_of_Nod]

The first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy cannot be created in a closed system (like the universe), directly contradicts Einstein’s general relativity, which indicates that there was a beginning of time, matter, and space. How does one reconcile such a contradiction, when we know that both laws of physics are true? Only creation outside of human dimensions could account for both.

Even if we were to exclude the beginning of the universe, there is still a whole lot of guesswork that was done correctly between the Old and New Testament. Like I said, the Bible itself is very difficult to disprove based on its uncanny accuracy. If it had been purely the invention of a bunch of men over the span of well over a millennium, one would expect to find the Bible riddled with errors and false prophecies. I don’t see how the Bible’s astounding ability to predict the future could do anything but speak for its credibility.

 

[wxboss]

but since god cannot be proven, isnt faith a deliberate act of the will too? i think faith is a choice. and if its a gift why doesnt he give it to everyone? it seems cruel if he doesnt. why does he create some people without every giving them this gift? what is the purpose of their existence? to be put in hell because god didnt give them faith? none of that makes sense.

You’re exactly right. It is a deliberate act of the will. And while it is a gift, it is not doled out in the same way we think of Santa Clause delivering presents.

To use a crude example, you could liken it to having a winning lotto ticket only the winnings aren’t received until the person comes forward and claims them. The gift is available, but an action has to take place before it can be bestowed.

I think all of us wrestle with faith to one degree or another, but I’ve always found the words in Mark 9:24 to be comforting during those times as we read of a father who cried out to Christ for the healing of his son:

"Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief.”

 

[North_of_Nod]

You’re exactly right. It is a deliberate act of the will. And while it is a gift, it is not doled out in the same way we think of Santa Clause delivering presents.

To use a crude example, you could liken it to having a winning lotto ticket only the winnings aren’t received until the person comes forward and claims them. The gift is available, but an action has to take place before it can be bestowed.

Nicely put!

 

[anon5216]

fadingfaith,

Perhaps you don’t have a problem at all.

Perhaps you’ve finally realized that belief in something is not the thing itself.

So many people equate ‘faith’ with ‘strong and vigorously held belief’. Big mistake.

Are you sure what you really want is just a new strong and vigorously held belief?
What’s to prevent that from fading from your grasp again?
And even if you die still holding on to that belief, what’s to guarantee it was even remotely correct?
Personally, I’ve never met a person come back from death to tell me that their beliefs where well founded and actually paid off.

Perhaps you won’t be satisfied with anything less than direct spiritual experience - now — not in some mythical afterlife, but now.
Beliefs of various types may or may not lead you direct experience - but in no way can a belief, in and of itself, ever be considered that direct experience.

I may no longer be a Catholic, but I do agree that there have been plenty of examples of Catholics getting that direct experience of the Divine.
(I happen to also acknowledge that plenty of people have received that direct experience of the Divine via other religious and spiritual systems as well - regardless of seemingly contradictory beliefs).

The only thing I see as a real waste of time, is letting yourself be talked into a belief or set of beliefs that aren’t giving you direct experience.
Especially by people whose own lack of direct experience leads them to vigorously attempt to prove to you that you should share their interpretation of their beliefs.
That’s a pretty clear indication that their faith in their belief system is very weak, and they’re trying to bolster it via getting agreement and support from others.

So, how important is this spirituality thing to you anyway?

Do you have a genuine hunger for spiritual experience? An overwhelming pressing need? Do you feel like you’re suffocating or drowning from lack of spiritual ‘air’?
Or do you just want a bit of peace of mind, and hopefully feel convinced that whatever happens during your life, you have a ticket to heaven after death?

If the latter, there are plenty of people willing and eager to share the belief system that has given them that peace of mind.
If the former, you’re going to have to get brutally honest with yourself, take responsibility for your spiritual life, and dig deep into what ever spiritual tradition you feel at home in.

Catholicism may well be that home, but don’t think for a moment that mere membership and agreement with belief statements is going to get you any direct spiritual experience -
if, in fact, direct spiritual experience is what you are truly after.

 

[anon5216]

…
Simply assembling the components to create the simplest kind of a cell would have about 1 chance in 10^112,827 chance of randomly happening. Any mathematician would agree that these odds are virtually zero.
…

That would really depend on how many chances in this rather large universe there have actually been, would it it not?

If there were to have been, say (arbitrarily) 10^1,000,000,000,000 opportunities up until now, then the odds are mathematically quite high.

But of course, no one knows how many opportunities there have been or will be in the future.

 

[fadingfaith]

That’s wonderful! I’ll pray for you. I’m going to Adoration this evening and I’ll say a prayer for your enlightenment.

Incidentally, if you have the opportunity to visit a parish that offers Eucharistic Adoration, you might want to consider a visit to the Blessed Sacrament. I find that sitting before the Blessed Sacrament really opens my heart and my mind to Jesus. It’s a tough road for those who feel they are losing their faith and a visit to the Blessed Sacrament (even if you doubt) is a perfect opportunity for our Lord to place some stepping stones in front of you.

i love adoration actually. i went last month for the first time in about 4 or 5 years and went again a few weeks later. i dont know that i love it because i believe im with god or if i just enjoy the quiet and solitude (if im really in solitude ) and can think more clearly then. ive often thought that regardless of where i end up in my faith or disbelief id never give up an opportunity to bask in peaceful solitude.

 

[fadingfaith]

i’m glad youre back james

So just how long must we “keep the faith” and wait for science to deliver us from our bondage to utter ignorance to bring us out of the dessert of wandering into the long promised Unified Field Theory or the Theory of Everything?

why is ignorance bondage?

Is faith in science any different than a false faith in a false god and idol worship?

well its not exactly like my life is on hold as i anxiously await the next revelation from science. so far what science has revealed about the universe hasnt altered my life like faith had.

In Christianity we know that there is an objective end and that the faith gets us to all the answers. Does science really offer us any realistic hope of doing the same? How many $100’s of billions of dollars are we going to invest in science to form theories about the universe? How many tithes will we collect to cover the $6 billion or so on the Hubble Telescope to watch spectacular images of God’s Creation before we get more than just a E-ticket tour through the cosmos? When do we get to go visit these place?

Christians have know for 2,000 years that God and His works are awesome - with much more to come on the other side. But where are the answers from Science? It’s been thousands of years and so far all we can do is launch the modern equivalent of Chinese bottle rockets to put people on the moon for a few days or go cloister them in space stations for a few months. Science is not delivering a return on the devotion we are giving it. At least in The Church we had the certainty of our metaphorical “flesh pots” (Exodus 16:3 ) with morning prayers and uplifting hymns. What has Science done for us lately?

why must we look to something to do something for us? why not just enjoy life the way it is? why not just make the most of it for ourselves and for those around us? why must there be something else with something more to offer? one thing ive learned in my spiritual journey is the value of the present moment. rather than living for something to come (like heaven or reincarnation) why not just be totally mindful of where we are and what we area doing right now and make that our heaven on earth so to speak?

How long “is fair”? How long must we wait for Science to give us the same certainty some here demand NOW from God and His Church ?

im fine with the uncertainty concerning the universe. but the uncertainty concerning gods existence is preventing me from diving back into a religion. i cannot submit to something uncertain like religion expects me to.

I have a fair amount of scientific background. I know that as scientific pursuit keeps peeling away the proverbial onion it just keeps on finding more mystery, more subatomic particles. It looks more and more like it’s all held together and ordered by principals and forces that have more a nature like faith and mystery than like anything who’s full physical nature we will ever understand. What if we find out the entire material world is held together by faith? What happens if atheists manage to obliterate faith?! Giant sucking sound?

My theory:
Science will never be able to create a single thing from nothing and if it did it would never be able hold onto it longer than an interval of time implied by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principal (6.626 068 96(33) × 10−34 J s ). Nope - not even an single cell creature. All humans will ever be able to do is emulate and exploit from somthing allready existing in nature.

**“As for Me and My House We Will Serve the Lord” – Joshua 24:15 **

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...CMS_Higgs-event.jpg/180px-CMS_Higgs-event.jpg

James

i do realize what you and others are saying. i am looking at all of the natural explanations science has given us for so many things that were at one time attributed to god and using that as the basis to discount the existence of god when there still is no natural explanation for this complex and ordered nature in the first place. at least not right now. you continue to insert god as the answer for this unknown and i have given up attributing unknown things to god. i guess i cant entirely dismiss the possibility of intelligent design but i still dont think this means we understand the designer (if there is one), have had contact with him, know who he is, why we are here, etc. etc. and with all the conflicting religions claiming to have those answers i would never know with certainty i had picked the right one. they certainly cannot all be right. knowing the impossibility that i can know which is correct immediately turns me away from trying to know because it doesnt make sense for me to try to find out something i cannot possibly know. what if the designer of the universe made us for his amusement and he enjoys watching us struggle like a demented child torturing insects? we dont make up a god like that because its a scary concept, but it IS a possibility. i have no reason to believe any of the present concepts of god are correct no matter how appealing those concepts and claims may be. perhaps we made god up to be loving and compassionate because this is something humans crave. IF there is a designer to this universe he/it is far superior to us and we could never come close to ever knowing who or what he is.

 

[Shredderbeam]

That would really depend on how many chances in this rather large universe there have actually been, would it it not?

If there were to have been, say (arbitrarily) 10^1,000,000,000,000 opportunities up until now, then the odds are mathematically quite high.

But of course, no one knows how many opportunities there have been or will be in the future.

Also, remember that the first cell need not have been as complex as some are today.

The formation of a cell is not an all-or-nothing event. Presumably, it would happen in small steps, guided by natural selection, making it much less improbable for a cell to arise.

 

[fadingfaith]

Hi, fadingfaith.

I posted this elsewhere, but I think it might help you too. Here is some scientific evidence for God and against random life formation:

It is common knowledge (thanks to satellite data) that the universe had a beginning, so whatever (Whoever) created it could not have been subject to time or space. The laws of physics did not exist before the beginning of the universe, nor did anything physical. As God told Moses, “I AM,” meaning He is the infinite Creator of a finite universe. The sun, moon, and stars were positioned perfectly, and the earth was formed from a formless mass, as Genesis describes. It has also been proven that the order in which Genesis discusses creation is, in fact, scientifically accurate. There were no astronomers at the time of Genesis’ recording to have creatively hypothesized any other way. Also, the probability that any kind of life could have formed by chance is so minute, that the possibility is hardly worth considering. Please let me know what you think of this information:

Simply assembling the components to create the simplest kind of a cell would have about 1 chance in 10^112,827 chance of randomly happening. Any mathematician would agree that these odds are virtually zero. The reason for this improbability is that many things are necessary for the key components of DNA and protein chains to work properly. First, molecular orientation must be perfect for both. Second, only *life-specific *amino acids must be used. Third, the amino acids must be put in the proper place. Fourth, the correct material must be put in the right place for the DNA molecule. Fifth, the sequencing of genes must be correct for the DNA molecule to function. ALL of these requirements MUST be fulfilled. Further complicating the problem of proper assembly of the components of the first cell of life is the fact that time is limited. Even taking the largest scientific estimate of the age of the universe – fifteen-sixteen billion years, there is not nearly enough time for such an improbable event to even happen. Finally, even if everything miraculously came together, life would still need to be added to non-living matter. We have never seen this happen, nor do we know how to make it happen. The only alternative to the random “evolution” of the first living cell is special creation by a supernatural Source. (source: 101 Reasons You Can Believe by Ralph O. Muncaster, former atheist.)

If that is what it would take to form the simplest, single cell, there is no way that intelligent beings complete with a conscience could have formed by chance. Creatures do not evolve features for which they have no use. Personality, for example, is not vital to survival. The Lord created Man in His Image, giving him a personality and general likeness to Himself. Chemicals/chance do not yield personality; only personality begets personality. Additionally, the Bible, unlike the writings of false religions, does not contradict itself on any significant points during its span of thousands of years. Any claim to such fault is almost always the result of gross misinterpretation on the part of the individual. The Old Testament predicted Christ’s birth, crucifixion, and resurrection with 100% accuracy. We can be sure of this, because the Dead Sea Scrolls have been examined by many scientists (non-Christian included) and were proven to have been recorded long before Christ’s life.

There is definitely ample proof of God’s existence. If He provided anything more obvious, He’d be taking away our free will. God is all powerful, but He desires that we love Him by choice – not by force. After all, isn’t that the essence of real love? In short, it is a lot easier to prove God’s existence than to disprove it.

I hope this helps! I apologize for the length of my post. Gets off soapbox

thanks for your insight north. my reply to james above might be fitting for you also. how do we know that god gave us free will so that we would love him? like i said to james, how do we know god is not just amused by our struggles? certainly a loving god is appealing but it hardly seems consistent with life experience. i know how christianity has attempted to give meaning and understanding to suffering, especially catholicism, but what if that is just for our comfort and not really true? what if there is no meaning to suffering or what if suffering is just amusing to our creator, assuming we have one?

 

[Primox]

thank you primox. ive done things like this, i dont think ive ever stopped, and even when i think i have an answer i dismiss it because it seems unlikely to be from a god and not from my imagination, coincidences or something else explainable. i just cant attribute any of these things to god at this point. its not that life has handed me a hard blow recently or anything. things are actually really good for me and my family right now. we seem very blessed. i think more than anything i feel ungrateful for not attributing these blessings to god if thats where they originate but then again bad things happen to other people and should i attribute them to god?

I understand the concern. I don’t think getting red-in-the-face over what I believe will do anything for your faith, so i’ll leave the others in this thread to do that job . I’m glad to hear, circumstantially, that you are blessed. My prayers with you, FF. Good fortune in your quest for Truth, friend. =)

God Bless.

 

[steve_b]

, remember that the first cell need not have been as complex as some are today.

considering that in the beginning there was nothing made or created, to have the first cell appear from nothing IS a complexity one can’t fathom without an understanding of God.
shred:

The formation of a cell is not an all-or-nothing event.

Formation of a cell is a miracle in the first place. AND it’s a miracle that sustains its existence.