New member, looking for discussion

[wasmit]

Reply to WASMIT

There are several excellent books that use biblical evidence, but more important, the external historical evidence supports scripture and proves the important dogmas of the Catholic faith----such an the issue of infallibility of the Pope, an existing organization with Headship, and most important the actual Body of Christ given to us to consume. Like I say, History proves that this was taught by Jesus and believed well before the gospels were actually written. I have taken the time to write a discourse on the apologetics to prove this, **but it is too lengthly to e-mail, since it results in 45 pages from my word processor. **However, I would gladly mail you a copy of this Discourse for your analysis, and if you still had questions afterwards, I could deal with your specific questions on this site or by personal email.

The bolded is clearly a lie.

You can post your document on these forums if you are willing to open it up to public scrutiny, or PM me with it if you are not.

I am not giving anyone my address

 

[wasmit]

I’m more into Intelligent Design than Young Earth Creationism. You were responding to a quote, not mine. Besides, God could have performed His great feat in a split second of time if He had wanted to, and what we see is only how we perceive it. The senses can deceive us mightily.

The bolded has been shoen to be true, which is why I have great trouble believing personal subjective acccounts, such as visions, dreams, etc.

 

[wasmit]

No, He didn’t “create the decision.” He created us, and He imbued us with free will, and when He created us, He observed us making all of the decisions of our lives, quite freely. He did not make any of those decisions for us.

however, when he created humans, he could have easily changed one of my or your particular decisions, therefore, he chose the outcome of everyone’s decision at the moment of creation.

said another way, he created everyone with the knowledge of every decision that is made. At creation, he could have changed any of these decisions. therefore, he made every decision for every person.

 

[wasmit]

You said:
“There has never been proof that the copies are true to the originals (we have no originals). There has never been proof that the alleged quotes of Jesus were actually his words (this is not even possible to prove). It is also not possible to prove that the Holy Spirit insured accuracy in all or any of these selected writings.”

Mr. Wilbur006, you didn’t answer Mr. Anon5216’s points that he brought up.

 

[wasmit]

everything is caused. It just doesn’t happen from nothing.

I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum annd radioactive decay.

A first rule of science is, something at rest will remain at rest indefinitely until moved by something.

There is no first rule of science.

If you don’t know what caused the big bang then you are believing in something you can’t prove. THAT’S faith NOT science.

Belief is 100% certainty. Not-knowing is not 100% certainty. They are clearly different things. It is OK to be unsure.

That’s false also. If the main subject of a hypothesis can’t be proven then you are forcing a belief about something based on faith NOT scientific fact.

Belief is 100% certainty. Not-knowing is not 100% certainty. They are clearly different things.

Something can’t come from nothing. You MUST have a cause that is provable or you have a belief based on faith NOT science.

I can think of at least one thing coming from nothing:
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum

Belief is 100% certainty. Not-knowing is not 100% certainty. They are clearly different things. It is OK to be unsure.

 

[wasmit]

College professors won’t give wiki the time of day.

getting back on track, I gave a list of religions, which happened to be on wikipedia. My point was that a great many of them claim to be true, which was in response to you saying: “As far as I know only one religion claims to be the fullness of truth.”. Do you have a substantial response to this point?

 

[wasmit]

how is the bible true and the koran not?

 

[rookieonedge]

wasmit:
The Bible revolves around a God-Man named Jesus (Jeshua de Nazareth), while the Koran, though it mimics parts of the Bible, is basically a mish-mash of verses which followers of Mohammed put together (since Mohammed was illiterate). Mohammed never claimed to be God, but Allah’s prophet, whereas Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead. Jesus is COOL!

 

[rookieonedge]

getting back on track, I gave a list of religions, which happened to be on wikipedia. My point was that a great many of them claim to be true, which was in response to you saying: “As far as I know only one religion claims to be the fullness of truth.”. Do you have a substantial response to this point?

Although this question wasn’t addressed to Rookie, I thought I’d toss in a few thoughts. In the first place, the OT documents contain some 300 prophecies which speak of the Messiah, the Christ. I have a booklet that looks at a few of these prophecies. The OT and NT must be understood together, like figuring out a puzzle.

“Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He (Jesus) explained to them what was said in all the scriptures concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)

 

[rookieonedge]

Mr. Wilbur006, you didn’t answer Mr. Anon5216’s points that he brought up.

Mr. Wilbur’s post explains Catholicism in a nutshell. A problem for atheists is infallibility.

The gift of infallibility exists because otherwise it could not be that Jesus would be able to fulfill what he promised His disciples that He would be with them always, even to the consummation of the world.

 

[rookieonedge]

however, when he created humans, he could have easily changed one of my or your particular decisions, therefore, he chose the outcome of everyone’s decision at the moment of creation.

said another way, he created everyone with the knowledge of every decision that is made. At creation, he could have changed any of these decisions. therefore, he made every decision for every person.

I have a question for Mr. McCrae who is very knowledable about theology/apologetics and related stuff. It is similar to Mr. Was’ question about God being able to choose “the outcome of everyone’s decision at the moment of creation.” My question involves prayer for people to make a correct decision about some moral issue. Does enough, or the right amount of prayer/fasting in God’s eyes determine that He can then change the mind of someone who is set upon doing evil to turn that person’s human emotions/will around so as not to perform the evil? So is God making that decision?

Thank you in advance for a response to my humble offering.

 

[rookieonedge]

The bolded has been shoen to be true, which is why I have great trouble believing personal subjective acccounts, such as visions, dreams, etc.

I do too, except for my own.

 

[rookieonedge]

if he is omniscient, he knows all his future actions and decisions, and therefore cannot change his mind. therefore he is not omnipotent.

Further, my quote above was in response to your point about free will. If the christian god created all humans, and with omniscience at the time of creation he knew all actions and decisions of all the humans he created, he was making every decision for every person. Therefore free will does not exist, because the christian god created all humans with every decision already made on their behalf.

So God created the decision for me to have a beer today, maybe a couple. It wasn’t my free will. He forced me to open the fridge and take out a Bud Lite.

 

[wasmit]

The bolded[senses can be easily tricked] has been shoen to be true, which is why I have great trouble believing personal subjective acccounts, such as visions, dreams, etc.

How do you know that a vision of, say, the devil or mary is divinely created? How do you know that the smoke/curtains/blood/cheese toast/dream/hallucination just happened to roughly resemble the picture of mary that you see every day?

This is just a few blobs of black on a white background. What can you see?

http://www.visionarts.ca/images/cow420.jpg

 

[wasmit]

So God created the decision for me to have a beer today, maybe a couple. It wasn’t my free will. He forced me to open the fridge and take out a Bud Lite.

Yes, that is the conclusion that logically follows from a omniscient and omnipotent god that created humans. He knew you would have a beer on 11 feb 09, and could have created you so that you had an oranje juice or water instead, but chose that the result of that decision would be a beer.

 

[rookieonedge]

Having faith in faith?

:hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

“When you seek Me with all your heart, you will find me.”
Have faith in that verse and you will find God. I did. Now I don’t need faith (except to believe that God is working in my life and is sitting at my side at this moment. Remember: His Spirit is everywhere, but His Real Presence is in the Sacred Host and the wine that substantially becomes His blood. As I stated before, we can’t trust our senses. What we see are bread and wine, but the substance has changed.

Philosophers such as David Hume (an empiricist) can’t logically admit substances because they restrict knowledge to the observable, and substances are not observable in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. “Briefly, the substance is the underlying reality beneath the appearances we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. A thing is more than a bundle of sensed phenomena: It is something having these phenomena. The substance is the essence, the basic nature, of the thing.”

As you can see, this line of reasoning opposes the existentialist philosohy which claims that “Existence preceeds essence.”

 

[wasmit]

I have a question for Mr. McCrae who is very knowledable about theology/apologetics and related stuff. It is similar to Mr. Was’ question about God being able to choose “the outcome of everyone’s decision at the moment of creation.” My question involves prayer for people to make a correct decision about some moral issue. Does enough, or the right amount of prayer/fasting in God’s eyes determine that He can then change the mind of someone who is set upon doing evil to turn that person’s human emotions/will around so as not to perform the evil? So is God making that decision?

Thank you in advance for a response to my humble offering.

in relation to the omnipotence/free will/omniscience contradiction, god knew that this person’s mind would change on this date on this particular issue. he created all humans (including our subject) knowing that this decision would be made. He could have created this person so that their mind wouldn’t change. The point is that the choice was god’s at the moment of creation. Therefore there is no free will.

 

[wasmit]

The Bible revolves around a God-Man named Jesus (Jeshua de Nazareth), while the Koran, though it mimics parts of the Bible, is basically a mish-mash of verses which followers of Mohammed put together (since Mohammed was illiterate). Mohammed never claimed to be God, but Allah’s prophet, whereas Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead. Jesus is COOL!

how does this show that the bible is true and the koran is not? I don’t follow your argument.

 

[rookieonedge]

I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum annd radioactive decay.

How do you know these virtual particles were spontaneously generated? Maybe the FSM generated them. LOL

There is no first rule of science.

I agree that an object in motion will continue in motion unless impeded by friction or whatever, and an object that is stationary will remain so unless a force impels it. That is an elementary law of physics if not the “first rule of science”.

Belief is 100% certainty. Not-knowing is not 100% certainty. They are clearly different things. It is OK to be unsure.

Belief is 100% certainty. Not-knowing is not 100% certainty. They are clearly different things.

I can think of at least one thing coming from nothing:
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum

Belief is 100% certainty. Not-knowing is not 100% certainty. They are clearly different things. It is OK to be unsure.

 

[wasmit]

“When you seek Me with all your heart, you will find me.”
Have faith in that verse and you will find God. I did. Now I don’t need faith (except to believe that God is working in my life and is sitting at my side at this moment. Remember: His Spirit is everywhere, but His Real Presence is in the Sacred Host and the wine that substantially becomes His blood. As I stated before, we can’t trust our senses. What we see are bread and wine, but the substance has changed.

Philosophers such as David Hume (an empiricist) can’t logically admit substances because they restrict knowledge to the observable, and substances are not observable in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. “Briefly, the substance is the underlying reality beneath the appearances we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. A thing is more than a bundle of sensed phenomena: It is something having these phenomena. The substance is the essence, the basic nature, of the thing.”

As you can see, this line of reasoning opposes the existentialist philosohy which claims that “Existence preceeds essence.”

I think i’m in the same boat as david hume in relation to your discussion of substances. As far as I can tell, they are just made up, like my friend the Invisible Pink Unicorn.