Questions from an Agnostic

[hurst]

Hubriss:

You say I must challenge the skeptics and keep faith in my creator, but I can only do that if I am faithful to my creator. I would actually think I’m doing what you’re saying, except the opposite as I was born and raised a Catholic.

You are truly perverse if you believe doubt and doubt belief.

It is one thing to be uncertain and seek for answers, but you are on the attack - only you are not attacking evil. You have joined with those who are attacking the good. You must at least acknowledge that you have joined with those who deny the supernatural Good. You have thus joined with murderers of the supernatural soul, which must have faith in God to obey Him and live.

Hubriss:

I’ve decided to not bow down to their derision and to think about it for myself,

Why not think for yourself why God is more true? Do you scorn the discipline of obedience?

Is it derision for an evil person to be called evil? Rather, you are the one implicitly deriding faithful people for being faithful.

Hubriss:

and I’d suggest you at least try to not put yourself down all the time, thinking you can only survive with God, because each and everyone of us is going to end up the same, so you don’t really have to worry about it.

Are you saying you have found hope without God?

As I said, God is the source of all our existence. You perhaps are not recognizing what “God” stands for.

You cannot escape God. Whether in heaven or hell or earth or under the earth, He holds all in His power.

We will not all end up the same. Even if we all die, we will be called to judgment and be given a sort of action-begets-reaction reward according to all that we did. Do you believe in Newton’s Laws of motion? Don’t you think the “universe” will apply that at all levels?

Hubriss:

I first assume that there is no God, and cannot find evidence for him. You assume there is a God, and the evidence is based on that assumption.

You are patently unfair to God. Would you assume a skyscraper has no architect until you have evidence and proof? Don’t you see how foolish the approach is that you have adopted? Truly scripture says that God hides things from those who think they are wise, and shows them to little children who submit humbly to Him.

Hubriss:

I am interested in your answers it is just that there is only one argument that can partially prove the existance of some god or higher being (that doesn’t necessarily have to even exist anymore). Or it could just be that the universe IS god. And why do you think I am here? I’m trying to get answers.

Blessed be God for the freedom He has given you to discover Him. May you be fair to your Creator, and acknowledge Him in all your ways.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

To hurst:
If what we have here Proves there was never total nothingness, then the universe has always existed and there was no need for a God. And if you insist that whatever has sef-existed is God, then the universe IS GOD.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

However, we can also know that not the whole physical universe has always existed, if any. For it is certain that water molecules did not always exist, since they had to wait until hydrogen and oxygen were formed. By the same reasoning, none of the elements could have always existed. Nor could any of the atomic particles of protons, neutrons, and electrons (and their antimatter pairs) have always existed, since they are known to be composed of quarks.

Another thing, which I already mentioned, is that there are non-physical things that “exist” but are not part of the physical universe. In fact, they canbe shown to precede the physical universe on the basis that the physical universe contains representations of them, which could not be if the concept didn’t first exist to allow such a representation to be made manifest. I am talking about something as simple as a circle. It exists as a concept before matter can be formed into its likeness. Likewise, a square circle cannot be conceived, nor can it be found in nature nor made into a physical entity.

So far, we can know for certain that the physical universe is not all there is, and also that most of it can immediately be discounted as having not always existed.

Hubriss:

You give to much credit to this thing you don’t know. Our conscience comes from our experiences throughout our lives and how we react to them.

I don’t recall saying conscience. I said conscious. As in, consciousness, living awareness and awakeness.

Hubriss:

Our memories are entirely dependant on our brain (alzheimers, spell?),

There is the memory of our soul which is independent of the brain.

Hubriss:

and without free will, there would be no sin or faith or knowledge for that matter

Free will is distinct from our intellect. We can have knowledge without using free will. I agree there would be no sin without free will. However, the soul is a simple entity having memory, intellect, and free will. These work together as a unit and cannot be separated. It is in this that we are created in the image of the Triune God, Who is also three distinct entities in one simple unit. The difference is that our soul is created and God is not created.

Hubriss:

(free will is not a gift, again you assume we are so special that we must have a purpose).

Free will is part of our nature. Faith is a (supernatural) gift.

Don’t let unbelievers trample on the precious gift you were given in your baptism. You should keep your baptismal promises that you renewed at confirmation. Were you confirmed? You have an obligation to fight for your faith. Only those who do so will be crowned victorious by God.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

Hubriss:

You know you’re very poetic and all, but pretty, inspirational words don’t have anything to do with the truth.

They can.

The truth sustains itself. Love charity. Believe the faith. Hate hatred. Doubt the doubts.

Would you give to God what is His? He calls us to do judgment and justice. In other words, to love charity etc.

I am sharing with you precious pearls, but it is becoming apparent that you are not worthy of them, though I wish you to benefit from them. Yet, may it benefit others who read this.

Meanwhile, perhaps what you need is admonishment. Do you hate obedience that much? Whom do you obey in good faith?

Hubriss:

Not really relating your ideals to his, but when Hitler spoke he sounded beautiful, inspirational, and poetic, and all that does is serve to manipulate the masses.

I always saw him making forceful statements and riling up the crowds and showing his firepower.

It seems, though, that you distrust beauty and love and virtues etc. You seem to have placed your trust in, well, nothing. You seem to prefer to avoid being deemed as one following in an “invented notion” of God and derided for being drawn about by the nose by despicable clergy or others seeking to play their game of authority on you. Well, I advise you to test the spirits you are following now, and see if their accusations don’t rather fit their own behavior? Doubt the doubts. Believe the faith. It is the fair thing to do.

hurst

 

[kildare]

“What is your reason for believing the church?”
Truth.

"There is no proof that anything the church says is correct.
There is no proof if you decide to reductionist to the point of being ridiclous, but then you would have to apply the same principals to everything else. How can you believe the Historians,the media the Government, your friends?

“2. In light of the fact that there is increasingly more evidence contradicting the bible”
Are you talking about “evidence” that Jesus was married or never existed? Anway you should beware of the lies of those who have an agenda. An example :You probably heard that the church tried to persecute Colombus for saying that the Earth was a sphere and not flat. This myth was especially popular in the 19th century among certain anti-clerical intellectuals. In reality the church had been teaching it was round(read about St.Virgilius of Salzburg) since the 7th century). This should at least start making you suspicious of people who make claims to have new “evidence”

" How do you get around such discoveries as evolution"
I believe that evolution is the best model we have for describing the diversity of life on this planet - and so does the RCC by the way.

“the Big Bang”
Overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang has caused many an atheist despair. In fact if you study the advances in science carefully, you will find that there is now more reason for believing in a God. Afterall the idea that the Universe always existed and never needed a creator is now looking decidely false. Time/Space/Matter/Energy do appear have a beginning. Intelligence/Information is separate from those, just as Geometry is separate from Physics. There is a good argument that if matter is really just condensed energy(Einstein) and energy is really about force differentials, then ultimately its all about information, which leads to intelligence, which is not created but exists independently. The Church teaches that we read genesis poetically and not literally

“the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body”
Well it cant function without a heart or a liver as well. But let me ask you this: when you think a thought, what comes first, the biochemical neuron connections or the thought itself? Are we just slaves to the forces in our body.Are you a person or a jumble of atoms. Thats were reductionism leads you so beware.

"I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all "
Well do you believe that the parable of the good samaritan really happened or that Jesus was just using it as an example to teach the people at the time?

"3. Why does it have to be faith? why doesn’t he plainly reveal himself for the world to see? "
I beleive that God wants our compansionship(among other things presumably and far be it from be to understand His Infinite Intelligence which rules every atom in every universe). However we have far more power and potential than we actually know. God could just as easily have created automons who just loved and cared for each other and were not able to choose otherwise, but he would be too far above them to have real companionship. The free will is the key. It is also easy to see that it would be pointless for God to just reveal himself as it would take away from us our REAL CHOICE(and believe me for some of us he would have to be standing there in front of us waving his magic wand around 24*7 for us to believe.

“Jesus was not that big of a revelation since people die for what they believe in every day.”
Well it teaches us a TRUTH that in order to create something important you must suffer. A star must have died sometime for the carbon and water etc from which we are made from became spewed out into the galaxy. So Jesus died for us to move to another level.
He was the most important death in the History of the world no argument. No death has changed the world so much.Isnt it amazing that a simple carpenter could have had such an effect and yet 300 years after his death he is being worshipped by the most powerful man in the world at the time…the Roman Emperor Constantine. Isnt it amazing that Europes rejects and Africas slaves have built up the most powerful country the world has ever seen. Isnt it amazing that the little mammals scurrying underneath the feet of the dinosaurs 65million years ago rose to become the Lords or the Earth. Blessed are the meek for they shall inhert the Earth. Amen to those TRUTHS.

“Why must it be faith?”
You should see that faith brings out the best in us. That people could die for something as hard to perceive as faith is something very powerfull. The problem is that you want everything put on a plate for you, but you will never unlock your potential that way.

In the end you can only find the Truth within you. It is a labour, theres no doubt about it, but its something that you owe to yourself. Good luck.

 

[solarwind23]

hurst:

Catholics do read the Bible literally, but not literalistically. There is a difference…

One may not believe in materialistic evolution. The soul does not emanate from matter, but is created directly by God.

I don’t see how this is a contradiction. Science makes no statments whatsoever about the immaterial. Evolution says nothing about souls, just the body + brain.

 

[solarwind23]

hurst:

To carry it further, if it is common sense that something as complex as the universe could just self-exist, then what is to stop one from accepting that something even better (God) would rather self-exist, and create the universe for His purposes?

hurst

If God can self-exist, why not the universe? Why not a multiverse?

 

[Mike_O]

1. What is your reason for believing the church? There is no proof that anything the church says is correct. The church claims it is infallible, but you can’t really tell one way or another since it is impossible for anyone to have an experience of something outside of this physical/substantial world. Some reasons that I may think Catholics do believe (just throwing this out for you to discuss) are: A. The concept that this world is it and there is nothing else after it is too much to handle, therefore causing many people to give up on life. Religion provides closure and it creates a more ordered society.

With all due respect, your own excoriation of making assumptions falls flat on its face in light of the numerous fallacious assumptions you have made here.

As someone else suggested, it would have been better to begin another thread for each question. But just to address this first point, there are a number of problems.

Your statement about it being “impossible” for anyone to experience something outside the physical world is nonsense. See, for instance, the following for one of innumerable examples: fatima.org/

Later in the above you verge onto Marxist/Freudian dismissals of religion. In trying to make reputable refutations of religion, I’d recommend you search for “authorities” other than, respectively, Communist agitators and cocaine addicts. The movement designed to infantilize the religious believer has never possessed any credibility.

1. In light of the fact that there is increasingly more evidence contradicting the bible, many (you) in our society seem to disregard it even though it is much more solid than what the church has to offer.

Once again, this is false. You will need to specify these references–and, unsurprisingly, the fact that they do not exist likely makes this task all the harder–in order to make sweeping claims such as “more and more evidence disproves the Bible.” No, it doesn’t.

1. Why does it have to be faith? If there is really a god, and he wants us to live faithfully and love and care for each other, then why doesn’t he plainly reveal himself for the world to see? Jesus was not that big of a revelation since people die for what they believe in every day.

This last statement is, suffice it to say, grossly disrespectful. To say Jesus was “not so big a relevation” because people die for causes everyday is an absurd statement that betrays substantial ignorance of the Christian faith.

I await your presentation of those numerous instances whereby people voluntarily had themselves savagely scourged and nailed to crosses while praying for their torturers. After all, it must happen all the time, what with Jesus’ sacrifice “not being that big of a revelation.”

Further, there is plenty of rational proof for the existence of God. As others have suggested, you might consider picking up a book. Try Peter Kreeft’s exposition of Thomistic proofs: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I’ve read one of Kreeft’s books: The Handbook of Christian Apologetics and he had nothing to say that I havn’t already heard and refuted.

Once more, trying hard to maintain respect here, but it is so very difficult to continue listening when there is such arrogance on your part as to presume that you, a 17 year old, are intellectually equipped to “refute” Peter Kreeft. I am sorry to tell you, that, as well evinced by some of what you’ve put forth as “evidence” for your atheism, you are nowhere close to being able to “refute” the arguments of these people.

Take your atheism to its logical conclusions, and in so doing you will realize that you presume yourself to be of superior intellect to the greatest minds the world has ever seen; St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II, St. Maxilian Kolbe, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom…the list goes on and on. To prop your atheism upon a veneer of rationalism and intellectual “rightness” smacks of complete arrogance and more than a bit of absurdity.

 

[buffalo]

The Existence of God

The topic will be treated as follows:
I. As Known Through Natural Reason

• A. The Problem Stated
• 1. Formal Anti-Theism

1. Types of Theism

B. Theistic Proofs

• 1. A Posteriori Argument
• (a) The general causality argument

(b) The argument from design

(c) The argument from conscience

(d) The argument from universal consent

1. A Priori, or Ontological, Argument

II. As Known Through Faith

• A. Sacred Scriptures

B. Church Councils

C. The Knowability of God

 

[buffalo]

The Church

The present article is arranged as follows:

I. The term Ecclesia
II. The Church in Prophecy
III. Its Constitution by Christ; the Church after the Ascension
IV. Its Organization by the Apostles
V. The Church, a Divine Society
VI. The Church, the Necessary Means of Salvation
VII. Visibility of the Church
VIII. The Principle of Authority; Infallibility; Jurisdiction
IX. Members of the Church
X. Indefectibility of the Church; Continuity
XI. Universality of the Church; the “Branch” Theory
XII. Notes of the Church
XIII. The Church, a Perfect Society

 

[frnate]

Greetings Hubriss, and welcome!

**You said: “I am 17 and an agnostic, and have been discussing/arguing about what is the truth with my parents and godfather (or even if we can know the truth).”

** You can know the truth about much, but not all. Do you mean that you are not sure that there are any absolute truths, or merely that we may or may not know the truth about what the Church teaches for lack of reliable proof? I believe that all of your questions may stem from this single issue. If it is a question about absolute truth I would suggest that you read Ravi Zacharias, he is a fantastic apologist on par with C.S. Lewis and Chesterton (not bad reads either)

Pax,

+Nate

 

[Pax]

Hubriss:

…
…

To Pax:
You say that my statement of there being no proof for the teachings of the Catholic church is true is biased. I am implying its teachings on Jesus, and God and his role in the universe, etc. You then say that “surely” some things they say are true that can be proven. So I ask you, like what? I have yet to see or hear anything that relates to a spirit or God that the church can prove.

Thanks for at least qualifying your statement to some degree.
So, you don’t think the Church can prove anything it says about Jesus? Let’s try just a few things about Jesus that the Church can prove. First of all, lots of people claim that Jesus never even existed. The existence of Jesus has been amply proven and the evidence for his existence is greater than many other historical figures. Jesus’s words and deeds were recorded by his disciples. The apostle Paul gave testimony in his writings about Jesus and told his audience that there were still over five hundred eyewitnesses alive at the time that would give the same testimony. No one that we know of ever challenged Paul’s claims concerning these witnesses. The Jewish historian, Josephus, called Jesus a rabbi and “miracle worker.” The apostles and numermous disciples and eyewitnesses to Jesus were martyred because they would not deny the truth about Jesus. No sane person would die for a lie. They died as witnesses to a factual reality.

Even though there is ample eyewitness testimony and proof that Jesus was a miracle worker, you might still claim he was some sort of magician if you wish, but this kind of thing is not consistent with the historical record.

You might want to consider modifying some of your terminology. In areas of faith and spiritual matters “proof” is an inappropriate term. What I did mention above about Jesus can be proven, but many other things do not fall into the category of scientific proof. This is not an issue that is fatal to belief. There are many things that defy scientific proof, but we know that they exist anyway. Things like love and free will defy scientific proofs and analysis. We know they exist but they defy scientific measurement and explanation under the tools available. Spiritual matters are examined with tools other than microscopes, carbon dating, chromatography, etc.

Hubriss:

I’ve read one of Kreeft’s books: The Handbook of Christian Apologetics and he had nothing to say that I havn’t already heard and refuted. My dad gave it to me to read and it was quite funny when he saw the writing I had all over it, he made too many assumptions.

This is a joke. Please explain to me what you refuted from Kreeft and how you refuted it. I’m pretty well educated and have been around the block a few times when it comes to logical argument. When you say that you refuted Kreeft, I suspect that you simply mean that you didn’t accept it. Refutation is an entirely different ball game. I’m no genius but I know better than to accept your statement as fact. Such a “blanket” statement is, on its face, a false one. I’ve had similar remarks made by a rather aggressive atheist and I gave him the same challenge. He could not provide his so called refutations.

 

[Anne_G]

The Big Bang is not evidence but unproved theory, as is evolution. It’s an unbelievable theory too. That someone or some being made life makes more sense than, that every living thing started from one cell or whatever it was.
I do believe evolution takes place, though not humans from apes (and there is no proof of this), but that it is God that puts the changes in place. An animal or plant cannot tell itself to change it genetic makeup to suit its envionment, that’s unbelievable and impossible, but God can certainly change the genetic makeup so the animal can be more adaptable to his envionment.
I have read the Bible a few times and I cannot see where scientific evidence contradicts the Bible.
There is much archeoligical evidence that supports the places and people mentioned in the Bible. Noahs Ark, Pharoh Ramses i.e. from Moses story, just recently King David’s palace, though unconfirmed, etc, etc. This is actually scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

 

[Vmaalouf]

Alright, I’m back, and it looks like I have a TON to go over.

To Twf: What I was trying to get at by pointing to the arguments of whether or not the trinity is true, was that the bible allows for many different interpretations. However there is only one truth, so only one view can be right, if any at all. It is even possible nowadays from what I have been hearing that you don’t need to believe anything in the bible at all, just the teachings that pertain to how to live your life, and then it’s just a story.

To hurst: I need to learn how to quote…
Yes, I do believe that there is no reason to believe in a better self-existing thing than the universe. Our idea of perfection is an idea. We don’t know what perfection entails since as you say it, it is incomprehensable. So if the ultimate being must be perfect, I’d say the universe is pretty damn close since it is self-existing in itself, not dependant on anything else.

Let me ask you this: what do you think the spiritual world will be like? If we will be able to perceive images, god, feel emotions, think, etc, then we already have that here. The spiritual universe would Appear PHYSICAL since we will only be able to experience it through any senses we have. It will be no different than what we have now. This is it.

“Are you saying we don’t exist in time, but only have that perception so that we can understand how things happen?” -Yes.

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubriss
So you’re saying that you don’t believe in an invented concept?

I believe we can invent concepts. But I was pointing out that you were “believing” in something “nonmaterial” to explain the self-existence of a “material” universe. Don’t you see that this proves you in fact do not believe in only a material universe? Aren’t you thinking there is only a material universe while you yourself rely on nonmaterial things to propound your ideas to me?"

What? I asked if you think christianity is an invented concept. Someone thought up the bible and put all the stories together that were invented or made up by others. The idea of a god is an invented concept, shown by the fall of most religions in the world.

There is a difference between a concept and truth. A concept is what someone thinks or believe to be the truth. Without anything supporting it, it is a meaningless idea.

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubriss
The concept of God was invented, and saying that God gave us the concept in order that we may believe in him puts you right back where you started.

I never put forth this argument. Nor do I hold to it.

I showed that the concept of God is based on reality. The concept itself is incomplete in various ways, because we cannot fully conceive of that which contains us."

-Yes, you do argue this. I’ll show you. I ask why you think the bible holds any truth when it pertains to a spirit, god or truths of existence. You say that we know it is truth because the holy spirit guided those who have written it. I ask where the holy spirit comes from, and you say it is God. I ask how do you know God is doing this, and you say, “because he gave us the bible.”

“Must a skyscraper have an architect?”
-No, Mount. Everest.

 

[Vmaalouf]

I can say that 100% of my ideas I have come up with, although there are most likely other people that feel the same way. I have NEVER visited an athiest/agnostic website or read a book who’s intention was to disprove God. I think I’ve felt that Christianity was a bunch of balogni since about 4th grade, and I have been sent to Catholic schools all my life.

Yes, we have been givin much from future generations, not a god. The first humans had each other and their surroundings, and they had to make due with that since we cannot control certain aspects of our lives like birth.

“You are truly perverse if you believe doubt and doubt belief.”

• That just depends on what view you have. I could be doubting doubt and believing my belief. You doubt that the universe was not created by a superior being, and I doubt that. It’s just a play on words, everyone does it. It’s funny when you say, “you have joined those who are attacking good,” and, “murderers of the supernatural soul.” Kind of buffs up your point doesn’t it?

Yes, I know I am heavily leaning to the opinions of agnostic/atheists (because that’s what I am) but you can not doubt that you are also biased in favor of your beliefs.

“Would you assume a skyscraper has no architect until you have evidence and proof?”

• No, I know that it is impossible for the skyscraper to come about by itself according to the universal tendancy of entropy, chaos. Therefore, I must logically conclude that something created it. However, it is possible for a planet like earth to come about according to physics and quantum physics, and in fact, it is impossible for there to be life without entropy.

“However, we can also know that not the whole physical universe has always existed.”

-Yes, we can know that the whole universe has always existed. Matter can not be created or destroyed, therefore it has always existed. Matter however can be changed. No, not all elements have always existed, but we have proven that elements can be created out of other elements. Many of the highest mass elements have been created by Man.

“Another thing, which I already mentioned, is that there are non-physical things that “exist” but are not part of the physical universe. In fact, they canbe shown to precede the physical universe on the basis that the physical universe contains representations of them, which could not be if the concept didn’t first exist to allow such a representation to be made manifest. I am talking about something as simple as a circle. It exists as a concept before matter can be formed into its likeness.”

-Concepts do not constitute existence. Even if a concept can be possible, it is far from meaning it is actual. I can imagine a dragon or a giant which might actually be possible, but the truth is that they do not exist.

“Likewise, a square circle cannot be conceived, nor can it be found in nature nor made into a physical entity.”

• Yeah, kind of like a 100% human 100% god huh?

 

[Vmaalouf]

“There is the memory of our soul which is independent of the brain.”

• Memory of the soul eh? No. If the body had a soul which had memory, there would be no alzheimers.

“Free will is part of our nature. Faith is a (supernatural) gift.”-hurst

“Whatever that is, it is God. It is the ultimate source of anything and everything, whatever we may find. That includes the material universe, our consciousness, our memory and understanding and free will, and anything invisible.”- hurst

• Which is it? Nature or a gift? I say nature, and so is our memory, and intellect. You say memory, intellect and free will are part of the soul, implying they are from God since God created the soul.

Yes, I was confirmed, but half-heartedly, mostly because I didn’t want to confront my parents with my disbelief yet I guess. For the most part I do obey them in good faith, including most of my other elders, like teachers and my god father.

Hitler appealed to the people’s weakness, disposition and insecurity. He promised them that they were above all else in the world, and that he would bring hope for a better future than what they currently had. Emotions are NOT a basis for belief, even Kreeft pointed that out.

Doubting the doubts and believing the faith is NOT the fair thing to do. We can get no where according to knowledge with that attitude. Everyone thought the world was flat. Galileo decided to challenge them and find out whether or not their faith in their current beliefs were any valid. And guess what? HE WAS RIGHT! He brought us further in understanding our world by doubting. We can only progress if we are willing to cast false, old misconceptions out the window to make way for sound, proven, scientific observations.

There’s my reply to hurst, I’ll get back to everyone else as soon as I can.

 

[Hubriss]

Uh, sorry. I didnt realize that my dad had logged in with his account.

Those three post above this one who’s poster says VMaalouf is actually me, Hubriss. Sorry about that.

And by the way, can someone tell me how to quote specific lines instead of a whole post? Thanks.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Hubriss:

You seem like a smart kid and very much representing the thoughts of your generation.

At some point in your life, find time to read The Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton…he was agnostic for a long time and converted to the CC. You might like his take for he comes in from the Agnostic point of view.

Secondly, it is easy to DOUBT, given what we are: fumbling and ignorant human beings that belong to a really small planet amid the vast universe. On the other hand, we have certain proofs that God does exist…Check out St. Thomas’ 5 proofs, the man named Jesus Christ did resurrect from the dead…its not fantasy…it is history…we have to deal with the only one who rose from the dead and consider his words that they might be true and that TRUTH does exist.

Lastly, you said that God should be more visible or tangible if He did exist. Well, free will goes out the window once he gives us constant irrevocable proof of his presence…God has designed it so that our LOVE for him is not coerced

in XT.

 

[Hubriss]

To Kildare: Concerning historical truth, historians as opposed to the church usually don’t have a reason or motive to form the information to fit their purpose whatever it may be.

And you or the church do not have an agenda? No, the church did not teach that the world was round, where did you get that from? you should question your sources. Everyone in Galileo’s time was frightened of the church, which possibly could have excomunicated them, which would have ended up with his and other scientists’ death. The evidense contradicting the church that I am referring to is mostly evolution, the big bang, psychological discoveries, things like that.

Intelligence is not independant, we are not slaves to the forces in our body, we ARE the forces in our body.

Stop asking stupid questions. No, parables were not meant to be taken as actual truth events. Stories in Exodus and Genesis, and others like the Tower of Babel were written with the intention that people believe them fully. You are easily decieved to think otherwise. Catholics had made Genesis their total explanation of the existence of the world.

You are missing the point it seems. I ask you if the miracles and stories in the Old Testament are not true, then what makes the miracles in the New Testament true? If God exists, anything is possible, therefore it should not be a problem to believe any of it. And it Wasn’t, until evidence came up against it, then all of a sudden the church was forced to change its views. The church is a conformist with the people; it must be in order to get the people to go along with it, an example of this is Vatican II, and the Council of Nicea. When more evidence comes up against the church’s teachings in the future that ever become largely accepted, the church will be forced to alter its views and teachings once again.

Your explanation that God wants companionship does not explain why he doesn’t reveal himself more fully, it actually goes against it. If he wanted more to believe in him, it would be more evident. Your point of free choice is irrelavant.

Yes, it is true that in order to gain something important, there must be a sacrifice of something, it is true for everything. But that doesn’t have anything to do with a god.

Don’t you think that religion is not the only factor in determining the creation of a nation? I’ll explain religion’s effect with one question: Do you think a society that promotes people helping others, respects each individual, and promotes freedom would have a better chance at creating a more prosperous, ordered country than maybe a society that says kill your neighbor and take his wives?

 

[Hubriss]

To Solarwind:
“I don’t see how this is a contradiction. Science makes no statments whatsoever about the immaterial. Evolution says nothing about souls, just the body + brain.”-Solarwind

• I think you missed my point.

“If God can self-exist, why not the universe? Why not a multiverse?”- Solarwind
-Exaclty.

To Mike:
If you can experience it, it is of our physical world.

My ideas seem to mostly follow Hume and Kant. Marx did not create communism, just an idea, the idea was a good idea, it just doesn’t work. As for Freud, yes he was an idiot, I don’t care much for his ideas, although I guess they were a start to psychology.

Fatima. It’s just like Nostradamus.

Read my other posts to find what evidence I mean.

Basically, Aquianus and Kreeft are still only human. They know no more than any of us about the real nature of the universe. Aquianus’s five proofs of God if valid, would in no way support the validity of the Catholic church because these proofs have nothing to do with what happened after the beginning of the universe. Those other people who believe aliens created us Could be right for all we know. Saying that God came down and showed us it was him in the form of someone just like us is nothing new as humans, philosophers, have been speculating our existence since the beginning. Understanding existence is not that simple, but catholics are taught to believe that it is, so you give up without any will to go further.

To Frnate:
I believe there are absolute truths but answering them is not as simple as saying, “God did it.” I don’t think we will ever know how the universe came about, if there is a multiverse, or whatever since we are only a tiny speck of it.
Glad you liked the discussion, reading through the ones last night was kinda… boring, so I decided to make it interesting. But yes, the philosophers that I mostly agree with are Hume and Kant and the like, mostly Kant. Hume was the extreme version that we don’t know anything and can never know anything. I don’t believe that’s the case since it is apparent we can know our world. Kant was pretty much a less extreme version of Hume.

 

[Hubriss]

To Pax: Yes, I don’t argue definitely that Jesus didn’t exist, although for all we know he Might not have. I think it’s harder to believe what the bible says as opposed to what historians say because the church and writers of the bible had an agenda, unlike most historians (much of the new testament if even close to what actually happened would be highly exagerated).

I agree with that Josephus guy. It makes much more sense that Jesus was just sort of a rabbi or reformist that attempted to change the Jewish religion. Like in the temple, he hated what the Jews were doing. He felt the Jews were totally missing the point and that the pharosies(spell?) were just using the people to achieve their own gains. He believed the Jews were missing the point to their religion. They focused on all their rituals and put what was supposed to be God’s message (Jesus clarified with Loving your neighbor as yourself) in second importance. He believed this so strongly that he was willing to die for it, and his desciples made a new religion out of it.

As for Kreeft’s book, I’ll have to find it, it was a while ago that I read it, but yeah I had some good notes in it, I’ll try to get that for you except I have no idea where it is and my house is a mess.

To Anne: I’m very very sorry you feel that way. I really suggest you actually try and study evolution and the big bang and science in general because it is not as simple as just random occruances. If you want to just blindly say that God did it, that’s your problem, because you are never going to get anywhere in terms of true knowledge thinking like that.
You cannot find scientific evidence that contradicts the bible because you don’t know any scientific evidence.

Pharoah Ramses, yes, but so what? He was an egyptian pharoah, of course the bible is going to have some historical truth.
David’s tome, likely not, if it hasn’t been confirmed to be David’s yet, it probably never will.
Noah’s Ark. I have been waiting and waiting for someone to prove that. But know, all they can find is some splinters of wood, and some crappy pictures of what looks like a ship. If we really thought it was the ark up there on that mountain, it would have been proven a long time ago. It’s Right There! Go dig it up for Christ’s sake. But they won’t, you know why? Because they are afraid that if it isn’t it would blow their proof completely.

 

[JezCat]

solarwind23:

If God can self-exist, why not the universe? Why not a multiverse?

God is spirit and therefore isn’t bound by the material universe. The universe is bound by the laws of matter, being that matter cannot create itself. Something cannot come from nothing. The questions should be asked of the scientific community not the religious IMO.