Questions from an Agnostic

[Pax]

Hubriss:

…
…
Since you can not prove or disprove God, I am agnostic. But that does not mean you can not find an argument for the existence or inexistence of a god to be invalid.
…

There is a real problem here and this is one of the reasons I suggested that you study Kreeft’s arguments. Peter Kreeft demonstrates that every atheistic argument that attempts to disprove the existence of God does in fact fail. Kreeft dissects the arguments and shows how and where they fail.

Kreeft also demonstrates that not all of the arguments for the existence of God stand up to every logical test. He does show, however, that some arguments “for” the existence of God do stand up to every logical test. This is quite significant. None of the arguments are proofs, but they are nevertheless quite strong when put together as a group. Think about this because it provides a foundation for the intellectual preparation to accept the fact that God exists. The final step is ultimately one of faith.

Kreeft points out that God gives just enough light so that those who seek Him will find Him. God leaves just enough shadows so that those that do not wish to know Him will be free to go there own way.

Now I have a challenge for you. “Prove” to me that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a statement in physics that fits nicely with all of the physical laws as we know them. The problem is we didn’t create the universe and we lack the ability and or knowledge to create or destroy matter and energy. The only thing we can do is observe them and convert one to the other. This does not prove that it can’t happen. I do not believe that there is any “proof” that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed yet science and you take it on faith that this is the case.

Please provide the “proof.”

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Hubriss:

To ReformedCatholic: Thanks for your understanding and more open-mindedness. But emotion does not constitute truth. You can not base truth on what you think must be real or true. Even your friend Kreeft realizes this.

You are correct, but I wouldn’t describe it as a simple emotion- more as an “event” which resulted in an awakening of sorts, or an altered state of consciousness perhaps.

I wouldn’t assert in any way that this provides any valid or empirical evidence of anything or any particular “truth.” It was a subjective experience that resulted in insight.

It seems like you’re coming to the realization that ultimately nothing can be proven. Everything is subjective. You find that reality is merely your perception of what you believe reality to be.

You are left with an ironic situation… that in an existence which you can neither prove nor disprove, in a reality that is entirely subjective, with constant perceptions that are ever-evolving and ever-changing… you are only left with faith… faith in your perception as accurate, faith that your reality will remain consistent, faith that your subjective experience is genuine, faith that your chosen belief system is the correct one, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow as it did today, faith in your ability to live and meet the challenges that lie before you, and so forth…

Put your mind and talents to good use. Help others. Serve humanity. Do it, even if you do not understand “why.” The why will come later.

There are no easy answers in this life, this much is certain, but you will ultimately find what you are looking for. Until then t h e M a t r i x h a s y o u . . . LOL

All the best.

 

[Hubriss]

Alright, this’ll be my last post for today, I gotta do something else.

To Twf:
Of course they meant the OT to be literal. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have anything to continue the prophecy of a messiah from. It would be pointless.

You mean that I’m just supposed to take your word for it. As you take the word of the church, as they take the word of the bible, which takes the word of those who wrote the bible, who take the word of those who passed on the stories of the NT, who take the word from those who supposedly witnessed that Jesus was the son of God. Since you don’t believe in any of the miracles or works of God in the OT.

“No, the Church does not claim infallibility only in matters that can not be disproven. The Church has the charisma of infallibility in as far as the deposit of Faith extends.”

• So, yes, the church does claim infallibility only in matters that can not be disproven. You said right there, “as far as the deposit of Faith extends.”

Yes, my bad, Galileo was all about the geocentric and heliocentric theories. It did however have theological importance because Catholics believed that God had created the Earth directly, and made it the center of the universe, emphasizing that we are his chozen creations. Galileo theorized (which was then proven) that we are not the center of the universe. And so then the church had to alter its views.

To Pax: You quoted what I said right there but you don’t understand it or what? Yes, athiests can’t disprove God, and Catholics can not prove him.

Kreeft’s arguments do not stand up to every logical test. I read them today and have found faults in every one, mostly by pointing out assumptions Kreeft has made with no backing. I want to do it piece by piece here on the forums but it will take me a while.

Your may be right, it MAY not be possibly to COMPLETELY prove that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But I will say that in every documented case/test, 100% of the time this has been proven to be true.

good night.

 

[twf]

Hubriss: You’re still generalizing, taking what you want from my posts. Where did I say that I reject all the miracles of the Old Testament? If you go back through my posts you’ll see that I said some books of the Old Testament ARE written in the historical genre. If you study the Old Testament you’ll see, as I’ve mentioned, that many genres are employed: poetic, epic, historical, etc. We’re discussing the first chapters of Genesis, not the Old Testament as a whole. You can’t generalize like that. Much of the Old Testament is history. Much of it is poetry. Other parts fall into other genres. The Messianic prophecies were fulfilled, with incredible accuracy, in Christ. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that these were “metaphors”.

All the books of the New Testament were written before the close of the first century. There is now archeological evidence that Matthew was written, at least in some form, before AD 70. At most, the Gospels were written a few decades after Christ. The Apostles, that is the original eyewitnesses, were still alive. Yes they did rely on oral traditions…but not ancient ones! You should also keep in mind that the earliest part of the New Testament is actually the early Pauline letters. Some scholars believe that Paul started writing as early as the 40s or 50s. Paul makes reference to 500 witnesses who saw Christ at once (after the resurrection) in one particular instance. Why does he do that? So his readers can seek out these witnesses (who would still be living) and confirm the story. The Apostles died for their beliefs. Why would they fabricate all these stories, find a bunch of witnesses to confirm their accounts, and then die for it?
The early bishops were, in many cases, the disciples of the Apostles (and their co-workers). So they were only one “generation” removed from direct contact with Jesus. We have some of their writings as well. (Like St. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, for example).

You haven’t addressed Fatima yet. (And yes I realize that you have a lot of material to cover, take your time . Also you are oversimplifying the Galileo incident. Look back at everything I posted on it, if you will.

Yes, the Church is only infallible in matters of faith and morals. Why should it be any other way? The Church exists to save souls. She is a hospital for sinners. Why would she need infallibility in areas of science, for example? We need the Church to be infallible in matters that we can not test scientifically for that very reason. There is no other way to be certain! That is why God has given us the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church).

We’re not trained apologists here (well most of us aren’t). If you are sincerely looking for answers, you should research some scholarly apologetics as well.

Best of luck.

 

[mlchance]

Well, at least the OP’s got an accurate screen-name.

“I don’t believe in God or religion because I’m so smart. I’m actually so smart that I’m smarter than all religious people ever, which I can prove because I’ve refuted all of their arguments by making marginal notes in a book. I’m going to keep talking about how smart I am until I convince myself I’m absolutely right.”



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[hurst]

Vmaalouf:

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.

Then we disagree. But what constitutes the self-existing part of the “universe”? It is certainly not anything that changes.

Vmaalouf:

Our idea of perfection is an idea.

Btw, ideas are not part of the material universe, and yet they exist… that alone should speak volumes to you about the untenable position of thinking there is nothing greater than a physical universe that would be self-existing.

Vmaalouf:

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.

I don’t see how this makes any sense. What is the “universe”? Is it the collection of stars and rocks? Is it energy? Is it some kind of ethereal putty that simply morphs into various forms?

Regardless of the above, we know that individually identifiable things in the universe are indeed dependent upon other things. And they are subject to other things.

I think you are making a generalization and just running with it. If so, then pause for a moment and consider these questions. Will you seek to defend what you hold, or will you seek to see what is really true?

Vmaalouf:

Let me ask you this: what do you think the spiritual world will be like?

You have already dismissed much of what I said as poetic manipulation.

But if you will listen, I hold that the spiritual world is something that sustains the material world, and that it is above and beyond the natural, yet does not destroy the natural. As an analogy, consider a black-and-white movie being converted to color. It did not destroy the movie or images, but enhanced it in a manner beyond what it contained of itself.

Vmaalouf:

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.

How can you, a black-and-white picture, declare that there is no such thing as color in existence or even possible?

Jesus was resurrected with a glorified body. He still had a body, but it could pass through walls, turn invisible, and ascend in the air. Death had no sway over him. Yet He could still eat, talk, and walk.

Furthermore, we will have access to Heaven, which is a spiritual realm. Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven. That is astounding! The physical being united to the spiritual in such a way as to be given to do that!

And then there is the infused knowledge, awareness, clearness, etc. We will be able to know everything going on throughout the universe all at once, if need be.

By the way, certain saints have been given various of these abilities. St. Joseph of Cupertino flew through the air when drawn by the spirit of God to adoration. Ven. A.C. Emmerich was given visions of the lives of saintly people from the time of Adam and Eve, and helped people remotely by the grace of God. St. Paul was taken up to the third heaven and heard things he could not utter.

We have lots of sources to gather a basic idea of what it might be like.

hurst

 

[Darrel]

To Darrel:
Yes, the only argument that makes any sense at all for the existence of God is this one. Yet this alone does not allow us any grounds to show that an all powerful, all knowing, eternal god has created it. We simply don’t know and we may never know. To come out and say, “Oh, God did it.” without any real backing sounds like a child talking.

If you are looking for scientific proof of Gods existence you won’t gain anything even if you find it. As I said before you can only have faith and believe with his help. I’m sure you have heard of many miracles happening and heard of things like exorcism. Does this change your mind about God? My question is this. If you are looking for scientific proof of God, then what are you doing on a Catholic forum? Something brought you here, what is it?

Matter can not be created or destroyed, so there is your eternal entity right there. But if there was a creator, we are definitely not the center of his great creation. There are millions of other stars in our galaxy alone, and thousands of solarsystems. The likelyhood that we will ever be able to explore any of this creation that was made just for us is slim to none.

I never claimed that the universe was created just for us. God can do as he wishes. I agree, it is a big universe. Science has perhaps aquired a billionth of a percent of all knowledge (if that!). So why should you have any faith in it’s answers about the universe any more then the Churches? How can you support one theory over another with so many of them out there floating in the wind? I think a better coarse is to start thinking outside of the box and observe things from the perspective of spirit verses science. God makes it clear that he communicates with us. You should ask him for answers. Your never going to get any answers from the scientific community that will satisfy anything.

Answer me this, if you saw some impossible miraculous event take place would you belive in a God you can’t see, or would you look for a scientific explanation? I say you would try to find an explanation that excludes God even if an angel appeared before you and the earth split open under his feet. The CC has saints who have been dead for hundreds of years who have been tested by scientist who can find no explanation as to why they have not decayed. Do you see this information as a reason to believe in God? Or perhaps ‘science’ just can’t explain it yet. Maybe they have some unscene genetic trait that prevents decay.

-D

 

[kildare]

To Hubriss

Your problem is that you are quite happy to question one group(the church) and not question another.

So Historians are not biased. David Irving is a British historian who has been jailed in austria for denying the Holocaust.
My source regarding the churches attitude to the shape of the planet is “the Glory of God” by Rodney Stark, and agnostic historian. What are yours?

“Stop asking stupid questions.”
“Intelligence is not independant, we are not slaves to the forces in our body, we ARE the forces in our body.”
No I meant intelligence is within everything, but is not defined as Energy/Matter/Time/Space and I mean intelligence to encompass more than just human or animal intelligence. Perhaps its a property of matter like gravity which likewise no one can explain. Self awareness something else.

“Catholics had made Genesis their total explanation of the existence of the world.”
I think you have mixed up Catholic with Fundamentalist. Your really wrong here. Can you provide a source?

“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?”
The Bible is not all one long narative. In some places there are poems, in others there are parables. They are in fact different books written by mortal men, not by God, so there are exaggerations and imperfections. Some parts are written poetically and DO NOT have LITERAL meaning, however they do convey important messages.

" If God exists, anything is possible, therefore it should not be a problem to believe any of it."
Sometimes the journey is more interesting than the actual destination. If everything was readily understandable we could all stop writing and thinking right now.

“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.”
Maybe he wants quality rather than quantity, maybe you can ask Him some day. Anyway he has revealed Himself. Physically 2000 years ago and MOST(though not all) Historians agree that Jesus DID exist. And he reveals himself spiritually to many people everyday.

“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?”
I do indeed.

 

[RobNY]

Hello Hubriss,

Hubriss:

To Rob: I first assume that there is no God because that is the approach you must take with the scientific method. Just like a theory like the Big Bang. I at first do not confirm it as plausible until sufficient evidence supporting it is produced. Once there is sufficient evidence for God, then it can be concluded that he exists.

I never said that you must conclude that he must exist, but I did deny that you should conclude that he doesn’t, unless you have evidence that he doesn’t. Both saying, “God exists,” and “God does not exist,” entail positions, which should be supported. To say, “I do not have evidence” that God exists is distinct from assuming that God doesn’t exist.

Since you can not prove or disprove God, I am agnostic. But that does not mean you can not find an argument for the existence or inexistence of a god to be invalid.

Of course.

Whether or not miracles are true, it is irresponsible to use it as an explanation for an occurance just because you can not explain it, or if it’s rare.

Irresponsible? You make it sound like drinking and driving. In a sense I agree that you shouldn’t subscribe to a, “God of the Gaps,” theory, but at the same time, some events are impossible to explain except through miracles. It is only truly irresponsible if you start with the conclusion that miracles are impossible, which is something that we can’t assume.

To discount miracles, interventions, and influences from God in the Old Testament just because there is suddenly evidence against it, and then believing that they are all true in the New Testament is very inconsistent.

Well, I never said that I discount OT miracles, did I?

Therefore, it is rediculous to believe Jesus just because he said he was God when in fact, it was claimed that God played a major part in the Old Testament.

Obviously, it would be ridiculous to believe someone solely because they claimed it. As such, I never put forth that argument.

Paul did not witness Jesus’s existence.

Paul witnessed the risen Christ.

“This hits a snag when he identifies himself as God.”

• It doesn’t occur to you that he could have justclaimed he was God in order that the people listen to him and take head to what he said? Or even that as the stories were passed down about him, they were distorted, exagerated, and/or completely made up all in themselves?

All of these things occur to me, and I reject them.

A good Jew does not claim he is God to ‘get attention.’ Like I said, these are strict monotheists. Personal monotheists at that. To identify the self with God would be a grave, grave blasphemy. Jesus is not from an Eastern culture where a sort of pantheistic understanding of God could exist. The claim that Jesus just did it to get attention doesn’t fit.

As for the story being made up? Well, who would have made it up? The Apostles would have had to have made it up. And the Apostles were witnesses to Christ. If the Apostles made up Christ’s divinity, they would have knowingly have died for a fraud. For most of the apostles (excepting John) to have died this way is just fantastic, if it was all a lie or a tall-tale about kind reform.

And you find that “The holy spirit guided the writers of the New Testament,” convincing?

Obviously I do; obviously you don’t. Heaping derision on a statement does not make it false.

My statement that Jesus went around trying to reform the Jewish religion would imply that he is not a Jew, or maybe even that he didn’t believe in God at all.

And where are you getting this from? Where’s you, excuse me, your proof. Where in the text of the NT do you support this? Unless you have a reason to believe that Jesus 1. was not a Jew and/or 2. did not believe in God, then you as a good, rational agnostic must reject it. As of right now, such a position is pure imagination. If we can’t make stuff up, neither can you.

Religion has a purpose and he realized it. Every religion’s purpose is to attempt to create a better life and a more organized society for the believer while providing hope in something false.

First, you’re doing some editorializing here. The purpose of Christianity is salvation, not ‘creating a better life,’ no matter how much the do-gooders try to make that the purpose. Surely, if everyone really lived as good Christians we *would *have a better life, but that is not nearly the purpose. The "while providing hope in something false,’ is clearly what this entire debate is about.

But as long as it works, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not right?

No. To disregard truth for hollow comfort is digusting, quite honestly.

 

[RobNY]

That’s what gets most people, as well as the stupid arguement that, “It couldn’t hurt to believe, but it sure as hell would hurt to eternally burn in flame.”

I think you’re just making assumptions about believers again.

Jesus wouldn’t have to be God in order to be good if there is no God. Do you get it?

There would be no good if there were no God. Most athiests recognize this much, at least.

Hubriss:

To Rob (cont.): Fatima is like Nostradamus in the fact that people have been attempting to make predictions that were claimed to be messages from heaven. There was a sect in America in the 1800s that said the world was going to end, they even pinned it down to a specific day. What happened? Nothing. My point is that of all the supposed holy inspirational predictions, eventually some of them are going to come true.

I think this has already been treated, but Fatima has nothing to do with predictions and prophecies and everything to do with a miracle that thousands allegedly were eyewitnesses to.

As we cannot travel back in time, supposed miracles like Fatima can not be 100% proven or disproven, but they can be logically explained. This does not mean that we know an explanation, since we do not know everything, but that there IS an explanation.

And one of those logical explanations can surely be that it was a miracle. Remember that you have not yet proven that miracles are impossible, and therefore cannot assume that it is, ‘illogical’ to explain it by way of a miracle.

The belief that people like Aquianus and Kreeft can figure out truths given the same type of physical life we are all given depends heavily on your belief that the holy spirit or god guides them. You basically say that your argument to prove the infallability of the church is infallable. So where are we supposed to start? It’s a never ending circle.

I’m not sure what exactly you’re going on about here. Some clarification, please?

Aquianus’s five ways have not been confirmed. They assume that there are two seperate realities: a spiritual, and a physical while we only certainly know the physical.

No, they assume only that there is a physical reality, and from physical reality prove the immaterial reality.

Yes, I correct myself, you don’t “give up” but you cease to attempt to go any further.

It is impossible to go any further than the most fundamental step.

“But you must of course explain how these absolute truths came to be.”

No, I “must” not. That assumes that we know everything which you very well know we don’t. There is an absolute truth, it has nothing to do with faith or what anyone thinks it is. It has to do with what IS.

Wait a second. How do you get to hold that there are absolute truths without proving it? Can you explain to me what you think are absolute truths? Perhaps we have two different conceptions of this.

“Remember, absolute truths are invisible, intangible things, just like God.”

• No, they are not. (refer to above)

Murder is wrong. Is this an absolute truth?

 

[swnunley]

Hubriss:

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.

My answer to you, what is your real reason for disbelief? Provide me absolute proof that some Supreme Being doesn’t exist. While I was in the Navy, I met plenty of agnostics/atheists. I’ve heard all their arguments, and yours is nothing new, trust me. They would come up with all kinds of logical sounding arguments, and we would spend hours debating the finer points of philosophy and theology.

But, one person I used to debate with was honest about it. Agnostic/Atheistic belief is about sin, and the Church’s view on what it is and isn’t. The real reason for his non-belief (and what I’ve found to be all unbelievers) was that it gave him liscense to live an immoral life, and indulge in pleasures of the flesh, while not having to feel guilty about it. He said I was a fool for denying myself the pleasures of life, and not taking as much as I could possibly grab. After all, after this, there is nothing.

I replied that what he says may be true, but my way of life still has value. I did good to other people, treated them with respect (he was notorious for shafting his shipmates), let my wife know I loved her by remaining faithful (he was divorced 2X and had been unfaithful), and that if indeed there was nothing else after this life, I could take satisfaction in the fact that I did live my life honorably, and had the respect of others. He certainly did not. (Yes, I said that to him - on submarines, we don’t hesitate to tell someone if we think he’s a dirtbag. He knew it was true, too.)

Then I said what if I am right and you are wrong? What if there is a God, and that He is real, and that He will judge us by our lives? What then if you die? Is the possibility that something can exist without our physical perception worth the risk of your eternal soul?

You see, young man, your real reason for disbelief is that you are looking for an excuse to taste the pleasures of the flesh. You are young, developing your own mind about things, and see all the world has to offer, and you desire them. But there is an obstacle, and that is the moral teachings of religion. So, you come up with your argument that God may not exist, and that, or so you think, destroys that obstacle. That’s a BIG risk you are taking. Are you willing to risk the possibility that God does exist and spend all eternity in Hell, just so you can have liscense?

My friend thought so; and he cheated on his wife, stole from me and from others, went AWOL, and after he was processed out of the Navy for a Bad Conduct Discharge (a felony conviction), he was killed driving his motorcycle drunk. He was only 24. You see, one of the things about being young is you have no sense of death. But you could die at any minute. Nothing is guaranteed. I could give you a list a mile long of young people I’ve known who died suddenly (especially teenagers). You may be right about there being no God - but what if you’re wrong. Is your belief worth the risk?

From your posts, it sounds like your father and godfather deeply care for you and your eternal soul. Your lack of respect for them is disturbing. They are showing you the way of life that wisdom and years have shown them to be valuable being price. I have a 17 year old son, and if he said the things that you say, I would be greatly troubled, as I know they must be. You really need to listen to them, respect what say, and stop being so flip and disrespectful.

Finally, my advice to you, is that before you fully embrace your agnosticism (that’s why you came here, for final proof to yourself that you had the “winning argument” or in the hope that someone could come up with something convincing enough to you, because you secretly want to believe - which I think is probably the case) ask that if there is a God out there, for Him to reveal Himself to you in a real way. What have you got to lose? If you are right, nothing will happen, and you can go about your merry way, having faith in nothing. Or, God will reveal Himself to you, and you will embrace Him, and save your eternal soul from Hell. You really owe it to yourself to make one last ditch effort.

 

[VociMike]

Hubriss:

AGAIN. Please try to learn a little about science before you say it has an inability to explan anything.

I know you’re a teenage agnostic, but you’ll get further in these discussions if you don’t assume your discussion partners are idiots.

And to VociMike:
The definition of Parsimony (Occam’s Razor)- When given a choice among theories that all seem to fit the facts, we should prefer the one whose assumptions are fewer, simpler, or more consistent with other well established theories. We stick with ideas that work, and we don’t introduce major new assumptions unless we have strong, unambiguous evidence to support them.

Thank you for the lesson. :tiphat:

The fact that God is unexplainable means that it is not a well established theory, consistent with others. The idea of god no longer works for most people.

What does that mean? The existence of the universe is just as unexplainable. The existence of the human mind is just as unexplainable.

We are allowed in this case to introduce a new major assumption (evolution, the big bang, etc.) because we have strong, unambiguous evidence to support it.

Belief in the big bang and in some form of evolution are in no way alternatives to belief in God. I, for example, believe in God and also believe that the theories of the big bang and some form of evolution are in good agreement with the known facts. I see no conflict in believing both in the existence of God, and the existence of the big bang and some form of evolution as methods He chose to use to effect His creation.

Occam’s Razor clearly does NOT favor the belief in the existance of God.

Sure it does. God is by far the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe and its apparent fine-tuning to produce life. If you know of a simpler explanation for these things, please share them with us.

 

[kildare]

“Yes, my bad, Galileo was all about the geocentric and heliocentric theories. It did however have theological importance because Catholics believed that God had created the Earth directly, and made it the center of the universe, emphasizing that we are his chozen creations. Galileo theorized (which was then proven) that we are not the center of the universe. And so then the church had to alter its views.”

Center of teh Universe??? Surely you mean the Solar System.
THe Galileo case has been wildly exaggerated.
and it was out of character for the Church to condemn him. Copernicus had established a Heliocentric physics some yeasr previous, and had not been in trouble with the Church. Indeed, he was himself a Churchman, was published by the Bishop of Culm, dedicated De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium to Pope Paul III, and did not raise alarm in that Pope, nor the following Popes, nor the Roman Congregations!

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Your may be right, it MAY not be possibly to COMPLETELY prove that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But I will say that in every documented case/test, 100% of the time this has been proven to be true.

Max Plank suggests that matter does not exist at all! That if you break down atoms into sub-atomic particles, and those particles (quarks) into sub-particles that you are ultimately left only with a type of energy or “vibration.” Which leads me right back to String Theory (which is not likely to ever be “proven”… lol) that reconciles the discrepancies between Einstein and quantum physics.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Now, now, I don’t think anyone’s going to hell or anywhere else for experiencing periods of “doubt” or developing one’s own belief and values system. Doubt, after all, is the first step toward the revelation of truth, yes? Enter the Socratic Method and enjoy!

Also, I experienced a similar phase in my life when I was in my teens, and in no way was it motivated by wanting to behave irresponsibly. It was a sincere desire to KNOW.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Also, to “quote” you click on the quote button on the post and then highlight the section of the post you want and click on the little “talking” caption at the top right corner of your reply screen. It’s right under “close” where it says “close current tag.” I finally figured that out the other day… lol

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Max Plank suggests that matter does not exist at all! That if you break down atoms into sub-atomic particles, and those particles (quarks) into sub-particles that you are ultimately left only with a type of energy or “vibration.”

Oops, I meant the sub-sub-atomic particles were quarks. I’m no physics-boy!

 

[RobNY]

ReformedCatholic:

Also, to “quote” you click on the quote button on the post and then highlight the section of the post you want and click on the little “talking” caption at the top right corner of your reply screen. It’s right under “close” where it says “close current tag.” I finally figured that out the other day… lol

Oh, I totally forgot about answering this! Good catch ReformedCatholic. And Hubriss, if you want to do it manually, you can just put the quote tags around your selected text manually. For instance, you would, before the text you want to quote put:

*quote]

And at the end of the text you were quoting put:

*/quote]

Except that you must remove the *'s. (And leave no spaces.)

You can automatically quote an entire person’s post by pressing the quote button in the bottom right hand corner of their post, but this will of course present the text in an unweildy chunk, that you’ll want to cut down to answer specific portions directly.

If you want to have each quotation box give attribution to the poster, then you can do that by manually entering one additional thing to the quote tag:

*quote=RobNY]

As always, remove the *. This is the only part of the quote code that changes when using the attribution feature. The same tag closes it:

*/quote]

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

(I figured you’d appreciate the explanation. It always drives me crazy when I don’t know how things work, and I have a feeling you’re the same way!)

EDIT:

While I’m at it, in order to make a hyperlink, you can do the same thing. The easiest way is probably to click on the Globe with the link on it (when you hover with the mouse it says, “insert link”), which is located to the right of, “Increase indent”, to the left of, “Remove link” and somewhat below the “Insert Smilie,” and “Cut” buttons.

But, if you want to do it manually, it works much like the tag for quotes does. Yes, you can simply copy and paste a link, and it will activate it as a hyperlink, but I’ll assume that you want to do a little bit more than that. That is, to hyperlink with text.

The tag you use is:

*url=www.catholic.com]

Insert text, no space between the bracket and the first letter of the text:

*url=www.catholic.com]Visit Catholic.com!

And then close it with the appropriate tag:

*/url]

url=www.catholic.com]Visit Catholic.com!/url]

And what it looks like:

Visit Catholic.com!

(These are the two most commonly used tags, so I hope I’ve covered all bases.)

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

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

On what basis do you say that?

Certainly, we exist in the present moment, and do not even have any control outside of the present moment. So on that basis, I say that it is not a mere perception, but an established fact of life.

Hubriss:

hurst:

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.

Ok. No, I do not think Christianity is an invented concept. I never thought that someone just came up with the Bible. I never thought that the idea of God was an invented concept.

I did have doubts about the Church, though, since so many people represented it badly. But even then I decided to always remain Catholic. It was a relief to me when I realized that I don’t have to copy everyone else, especially when I felt they were being hypocritical. That is why I view worship at Mass something private with God done in public. Our focus should be to God in our hearts, and not on whether the ceremony was entertaining or interesting. Otherwise one is subject to hypocrisy. We must profess our faith publicly so that Christ will profess us before His Father in Heaven.

Hubriss:

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.

Sorry, but you are not correct about what a concept is. Look it up in your dictionary.

In any case, a concept truly exists, because it is recognizable by our minds. Yet, it is not part of the physical universe.

Hubriss:

hurst:

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.”

Excuse me? When did we ever have such a discourse? Again, I do not hold to that argument, which is circular anyway. That is a Protestant thing.

In fact, I say we know the Bible is true because the Church tells us it is. The Church put the New Testament together and declared it to be of God. It also said the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New.

We know all these things because the Church gives testimony to Christ, Who came into the world from God, and by His own testimony is the Son of God, and is One with Him.

You may as well have been a Pharisee challenging Jesus Himself as to how He could say He was God. Jesus proved it various ways - by His miracles, by the events that showed He fulfilled the scriptures concerning the promised Messiah, by His renowned teachings, and ultimately, by His Resurrection! That is the whole basis for our Faith. If Christ did not rise from the dead, thenyou can say it is all a farce. But if He did, then bow down and worship, and obey unto death, so that He may raise you up also, and give you a reward for your loyalty.

Hubriss:

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

So you openly declare that a skyscraper does not need an architect? I am not talking about maintains here. Let’s limit it to metropolitan areas.

hurst

 

[hurst]

ReformedCatholic:

Max Plank suggests that matter does not exist at all! That if you break down atoms into sub-atomic particles, and those particles (quarks) into sub-particles that you are ultimately left only with a type of energy or “vibration.”

That’s neat - as if it were perhaps caused by the “voice of God” - His Word, by which He indeed created all things.

hurst