Questions from an Agnostic

[Hubriss]

Hello, I am new to this site and just wanted to throw out a few questions without having to write whole paragraphs since at the moment I don’t have much time. 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).

I’m interested in what any of you devout Catholics have to say and your mainstream answers to these questions.

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. B. The fact that the church has been around for 2000 years in truth does not account for much since likely it has continued for the reason that people think that way (everyone else believes it so I will too. Billions of flies can‘t be wrong, eat $%!#), and for the reason that all those years there was never any reason for anyone not to believe in an afterlife (no evidence like evolution that contradicts supreme beings). If you say that it all just fits, how so?
2. 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. How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings). I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?
3. 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. Why must it be faith? If this is a test for God to find out who is fit to be with him or not, I would think he would prefer for us to not blindly believe something without sufficient evidence that may have been purposely created to deceive people whether their intentions were righteous, good (whatever) or not.

That’s all for tonight, I’d appreciate it if I can get some answers, I’ll check back with you all tomorrow.
Thanks

 

[Thal59]

Hubriss:

Hello, I am new to this site and just wanted to throw out a few questions without having to write whole paragraphs since at the moment I don’t have much time. 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).

I’m interested in what any of you devout Catholics have to say and your mainstream answers to these questions.

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. B. The fact that the church has been around for 2000 years in truth does not account for much since likely it has continued for the reason that people think that way (everyone else believes it so I will too. Billions of flies can‘t be wrong, eat $%!#), and for the reason that all those years there was never any reason for anyone not to believe in an afterlife (no evidence like evolution that contradicts supreme beings). If you say that it all just fits, how so?
2. 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. How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings). I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?
3. 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. Why must it be faith? If this is a test for God to find out who is fit to be with him or not, I would think he would prefer for us to not blindly believe something without sufficient evidence that may have been purposely created to deceive people whether their intentions were righteous, good (whatever) or not.

That’s all for tonight, I’d appreciate it if I can get some answers, I’ll check back with you all tomorrow.
Thanks

Welcome aboard. First of all, you would do better to ask one question at a time.Multiple questions lead to long and sometimes confusing replies, especially when new participants to the thread “jump in” in the middle of a debate.

Because you have asked many questions, and have also based your presuppositions on false precepts, I really don’t know where to start. So, I will leave this for now to the others. If they don’t give you anything satisfying, please feel free to converse with me, one point at a time, via email.

Thal59

 

[solarwind23]

Hubriss:

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. How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings). I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?

Catholics don’t read the Bible literally, it is perfectly acceptable to believe in evolution, the Big Bang etc.

 

[Darrel]

True belief in God is not a regular internal decision like eating or fastening your seatbelt. Faith can only come from God as a gift. In other words you should be asking him all of these questions.

One obvious proof that I tend to harp on is the fact that most non-believers are perfectly content to have faith in the notion that the universe just up and created it’s self one fine day. Yet common sense tells us that everything had to start someplace and everything is created that exists. Can you explain why I should consider it common sense that the universe is self created? I think I would have to be decieved if I believed that. So if so many people are decieved then who is decieving them?

Given the complex world we live in and the size of the universe I see more evidence of God then I do of this silly notion of self creation. Maybe God designed us in such a way that we can’t believe in him without us freely asking him for faith and belief. When we don’t ask him we just tend to make up whatever is comfortable in the moment. I went through a period in my life a long time ago when I asked questions similar to yours. I only found the truth by asking God. Scientific investigation will never fill that God shaped hole that every human being has inside of them. Science can’t disprove God any more then it can prove the universe created it’s self. Maybe the idea isn’t so much about proof as it is about faith.

-D

 

[hurst]

solarwind23:

Catholics don’t read the Bible literally, it is perfectly acceptable to believe in evolution, the Big Bang etc.

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.

The Big Bang theory has a number of variations, the most recent one including the attempt to incorporate all time so that it could be said to have no beginning and no need to be “created”. Such a perspective cannot be accepted. God created all that there is outside of Himself out of nothing. If a Big Bang is to be accepted, it must be with the understanding that God caused it to be, and furthermore, that He continues to maintain all creation in existence.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Darrel:

Can you explain why I should consider it common sense that the universe is self created?

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

 

[Pax]

Hubriss,

Please accept what I’m about to say without being irritated. There is very little in your post in the way of statements that can be taken seriously. Your questions, on the other hand, are good ones. Let’s analyze your opening statement.

You said:

Hubriss:

1. What is your reason for believing the church? There is no proof that anything the church says is correct.

It seems pretty obvious that this statement is predicated on nothing but bias. Surely, there are some things that the Church says that are true, and surely there is a proof available for these things. Your statement categorically denies “everything” that the Church teaches. Do you really believe that?

Let’s stick with this first issue until we get that ironed out and then we can tackle the rest of your points in order. I believe there are excellent answers to all of your issues. I would recommend some reading for you as well. Get a hold of Christianity for Modern Pagans, and also The Handbook of Christian Apologetics. The author of these books is Peter Kreeft and he will blow you away with logic.

 

[Hubriss]

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. 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.

To hurst:
If the notion that the universe has no beginning and no need to be created is unacceptable to you, then why is the notion of God acceptable?

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.

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.

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

I’m interested in what any of you devout Catholics have to say and your mainstream answers to these questions.

As another person pointed out, you would have been better off posting separate threads for each point…

Hubriss:

1. What is your reason for believing the church?

1. I believe that God established it.
2. It is more stable and thorough than navigating life by myself.
3. It has produced saints I can imitate
4. It has produced convincing treatises explaining the Faith
5. It is consistent with the Israelites as a People led by God
6. It is a Kingdom we are welcomed into
7. I have experienced grace and spiritual life through the Sacraments

Hubriss:

There is no proof that anything the church says is correct.

There is the testimony of my conscience, my reason, and my heart. Certainly, there are at times conflicting things said by various members of the Church, including some of the leaders. But they are consistent over the span of generations.

Hubriss:

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.

You can only see the earth from the perspective of a rocket. You can only experience your life one moment at a time. You can’t see your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. You can’t prove that you will still be alive tomorrow.

In other words, you don’t need to experience and know everything yourself in order to be sufficiently certain of it in order to go along with something. Only those who want to disobey are looking for occasions to leave. But what in the Church is dangerous for your life, whether in this world or the next?

Also, do you neglect to do your homework on the basis that you don’t really know if you will be alive tomorrow? Or that your grade matters for anything?

The basis of the Church’s claim is that it is God’s Church, and He is the very life of the Church, and He is the Head of the Church. God is infallible. If we live in Him, then we share His life. He gave us pastors to lead us. He gave teachers and apostles and healers and more. Sure, there are other groups who make the claim that they are God’s Church, but fortunately, none of them claim to be infallible. They wouldn’t dare. (Let me know if you find one). They prefer to focus on the belief that individuals are infallible to decide things for themselves. While it is true that we must decide for ourselves whom we will obey, we can make mistakes and must avoid the temptation to become like rotten apples on a tree that cut themselves off from the life-giving sap and try to hold themselves up by relying on their own strength. An apple that tries to hold itself up will simply fall. Hard.

hurst

 

[twf]

You bring up so many issues that I can’t possibly address them all in one post. .
I’ll probably be back later with more, and if you want, feel free to email me at tyler_fehr@rendreality.com if you want one on one dialogue.

First off, the Catholic Church does not have a problem with evolution. There are a number of things to consider:

1. The Catholic Church rejects the Protestant notion of sola scriptura (Scripture alone). The Church has always understood that Scripture must be understood within the context of Sacred Tradition. We believe that the Apostles conveyed the Faith through both the written word and oral Tradition. (Note the use of the capital T…this kind of Tradition should not be confused with tradition, which is not part of the Faith, but associated practices added at various times).
   As the Apostle Paul wrote:
   So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours. (2 Thes. 2:15)
   You may ask how we know that this oral Tradition has been faithfully preserved. Well we take this on faith, but as far as the basics are concerned, we can compare current Church teaching with the teachings of the early Church Fathers. (From the late first century on). So my point is that the Bible can not be read in a vacuum. We must turn to the Church, and ensure that our interpretations fit within the framework of Sacred Tradition.
2. The Bible is a collection of works. It is not a single book. For this reason, many genres are employed. The Church teaches that the Bible is without error, but when understanding this, we must realize that this is true only as far as the author intended it to be so. If the author is using the genre of allegory, we should not take it as literal history. Many believe that the first chapters are Genesis were not meant to be understood literally. Certain elements of it are literally true (God created the universe, God gave Adam a soul, man fell from grace, etc), but the literary framework may heavily rely on symoblic metaphors. Genesis teaches us spiritual truths. Other books of the Bible certainly are meant to be historically accurate. In those cases we trust them as such. The genres employed by Genesis and the genres employed by the Gospels are completely different. So to doubt a literal interpretation of the creation story does not necessarily mean that we must doubt the narrations of Christ’s miracles.

So the Catholic Church is open to the possibility that God used and guided evolution. Who were Adam and Eve? When did they live? Where did they live? What was their original sin? Which species of hominids had souls? All these questions are open to debate.

 

[Hubriss]

To Twf:
About your comment on Genesis not meant to be taken literally is only something some Catholics say now that it has been blown out of the water. Of course it was meant to be taken literally, otherwise there would be no point in putting it in the bible or maybe even writing it. That was what the whole argument with Darwin was about. He questioned the belief that everyone had taken literally and was hated for it by the science comunity.

The bible is very general, it can be interpreted in many ways and certain passages and phrases have been highlighted to try and explain the religion while there are some that contradict it.

There is nothing important about saints. All they have told us is what they think God has intended, their speculations are often no better than anyone’s today. You can’t provide a basis for God by saying, “What we have here came from God, and through this we can know that he exists.” Christianity runs around in a never ending circle. You make assumptions to try and prove your assumptions.

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

To hurst:
If the notion that the universe has no beginning and no need to be created is unacceptable to you, then why is the notion of God acceptable?

If you find that it is acceptable that the universe is self-existing, then what stops you from rather accepting that God is self-existing? Something has to be self-existing. It must explain all things.

In fact, it makes more sense to believe in a self-existing Creator than in a self-existing material universe. The main reason is that the “universe” is constrained by a sequential flow of moments in time, as our own conscious testifies to us. The physical universe does not contain itself. Where do the future moments come from? They certainly do not exist materially right now. And where did all the things of the past go to? They are gone materially.

You are going to have to start “believing” in invented concepts to explain these things “materially”. Recent ideas, such as the 4D model, ignore our consciousness being constrained to the current moment, and bow down to their inventions so that they live as if time were just a physical part of the universe. But it isn’t, because the future has not occured yet, and so is not yet a part of the universe.

Furthermore, molecules and atoms did not always exist. Protons and electrons did not always exist. That is empricially the case, since they are composed of other particles, and depend on the pre-existence of smaller particles.

Such things follow a design and were not made by human hands. Since we have the ability to appreciate a good work, then let us praise the worker – who do you suppose it is? To say there is no worker is as unfounded as to claim there was no architect for a skyscraper. Do yourself a favor and challenge the skeptics. True fearlessness is to not bow down to their derision. But you can only do that if you keep faith with your Creator. Now you see why there is evil in the world: people decide to trust in their own strength and lust for fame, power, and pleasure.

hurst

 

[Petergee]

Hubriss:

To Twf:
About your comment on Genesis not meant to be taken literally is only something some Catholics say now that it has been blown out of the water.

No St Augustine said it 1600 years ago, and I’m sure he wasn’t the first.

Of course it was meant to be taken literally, otherwise there would be no point in putting it in the bible or maybe even writing it.

Did you even read the post above about the different literary genres which the books of the Bible were written in?

That was what the whole argument with Darwin was about. He questioned the belief that everyone had taken literally and was hated for it by the science comunity.

That’s what some people like to think because it makes them feel comfortable and superior, but if you care to look into it you will find that what actually happened in Darwin’s time was very different.

The bible is very general, it can be interpreted in many ways and certain passages and phrases have been highlighted to try and explain the religion while there are some that contradict it.

Really? Such as? I suppose the Bible seems “very general” when you don’t know much about it. The Bible was written “to explain the religion” as you put it. Any book which did not comply with the tenets of the Catholic religion was not included in the Bible by the Catholic bishops who compiled the Bible.

There is nothing important about saints. All they have told us is what they think God has intended, their speculations are often no better than anyone’s today. You can’t provide a basis for God by saying, “What we have here came from God, and through this we can know that he exists.” Christianity runs around in a never ending circle. You make assumptions to try and prove your assumptions.

Pretty rich when you’ve made a whole lot of unfounded assumptions right here. I hope I’m wrong, but it seems you aren’t really interested in answers to your questions, you just want to assert your supposed intellectual superiority. Grow up a little and listen to what others have to say who have different views - you might learn something.

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

That was what the whole argument with Darwin was about. He questioned the belief that everyone had taken literally and was hated for it by the science comunity.

From what I read, this was mainly in regards to the belief that Protestants had.

Hubriss:

You can’t provide a basis for God by saying, “What we have here came from God, and through this we can know that he exists.”

That is precisely the basis. What we have in the universe proves that there was never total nothingness. Therefore we know that something has always self-existed. 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.

Therefore, everything we experience somehow mirrors something about God. God has all power that is possible, and any power we experience is enabled by His. God has all knowledge possible, all willpower possible, all understanding possible, all space, all time, etc. God is so immense, He could not fit into an infinite number of infinite universes. In fact, since we have not always existed, we are nothing in ourselves, but are rather like empty bubbles surrounded by His care. “In Him we live and move and have our being”.

He is like a big blob of dough, and His creatures are like air bubbles inside of it. They are nothing in themselves, but take on a shape as He gives it to them and maintains it for them in Himself. Somehow, He gives us a share in His life, by giving us ability to understand ourselves to a limited extent, and an ability to exercise free will. That is mind-boggling. How much greater must He be!

No one can escape His hand. Yet we see the freedom He gives and the beauty of His creation. We also see the ugliness of our own works as a society. Let us learn from this to desire to conform ourselves to His beautiful Will; let us serve Him.

hurst

 

[Hubriss]

To hurst: Mind if I reverse everything you just said back on you?

Why if I believe the universe is self-existing should I continue on to believe a God created it?

As I was about to say earlier but i didn’t, there is no such thing as a sequential flow of time that all matter must follow. We must only percieve things in time in order to comprehend a logical progression from one thing to the next.

So you’re saying that you don’t believe in an invented concept? I can assure you that you are. A human that knew no more than you do invented these concepts that you now believe at one point or another. 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.

But really must there be a worker? Is everyone that dependant on insisting that they did not come about without help from something greater than them?

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

To Petergee:
No, Augustine did believe Genesis and the Trinity.

Ok Mr. “You think you’re so superior.” Same advice to you as hurst, you don’t need to put yourself down all the time. God is not the source of all your accomplishments, you are.

Such as all the little things the different sects of Christians argue about. “No, that’s not a sacrament.” “Yes it is.” Literal/Figurative Old Testament etc.

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. 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.

 

[twf]

Hubriss: Of course Augustine accepted Genesis. He accepted it as the inspired Word of God. So do I. He did not, however, interpret it literally! Did you read what I said about genres? Some people interpreted Genesis literally, others didn’t. We now have scientific evidence that the earth is 4.56 billion years old, and that man may have evolved from earlier forms of life. So now we can be fairly certain that Genesis was not written in the historical genre. There is plenty of room for interpretation of Scripture as long as those interpretations do not contradict Church teaching. This is only a problem for Protestants who have nothing to fall back on.
Further, I didn’t say anything about saints in general. I said that the Church’s teaching comes from both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I said that Sacred Tradition was handed down by the Apostles, who received it from Christ. I referred to the early Church Fathers. I didn’t say that our faith is based on the teachings of the Fathers. I said that comparing modern Church teaching with that of the Fathers, who learned from the Apostles and their immediate successors, assures us that our Tradition has been faithfully handed down.

Our faith does not rest upon one argument. We have hardly exhausted the topic yet. I just don’t want to get into other topics before this one is clarified. (Otherwise we’ll never get back to it).

Also, where did the Trinity come in? You said that Augustine believed in the Trinity? All Catholics believe in the Blessed Trinity. What was your point here?

Also humans are responsible, at least in part, for their own accomplishments. Salvation comes from God, but we must cooperate with his grace. The Church strongly emphasizes freewill.

Once we’ve covered this area we can move on to things like the historical case for Christ, the accuracy of the New Testament records, miracles and other supernatural signs, etc. I am a rational person. I am also a convert to the Faith (from Evangelical Protestantism). I assure you that I based my decision to convert on rational reasoning.

 

[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.

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. Our memories are entirely dependant on our brain (alzheimers, spell?), and without free will, there would be no sin or faith or knowledge for that matter (free will is not a gift, again you assume we are so special that we must have a purpose).

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

 

[Hubriss]

Ok, well unfortunately we’ll have to continue this discussion of ours tomorrow. It’s 12:06 and I got school.

Also Twf, some of the things that you think I said you said, were really just stuff I said. My usual point with the trinity is that it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe Jesus was fully God and the holy spirit as well. Believing they are seperate and that Jesus is only part God or whatever has nothing to do with whether or not his teachings were true or good to follow. If they are seperate and Jesus is not fully god, fine, he doesn’t need to be, the holy spirit was just god put in different terms. It’s really a meaningless argument…

Later guys, thanks for the replies, I’ll be back tomorrow.

 

[twf]

Hubriss: OK, goodnight. Don’t forget to address my last post tomorrow please . I still don’t understand why you’re bringing the Trinity into this. Sure the Trinity is essential to Catholicism, but I don’t see why it’s relevant to our discussion on Genesis and evolution. We can discuss the Trinity though if you want, and its ramifications on the teachings and actions of Christ. But let’s get through this first issue first.
God bless

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

To hurst: Mind if I reverse everything you just said back on you?

Why if I believe the universe is self-existing should I continue on to believe a God created it?

Are you saying that you see no reason to believe in a better self-existing thing than the physical universe?

I gave you a solid basis to expect that whatever is self-existing has to be greater than the physical universe, and in fact must be beyond something merely physical, which does not exist of itself anyway.

Hubriss:

As I was about to say earlier but i didn’t, there is no such thing as a sequential flow of time that all matter must follow.

According to whom? My own senses and consciousness tell me that the past cannot be revisited, nor can I know the future with certainty, nor can I move backward in time, nor can I stop in place in time, nor can I change the rate at which I go through time, nor can I even guarantee that I will even get another moment.

It it evident to my senses that everything is moving in one direction, and somethings depend on choices I make.

Hubriss:

We must only percieve things in time in order to comprehend a logical progression from one thing to the next.

What is the basis for that statement?

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

So then, you don’t base your non-belief of God on your experience of reality?

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?

Hubriss:

I can assure you that you are. A human that knew no more than you do invented these concepts that you now believe at one point or another.

I do not deny that I believe in concepts. But I assert they are not part of the material universe.

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.

Hubriss:

But really must there be a worker?

Must a skyscraper have an architect?

Hubriss:

Is everyone that dependant on insisting that they did not come about without help from something greater than them?

Could your ideas about denying God have come about without someone coming up with them? Are you not getting your arguments from other websites made by people smarter than yourself? Are you not leveraging a strength not your own?

Further, are you not dependent upon your parents for having been born?

What is wrong with being dependent upon another? Sadly, we grow up and start to think we are better than our parents. But even if we are smarter or prettier or stronger or richer, we are no better. We too will get old and dumb and weak and poor, and then die.

All that we have, we did not give to ourselves. Hopefully you recognize at least that much. Likewise, it will be taken from us whether we like it or not.

(continued)