Questions I need answered to help defend the faith:

[Touchstone]

This seems like a motivation to disbelieve and not a reason to disbelieve.

Why. As terrible as that is, it wouldn’t make God any less existent, would it? I can’t see how that would work. Maybe you mean “disbelieve in God’s goodness”, if he does exist? Then, I say it’s a very good reason to believe in God’s goodness.

Technically God incarnated Himself and sacrificed Himself. He gave up His life for His friends.

Ok, but my point was that human sacrifice made a big comeback.

God did not sacrifice his son; the Father sacrificed His Son who protrudes from Him. We are not Arians here.

Insofar as Jesus was human, and he was a sacrifice, I think we have human sacrifice, non?

-TS

 

[Matthias123]

Ok, but my point was that human sacrifice made a big comeback.

Insofar as Jesus was human, and he was a sacrifice, I think we have human sacrifice, non?

This is not the same type of sacrifice. He theologically sacrificed himself on the altar of cavalry not as a human but as the paschal lamb. It is not true that theologically he died as a human on the altar of cavalry. Unless you believe he was literally crucified on an altar, there is no problem. There are subtle distinctions.

 

[brandymmiller]

And if God’s message is that human sacrifice is not OK, didn’t God seriously undermine that by sending his own son to be sacrificed? My Jewish rabbi friend points out this a major problem for Christianity – the message on the Jewish view was that God was sending a message that human sacrifice was not OK (but animal sacrifice somehow did the trick? anyway…). But Christianity completely inverts the ethic of the story, marshalling it into a “prefiguring” of human sacrifice later on in the story of Jesus.
-TS

In a sense you are right, though not in the way that you think you are. God does call upon Christians to be living sacrifices for their neighbors - willing to die in order that the other might live.

The entire purpose of Christ coming to earth and living among us was to show us the way to love one another in truth. The human tendency is to strike back at those who hurt you - Christ showed us that rather than striking back we should offer ourselves with great love to those who hurt us being willing to go as far as dying for them if that is what is necessary to gain their salvation. Christ was the only one who could show us that because He was the only one who had done absolutely nothing to earn the hatred He was shown. He also showed us that we cannot do this thing alone but must remain in unity with God in order to accomplish it. Our human nature is simply too broken to allow us to love that way.

Christ offered Himself up - nothing was taken from Him nor was He forced to do it but did it out of the love that He had even for those who would never understand or accept His gift and even for those who would remain His enemy.

 

[djeter]

I need help answering these questions that my atheist friend asked me. Please Help me answer them because I’ve almost felt under attack because of them.
All of these questions are posed under someone else’s opinion; I had previously discussed why I am a Catholic (examples of miracles, etc…).

1. Why would we be put in hell for a life that was the blink of an eye compared to the eternity that we would spend in it. God didn’t create morals since morals are just opinions that we all agree upon.
2. Unfortunately the miracles you talked about for me mean nothing. I’ve heard about them before and was surprised to find that not many other people actually knew about them. Also, do you believe the miracles that Muslims claim to have happened to them where Allah tells them they are correct and thousands of Muslims witnessed it? Which has happened. Or the Hindus being told the 6 armed girl who was born is a miracle of their god? Or any other contradictory religious miracle to yours? Because the ones that happened to the people of your faith are more convincing because it is ‘your’ faith.
3. You can find naturalistic explanations for everything in life. And if you can’t, that doesn’t mean some god did it. Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Amounts of Evidence.

Please help me answer these claims since I am at a loss to respond. It seems like every explanation for why I believe in God/Jesus can be refuted with science.

This is an essay I use when atheists start in with Prove God Exists etc:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/23/asking-the-wrong-question-a-meditation-on-the-question-%e2%80%9cdoes-god-exist%e2%80%9d/

It’s a wonderful argument and we should all learn to use it.

dj

 

[ricmat]

Well, for one thing, a person experiencing hell would be unlikely to still choose it.

I’m just reading thru this thread, and this may have come up later in the thread. But I suggest that you read “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis. It’s a very short book, easily readable, and answers your question in the form of a parable.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Sure. What is necessary to believe needs no justification.

Finally we have agreed on something. Therefore God exists.

 

[Touchstone]

Finally we have agreed on something. Therefore God exists.

Heh. The sad thing is, plenty of people here but that without the smiley.

-TS

 

[Techno2000]

I need help answering these questions that my atheist friend asked me. Please Help me answer them because I’ve almost felt under attack because of them.
All of these questions are posed under someone else’s opinion; I had previously discussed why I am a Catholic (examples of miracles, etc…).

1. Why would we be put in hell for a life that was the blink of an eye compared to the eternity that we would spend in it. God didn’t create morals since morals are just opinions that we all agree upon.
2. Unfortunately the miracles you talked about for me mean nothing. I’ve heard about them before and was surprised to find that not many other people actually knew about them. Also, do you believe the miracles that Muslims claim to have happened to them where Allah tells them they are correct and thousands of Muslims witnessed it? Which has happened. Or the Hindus being told the 6 armed girl who was born is a miracle of their god? Or any other contradictory religious miracle to yours? Because the ones that happened to the people of your faith are more convincing because it is ‘your’ faith.
3. You can find naturalistic explanations for everything in life. And if you can’t, that doesn’t mean some god did it. Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Amounts of Evidence.

Please help me answer these claims since I am at a loss to respond. It seems like every explanation for why I believe in God/Jesus can be refuted with science.

The first one easy…this life is a test that God used to see which way you want to go…(towards the Light(God) or towards Darkness) God doesn’t force you to go to Heaven.

 

[Matthias123]

William Lane Craig was a major catalyst for growing suspicions that this whole Christianity thing was a vacuous fraud. He was the “best”. There’s a damning claim if there ever was one.

I am not aware of any problems with Craig. Unless your claiming he is intellectually dishonest, which I see no evidence of. I doubt that Quentin Smith would take Craig seriously if he was a hack, let alone co-author a book with him. You are going to have to prove your claims.

 

[Matthias123]

Yes, a complete wasteland. Even when we talk about being we aren’t talking about good, or anything meaningful at all in real world terms. It’s a word salad exercise.

On the contrary in my understanding being is synonymous with good. Also, do you think I like the fact that we can’t talk about being without such broad language? There is no choice; there is no other way to talk about being. Ontology is completely necessary in this case.

Yes I admit it is a bit of a funny farm, but there is no choice.

 

[Touchstone]

On the contrary in my understanding being is synonymous with good. Also, do you think I like the fact that we can’t talk about being without such broad language? There is no choice; there is no other way to talk about being. Ontology is completely necessary in this case.

Yes I admit it is a bit of a funny farm, but there is no choice.

Why do you want to talk about being, apart from grounded concepts, apart from descriptions and models that obtain from the real world? I’m not saying “why are you curious?” That I can understand for just about any question. But what did Aristotle have to wrestle with as soon as introduced protai ousiai?

What is it to be ‘substance’?

The difficulty of that question points right at the problem – the terms of the question itself. “Substance” is the wrong metaphor, and puts ontology at the top of the conceptual hierarchy as something real, “substantive”, rather than down at the bottom as something de facto, something that falls out descriptively.

What question are you pursuing when you want to pursue ontology in a non-descriptive, ungrounded hierarchical way? You are grooving on this top-down, hierarchical meta-model that you hope to smash everything into, and look at the kinds of silly conversations and intractable dead-end problems it yields. Reality can’t be modeled effectively that way and (see your thread on Plantinga and epistemic justification) knowledge breaks down badly when forced into that model.

-TS

 

[Matthias123]

But what did Aristotle have to wrestle with as soon as introduced protai ousiai?

Thomas Aquanis answers this well:
De ente et essentia:

A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions, as the Philosopher says in I De Caelo et Mundo cap. 5 (271b8-13), and thus, since being and essence are the things first conceived of by the intellect, as Avicenna says in Metaphysicae I, cap. 6, in order to avoid errors arising from ignorance about these two things, we should resolve the difficulties surrounding them by explaining what the terms being and essence each signify and by showing how each may be found in various things and how each is related to the logical intentions of genus, species, and difference.

What is it to be ‘substance’?

Matter, which is pure potency, and primus actus (form) which is the first actuality.

The difficulty of that question points right at the problem – the terms of the question itself. “Substance” is the wrong metaphor, and puts ontology at the top of the conceptual hierarchy as something real, “substantive”, rather than down at the bottom as something de facto, something that falls out descriptively.

Ontology is naturaly higher then cosmology.

What question are you pursuing when you want to pursue ontology in a non-descriptive, ungrounded hierarchical way? Y**ou are grooving on this top-down, hierarchical meta-model **that you hope to smash everything into, and look at the kinds of silly conversations and intractable dead-end problems it yields.

Sorry to burst your buble, mechanism wrought its own ruin when it tried to explain all of objective reality. Sure it is great in the natural sciences, but it is wrong to think that everything can be understood in terms of intrinsic forces and particles.

For example, if a particle can move from A to B, then it can move from B to A. Therefore you should see in some rare circumstances change running backwards. Have you ever seen a pile of ash turn back into a burning log? Or broken sheets of glass turn back into a complete sheet of glass? With the substantial form this does not occur because it is immutable.

Also what about the idea of particles, is this made out of particles? If the idea of particles is made out of particles, we would not be able to know particles because it would be made out of what we are trying to know. (Like seeing seeing, or smelling smelling)

Now matter itself has to be either indeterminate or determinate. If it is determinate we must be able to identify it. (This does not mean we have to be able to locate it.) If we can identify it, it must be some kind of subatomic particle. (In our modern scientific terms), but since it is the primary instance of matter, it would imply it was indestructible and unchangeable – which no particle is that we know of.

So how are we to explain the destruction of a quark? Obviously materially the mater is converted into energy, as stated by the physical laws. Yet this change needs to be explained. We cannot explain this by particles moving by intrinsic forces – we ran out of particles. The answer is the immaterial form is destroyed, and thus since prime matter is fundamentally indeterminate (pure potency) the substance (quark) ceases to exist.

Mechanism is an amazing methodology, but it cannot explain everything.

 

[Touchstone]

Matter, which is pure potency, and primus actus (form) which is the first actuality.

Pure potency? And we go right down the regress chain one more step. Ok, what is potency?

So far as I understand it, it’s meaningless. It’s word salad. If I said matter were actually pure fluff as a competing hypothesis, how would we determine you were right and I was wrong?

Ontology is l higher then cosmology.

Odd that you’d say “naturally”, as nature apparently isn’t consulted in making that assertion, is it? What would you point to in nature to bases this on, “naturally”?

Sorry to burst your buble, mechanism wrought its own ruin when it tried to explain all of objective reality. Sure it is great in the natural sciences, but it is wrong to think that everything can be understood in terms of intrinsic forces and particles.

There was no such bubble, for me or science. It’s trivial to realize that mechanisms and descriptions are regressive, too. Think about that as a principle for a minute. What would a “complete” mechanistic description look like? It’s a vanishing point only. As soon as you offer that level of description, it’s trivially “quined” by asking OK, who what are strings made of and why do they vibrate with the harmonics they do?

blank out

If there are first principles here to take on before proceeding, it’s understanding that words like “certain”, “everything”, “complete” and “ultimate” are the terms deployed by fools in this kind of inquiry. We work from where we are outward. We can’t “jump out of the system” to magically begin from the top. We don’t know what “top” means.

For example, if a particle can move from A to B, then it can move from B to A. Therefore you should see in some rare circumstances change running backwards. Have you ever seen a pile of ash turn back into a burning log? Or broken sheets of glass turn back into a complete sheet of glass? With the substantial form this does not occur because it is immutable.

This is physics. None of this addition of “substantial form” adds anything to our understanding, and tends to obscure it, because some events and processes are naturally reversible, “mutable”, then. And Aristotle just follows behind physics, trying to adjust its tautologies to accomodate what physics uncovers as real knowledge.

For as long as Aristotle’s notion of “substantial form”, it hasn’t had anything to offer about the examples you raised. Why does ash stay ash and not go back to log, when log so easily goes to ash.

It took real knowledge to answer that – physics. Entropy. The arrow of time. The principle of least action. Thermodynamics. Aristotle’s ideas tickled brains, but explained nothing on the above in terms of knowledge for two millenia, because it is intellectually impotent, an exercise in fanciful tautologies. Pseudo-knowledge.

Also what about the idea of particles, is this made out of particles? If the idea of particles is made out of particles, we would not be able to know particles because it would be made out of what we are trying to know. (Like seeing seeing, or smelling smelling)

Could be. The explanatory chain has to trail off somewhere, necessarily. Physics, and real knowledge in general, are real because they are proximate, limited, finite. It’s only when we get delusions of grandeur, and knowledge of “ultimate”, “everything” and “final” that we send out brains off the rails.

Now matter itself has to be either indeterminate or determinate. If it is determinate we must be able to identify it. (This does not mean we have to be able to locate it.) If we can identify it, it must be some kind of subatomic particle. (In our modern scientific terms), but since it is the primary instance of matter, it would imply it was indestructible and unchangeable – which no particle is that we know of.

Strings, according to the theory, are mathemetically homogeneous. The same, unchanging fundamental of matter/energy, modulating its geometry and vibrations according to its energy state and mass. So that would qualify as “basic”, pending technology that allows us to perform the high energy experiments we need to actually make the “theory” a real theory.

But even so, it doesn’t matter. If strings were found to be made of “sub-strings”, it just pushes the frontier back that much further, and we have then the same suspicions about “substrings”. Ultimate explanations are illusions – useful points on the horizon to aim at, but a point which we can never reach.

So how are we to explain the destruction of a quark? Obviously materially the mater is converted into energy, as stated by the physical laws. Yet this change needs to be explained. We cannot explain this by particles moving by intrinsic forces – we ran out of particles. The answer is the immaterial form is destroyed, and thus since prime matter is fundamentally indeterminate (pure potency) the substance (quark) ceases to exist.

What does “prime matter” mean? That’s an Aquinas term (did Aristotle use the term? I can’t remember that he did) so far as I know, completely foreign to physics. And it’s not just foreign as a term of art, the concept is problematic when we try to smash our Aquinas into our Susskind, Feynman and Vilenkin. Strings for example, invert the Aristotelian notion of form being an expression of matter. Instead, matter is an expression of form, so far as we can tell. On a physics view, Aristotle had it exactly backwards, and matter supervenes on form, rather than the other way around.

Mechanism is an amazing methodology, but it cannot explain everything.

This has been my mantra, from the beginning. Nothing can explain everything, and it’s unreasonable to think that’s a prospect for us. Which is fine, because what explains everything, explains nothing. We’re better of with out “explains everything”.

-TS

 

[Matthias123]

Pure potency? And we go right down the regress chain one more step. Ok, what is potency?

Touchstone, this is not a word salad situation. Use a dictionary if you don’t know what the word means.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potency

So far as I understand it, it’s meaningless. It’s word salad. If I said matter were actually pure fluff as a competing hypothesis, how would we determine you were right and I was wrong?

Did you read of what Aristotle said? Or did you just skim it?

Odd that you’d say “naturally”, as nature apparently isn’t consulted in making that assertion, is it? What would you point to in nature to bases this on, “naturally”?

I always thought it was self-evident, but apparently it is not. What is higher then being? It is the top of the explanatory model.

There was no such bubble, for me or science. It’s trivial to realize that mechanisms and descriptions are regressive, too. Think about that as a principle for a minute. What would a “complete” mechanistic description look like? It’s a vanishing point only. As soon as you offer that level of description, it’s trivially “quined” by asking OK, who what are strings made of and why do they vibrate with the harmonics they do?

I don’t think you understand what I am talking about. Science operated on the substantial form until it was abandoned, and later due to mechanism committing suicide people are talking about them more now. After all, there was no reason for us to stop talking about them, its just mechanism was superior, and still is superior in explaining what the Aristotelians would call “accidental properties”.

We work from where we are outward. We can’t “jump out of the system” to magically begin from the top. We don’t know what “top” means.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Metaphysical cosmology is about putting the universe in your hand and viewing it as a whole.

This is physics. None of this addition of “substantial form” adds anything to our understanding, and tends to obscure it, because some events and processes are naturally reversible, “mutable”, then.

I am not talking about physics, I am talking about metaphysics. Hence the term meta, “beyond” physics.

And Aristotle just follows behind physics, trying to adjust its tautologies to accomodate what physics uncovers as real knowledge.

No, Aristotle is running ahead of physics trying to define reality. Hence the term meta.

For as long as Aristotle’s notion of “substantial form”, it hasn’t had anything to offer about the examples you raised. Why does ash stay ash and not go back to log, when log so easily goes to ash.

I am conviced that you have read very little metaphysics as this is a very simple question. Can you explain to me the difference in change between mechanistic metaphysics and Aristotelian metaphysics? If not, read up on it – it is important.

It took real knowledge to answer that – physics. Entropy. The arrow of time. The principle of least action. Thermodynamics. Aristotle’s ideas tickled brains, but explained nothing on the above in terms of knowledge for two millenia, because it is intellectually impotent, an exercise in fanciful tautologies. Pseudo-knowledge.

*Now *you sound like Hume. Yet you have not answered my question, how do you explain the destruction of a quark? I can.

Could be. The explanatory chain has to trail off somewhere, necessarily. Physics, and real knowledge in general, are real because they are proximate, limited, finite. It’s only when we get delusions of grandeur, and knowledge of “ultimate”, “everything” and “final” that we send out brains off the rails.

So in otherwords, you don’t know, so I must not be able to know.

Strings, according to the theory, are mathemetically homogeneous. The same, unchanging fundamental of matter/energy, modulating its geometry and vibrations according to its energy state and mass. So that would qualify as “basic”, pending technology that allows us to perform the high energy experiments we need to actually make the “theory” a real theory.

And, are they indestructible? If not, you better be ready to explain how indeterminate matter is structured to make these one-dimensional 11th dimensionally vibrating entities.

Ultimate explanations are illusions – useful points on the horizon to aim at, but a point which we can never reach.

uh huh…like I said, if you can’t explain it because of your positivism, then nobody can. I think not. What happend to think horn of progress that you atheists are always sounding? Did you misplace it?

What does “prime matter” mean? That’s an Aquinas term (did Aristotle use the term? I can’t remember that he did) so far as I know, completely foreign to physics.

Did I ever say I was talking about physics? You know there is this great thing called metaphysics that you should check out.

Strings for example, invert the Aristotelian notion of form being an expression of matter. Instead, matter is an expression of form, so far as we can tell.

On a physics view, Aristotle had it exactly backwards, and matter supervenes on form, rather than the other way around.

Like I said said above. I don’t think you understand Aristotle.

 

[Matthias123]

This has been my mantra, from the beginning. Nothing can explain everything, and it’s unreasonable to think that’s a prospect for us. Which is fine, because what explains everything, explains nothing. We’re better of with out “explains everything”.

How would you know if you have explained everything? When would you stop?

 

[gabriellenoelle]

Have you showed your friend the incorrupt bodies of saints? Try Saint Silvan: he was martyred in the fourth century and he looks like he died yesterday. There is also plenty of evidence for the stigmata, Eucharistic miracles, etcetera. I’d be very happy to help you gather information for him or her if you’d like. Also, you should mention to your friend that every time a Host has bled, the blood type has always been AB. They’ve also contained veins, arterioles, and nerve fibers.

Another one that would be very helpful would be Our Lady of Fatima’s prophecies. She predicted that something terrible would happen during the reign of Pope Pius XI, who wasn’t even Pope at that time. Our Lady of Fatima appeared in 1917; Pope Pius XI was declared Pope in 1922. She said that people would know that God was about to punish the world when the night was illuminated by an unknown light. This light appeared; 47 days later, Hitler invaded Austria.

Yeah, those were actually my main two examples. His rebuttal was that there are “miracles” from other religions too, so therefore catholic ones prove nothing. He basically just dismissed them. Thanks though

 

[gabriellenoelle]

Ask someone who says that “How did the universe come to be?” If s/he says anything besides “I don’t know”, you know you are dealing with dishonesty or rank foolishness, because all naturalism can offer on that question is “I don’t know”. The most we have available are theoretical physical notions, which are not amenable to testing or verification.

So, I commend a reasoning process that I think results in atheism, but I would not wish to see you fall for terrible arguments for atheism or any other belief. It sounds like much of what is being put to you is not well thought out!

-TS

I agree! Although, since I believe in God I do think I can say, well, that He created it. But of course I’m not going to say it took him ‘this many days’ etc for how it all came about because no one can know for sure.
I tried explaining that my reasoning is based on faith but no matter how many times I emphasize that point it still seems to be wrong…oh well haha I am grateful for the arguments and responses I am getting

 

[gabriellenoelle]

This is modern relativistic rubbish. Ask him to prove this – start reading about natural law.

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

This is an error: Ask him what the idea of matter is made out of. Surely it can’t be made out of matter because then the idea will be made out of what you are trying to know,thus you would not be able to know matter. It would be like seeing seeing, or smelling smelling.

Ask him how he would explain the destruction of a quark at the quantum level. As the early mechanistic philosophers believed that the particle was indestructible. It clearly isn’t, and therefore it needs an explanation for this destruction. This explanation would be the destruction of the immaterial “form” of the substance “particle”. The actus primus or first act (form) ceases to be and since there is no actuality in matter, as it is pure potentiality, the substance (quark) ceases to actually exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism_(Aristotelian

You have nothing to fear, the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities. Anything that is truly scientific is not in conflict, and never can be in conflict with doctrine.

This is very helpful. Thank you!

 

[Matthias123]

This is very helpful. Thank you!

I would recommend going to your local library, find an encyclopedia of philosophy, and read the history of metaphysics. It should help you out.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I need help answering these questions that my atheist friend asked me. Please Help me answer them because I’ve almost felt under attack because of them.
All of these questions are posed under someone else’s opinion; I had previously discussed why I am a Catholic (examples of miracles, etc…).

1. Why would we be put in hell for a life that was the blink of an eye compared to the eternity that we would spend in it. God didn’t create morals since morals are just opinions that we all agree upon.
2. Unfortunately the miracles you talked about for me mean nothing. I’ve heard about them before and was surprised to find that not many other people actually knew about them. Also, do you believe the miracles that Muslims claim to have happened to them where Allah tells them they are correct and thousands of Muslims witnessed it? Which has happened. Or the Hindus being told the 6 armed girl who was born is a miracle of their god? Or any other contradictory religious miracle to yours? Because the ones that happened to the people of your faith are more convincing because it is ‘your’ faith.
3. You can find naturalistic explanations for everything in life. And if you can’t, that doesn’t mean some god did it. Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Amounts of Evidence.

Please help me answer these claims since I am at a loss to respond. It seems like every explanation for why I believe in God/Jesus can be refuted with science.

I have always found that when all else fails one should consider telling the Truth.

Of course that might entail actually learning the Truth and no one wants to go to such extremes, but that is probably why it is last on the list.

As far as I can tell, the Catholic should have no fear of the Real Truth (unlike many I have examined). I have never had trouble defending Christianity against such questions as long as I stick to the actual Truth of the matter.

But to each their own.