B
buffalo
Guest
I agree. Base your arguments on sound science and philosophy, not this faulty one.
- Status
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
buffalo, are you directing this second part to Orogeny?
I’m not sure who this was directed to, but I think you’re agreeing with me on the first point– and not saying that my arguments are not based on sound science and philosophy on the second point.
I’m just looking for clarification here.
B
buffalo
Guest
I am agreeing mountain builder should base his arguments on sound science and philosophy not on the “God the deceiver” faulty argument.buffalo, are you directing this second part to Orogeny?
I’m not sure who this was directed to, but I think you’re agreeing with me on the first point– and not saying that my arguments are not based on sound science and philosophy on the second point.
I’m just looking for clarification here.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Right. Now, go find me some physical evidence today that that happened.
Of course I see what you are getting at. I don’t doubt that miracles happen.
Do you see what I am getting at? In your creation scenario, God created everything instantaneously but left evidence behind that He knew would be misinterpreted by His creation, using the intelligence He was giving them. The miracle of creation is still a miracle and God did nothing to deceive in that act. HOWEVER, by creating evidence that indicates that He didn’t do it that way, He is being deceptive.
Yes, but once the wine was gone, there would be no evidence to contradict the miracle. There is plenty of evidence that the universe is old.
It tells us about His creation and therefore about Him.
None. That’s the point.
As someone else has noted
, it’s good to agree!Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Anyone who validates their faith on what I post in an internet forum had very little if any actual faith to begin with.
What about you? Are you blocking my belief in God creating the universe 13 billion years ago? A belief that is based on the evidence He created and the intelligence He gave us?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
No fault in this at all. Did God deceive us by giving us a mass of scientific evidence pointing to an old universe when He really created it just 6,000-10,000 years ago? That is the assertion of some posters on this forum. I reject the idea that God did so and I reject the idea that it is a faulty position.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
I have heard a scenario discussed that creation looks more like the spread of a drop of milk as it hits a hard flat surface.
It is interesting.
It is interesting.
B
buffalo
Guest
I too reject the notion that God purposely deceived us as I posted earlier.
I take issue with our certainty of applying the proper reasoning to the observed evidence.
O
Orogeny
Guest
What is the basis for that? Scripture? Science? The Milk Producers of America?
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
It was part of a scientific discussion about time. I will have to dig it up if you are interested.What is the basis for that? Scripture? Science? The Milk Producers of America?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
When do we decide that we have applied the proper reasoning to the point that we can say anything about science? Can we not also say the same thing about ANY science? That our reasoning is proper even with limited revealation from God?
Here’s my position. God reveals His creation to us through our study of nature. He gave us the gift of intellect to understand it as we discover it. Can we ever be 100% certain that we understand properly? Heck no! Should we refrain from trying to understand it until we are 100% certain? Absolutely not! Especially since no one can tell me when we will be 100% certain in this lifetime.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
We agree!
M
Mimi
Guest
I thought this was a well-reasoned response to Richard Dawkins.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316363,00.html
An open letter to Richard Dawkins by Fr. Jonathan Morris
(snip)
Now Pope Benedict XVI — the same man who supported John Paul II’s mea culpa — reminds the world that Christianity, and religious faith in general, does not have a monopoly on fanaticism. The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems. They sought to create religion-free utopias and in order to do so they arbitrarily eliminated at least 100,000,000 innocent lives.
In response to my presentation of the facts, you responded with what I consider to be a dishonest, or at least illogical, historical analysis. You say that atheism, in stark contrast to Christianity, is not to be blamed for these atrocities, because while Christians acted in the name of religion, Stalin and Hitler acted only in the name of their political movements. Therefore, you conclude, their atheistic philosophy has nothing to do with their action.
I don’t think your rhetoric, on this point, is convincing. You and I know that action follows ideas. You have said the world would be a better place if religious ideas were to become extinct. That’s because, for you, religion is tantamount to superstition — fairy tales — and superstition clouds the free exercise of reason, making fanaticism more likely. You point to the violent behavior of a tiny percentage of Jews and Christians — for example — as proof that religious belief moves people to act unreasonably, and that this irrationality sometimes shows up in violence. You fail to point out, however, that the actions of these radicals are routinely condemned by their religious leaders as contrary to the ideas of their faith. In other words, the truth is their actions follow their own ideas, not the ideas of true religion. (Here I can’t help rejecting, once again, what you said in the debate, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. That is like saying you are an Anglican even after everything you have said and done to reject the church into which you were born.)
Even more surprising than your refusal to see the fallacy of your logic in relationship to the actions of religious extremists is the fact that you don’t make similar deductions when it comes to the materialistic philosophy of atheism — in which Marx, Stalin, and Hitler believed, when here it actually makes sense. They weren’t merely indifferent to religion. They, like you, wanted to stamp it out. For most of us, including many atheists, it takes little effort to recognize how their belief that man can be reduced to his material properties (that he has no spiritual soul and therefore no sacred dignity), makes killing the innocent for political or selfish reasons a whole lot easier.
(snip)
All this is to say, Richard, that no group, neither religious nor atheist, has a monopoly on fanaticism. It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God’s name. It is weak human beings — not atheism, per se, that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century. I think we both agree, but I have only heard you say the latter of the two affirmations.
As human beings, we should ask the question what will cure us of such human weakness. According to Pope Benedict, it is knowledge of God (hope) as a just and merciful Father of us all. That’s an act of faith, of course — and not something I expect you to accept just yet — but I think you and I can surely agree it’s not the kind of religious belief that will lead to the fanaticism we both detest. According to all the statistics I have in front of me, it is, in fact, the kind of faith that brings more happiness to more people and makes us more generous and philanthropic citizens, even to non-religious causes.
(snip)
Here’s my proposal, Richard. Now that you rightly have earned yourself the title of leader of the neo-atheist, secular activists, I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.
As different as our views on God may be, I think we can — and given the circumstances — must, announce with ever greater vigor that human reason, when properly cultivated, can lead us to peaceful coexistence. And that doesn’t require wiping religion off the face of the earth.
God bless, Father Jonathan
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316363,00.html
An open letter to Richard Dawkins by Fr. Jonathan Morris
(snip)
Now Pope Benedict XVI — the same man who supported John Paul II’s mea culpa — reminds the world that Christianity, and religious faith in general, does not have a monopoly on fanaticism. The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems. They sought to create religion-free utopias and in order to do so they arbitrarily eliminated at least 100,000,000 innocent lives.
In response to my presentation of the facts, you responded with what I consider to be a dishonest, or at least illogical, historical analysis. You say that atheism, in stark contrast to Christianity, is not to be blamed for these atrocities, because while Christians acted in the name of religion, Stalin and Hitler acted only in the name of their political movements. Therefore, you conclude, their atheistic philosophy has nothing to do with their action.
I don’t think your rhetoric, on this point, is convincing. You and I know that action follows ideas. You have said the world would be a better place if religious ideas were to become extinct. That’s because, for you, religion is tantamount to superstition — fairy tales — and superstition clouds the free exercise of reason, making fanaticism more likely. You point to the violent behavior of a tiny percentage of Jews and Christians — for example — as proof that religious belief moves people to act unreasonably, and that this irrationality sometimes shows up in violence. You fail to point out, however, that the actions of these radicals are routinely condemned by their religious leaders as contrary to the ideas of their faith. In other words, the truth is their actions follow their own ideas, not the ideas of true religion. (Here I can’t help rejecting, once again, what you said in the debate, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. That is like saying you are an Anglican even after everything you have said and done to reject the church into which you were born.)
Even more surprising than your refusal to see the fallacy of your logic in relationship to the actions of religious extremists is the fact that you don’t make similar deductions when it comes to the materialistic philosophy of atheism — in which Marx, Stalin, and Hitler believed, when here it actually makes sense. They weren’t merely indifferent to religion. They, like you, wanted to stamp it out. For most of us, including many atheists, it takes little effort to recognize how their belief that man can be reduced to his material properties (that he has no spiritual soul and therefore no sacred dignity), makes killing the innocent for political or selfish reasons a whole lot easier.
(snip)
All this is to say, Richard, that no group, neither religious nor atheist, has a monopoly on fanaticism. It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God’s name. It is weak human beings — not atheism, per se, that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century. I think we both agree, but I have only heard you say the latter of the two affirmations.
As human beings, we should ask the question what will cure us of such human weakness. According to Pope Benedict, it is knowledge of God (hope) as a just and merciful Father of us all. That’s an act of faith, of course — and not something I expect you to accept just yet — but I think you and I can surely agree it’s not the kind of religious belief that will lead to the fanaticism we both detest. According to all the statistics I have in front of me, it is, in fact, the kind of faith that brings more happiness to more people and makes us more generous and philanthropic citizens, even to non-religious causes.
(snip)
Here’s my proposal, Richard. Now that you rightly have earned yourself the title of leader of the neo-atheist, secular activists, I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.
As different as our views on God may be, I think we can — and given the circumstances — must, announce with ever greater vigor that human reason, when properly cultivated, can lead us to peaceful coexistence. And that doesn’t require wiping religion off the face of the earth.
God bless, Father Jonathan
O
Orogeny
Guest
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Tim, is there a difference between claiming that God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the appearance of age, and claiming that God created it five minutes ago with the appearance of age? No, there is no difference. For that matter, God might not have created the universe at all – we and our personal histories and our experience of freewill and everything we see may yet be in potentia, held in God’s intention to create.
You might say this proposal is ridiculous, but we have as much evidence for this view as we do for believing that God created everything as it is 6,00 years ago, or at any other time.
E
edwest2
Guest
Such speculation ignores divine revelation which is part of the deposit of faith of the Church. But I suppose, out of a desire for novelty, it may be that some want to use their imaginations instead. This is not a proper way to look at Scripture which is the inspired Word of God, not men. A desire for some form of mental stimulation is opposed to a proper reading of the Scripture with humility and faith that what God has told man is true.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Sorry, this thread is on Evolution, not atheism v christianity. You must have posted in the wrong area.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I believe that Catholic dogmas would be violated if God had created the universe only minutes ago with the appearance of age. None of the saints would actually be in heaven, since they would have never lived, and Jesus would not have really come to save us. So, there is a difference between a world created 5 minutes ago with an apperance of age, and a world created before man had a soul, with the appearance of age.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
If we can’t trust the physical evidence, we have no way of ascertaining the actual age of the universe. God could just as easily have created a world five minutes ago with martyrs who had never suffered and evangelists who had never written, as God could have created fossilized dinosaur excrement from meals never eaten by a dinosaur.
- Status