There is no God

[Alois]

My point exactly - you believe that there are no “facts” other than things that can be proven through the scientific method.

Yes. I’m waiting for examples where this is proven false.

Anyways, I’m a college student and this is finals week, so I need to get off here for now, but you should listen to the Journey Home link that I put in my other post.

I downloaded it for later listening, thanks again for the links. And good luck with your finals.

By the way, he’s not a “creationist” (in the fundamentalist sense).

From my experience, most Catholics aren’t, which is why debates with you are actually very intelligent and thought-provoking.

Also, I would venture to guess that you would like to believe in God if you could, otherwise you wouldn’t be on this forum unless you want to convert us all to atheism, but where would that get you?

Nope, I’m just here to defend my path of logic, as you are here to defend yours.

Alrighty, that’s about all I have to say. Take it easy.

-Jon

PS - Merry Christmas!

Same to you.

 

[RobNY]

Alois:

No, Wikipedia is fact checked more rigorously than written encyclopedias. It’s isn’t opinion.

It may not be opinion, but sometimes it is fiction.

The quality of wikipedia is uneven at best. While I agree that it has some pearls, it also has some rather bad parts too. I think it’s a wonderful source to use to eventually refer you to other sources.

That being said, the open editing is very interesting when you see what it produces.

Science isn’t philosophical. It is based on reason and fact.

And what are reason and fact based on?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

No, Wikipedia is fact checked more rigorously than written encyclopedias. It’s isn’t opinion.

Well, I heartily suspect that’s just your opinion.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I posted a link to wikipedia because although it is not exactly acceptable as a source for a paper, it does often offer a good basic overview of issues - such as the Big Bang.

Atheism /= science. There is a difference between scientific arguments and rational arguments - for example, all scientific arguments are rational, but not all rational arguments are scientific (eg falsifiable). For example, in the philosophical debate about proper names, rational arguments are given, but no-one expects a piece of evidence to appear which will prove one of these theories wrong. Science is useful to the atheist, since it helps eliminate god of the gaps arguments. But they are not the same.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BROWSER

Science is useful to the atheist,

Especially useful if he can misuse it … such as by supposing that evolution implies of necessity a godless universe … and that notion is very fundamental to, and responsible for, the growth of modern atheism.

 

[estesbob]

Alois:

Give me a full, written rebuttal of the links I provided you then. Or stop trolling. The evidence is there, you refuse to look at it.

Here they are again:
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

I take it that to mean you can not prove neither of the propostions I asked you to. There was no evidence in any of the links to prove either of these queries either. After you have been in these forums a while you will realize that aserting your “opnion” proves your point and/or cut n pasting links do not constitute "proof.

So let me lay it our for you again:

Where did the matter that faclitated the Big bang come from?
How did life spring from non-life?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Gilbert Keith:

Especially useful if he can misuse it … such as by supposing that evolution implies of necessity a godless universe … and that notion is very fundamental to, and responsible for, the growth of modern atheism.

This is why Marx wanted to dedicate his book to Charles Darwin. He provided a theory that enabled intellectuals to be atheists.

 

[estesbob]

Alois:

No, Wikipedia is fact checked more rigorously than written encyclopedias. It’s isn’t opinion.

Simply not true Read their FAQ and read their disclaimer.

 

[Alois]

It may not be opinion, but sometimes it is fiction.

The quality of wikipedia is uneven at best. While I agree that it has some pearls, it also has some rather bad parts too. I think it’s a wonderful source to use to eventually refer you to other sources.

That being said, the open editing is very interesting when you see what it produces.

What’s your point? If anything, this is a check in Wikipedia’s favor. They monitor all edits and crack down on false information. The only thing left to opinion in a Wikipedia article are things that would be left to opinion in any encyclopedia article.

Even then, the context in which we cited Wikipedia would leave little to opinion, and could be verified in any physics textbook. It is simply easier to use that resource.

And what are reason and fact based on?

What is observed. Essentially, what is. It’s the base of science.

 

[Alois]

Especially useful if he can misuse it … such as by supposing that evolution implies of necessity a godless universe … and that notion is very fundamental to, and responsible for, the growth of modern atheism.

What are you talking about? No atheist that knows what he’s talking about uses evolution as a disproof for the existence of any god. It is, however, a disproof of a literal Bible God.

 

[Alois]

Where did the matter that faclitated the Big bang come from?

It starts with a Q, and I’ve said it before. You’re being willfully ignorant.

How did life spring from non-life?

READ THIS and actually refute the statements it makes about life forming from simple chemical proteins. I’ve linked it three times now. Either refute it, or concede that you can’t.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Alois, I’m back just for a quick bit. Have you read G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man? This is the book that changed C.S. Lewis’s mind. It’s pretty long, so I’m just warning you. It’s available online. Here’s the link:

mrrena.com/em.shtml

Also, Peter Kreeft has some good lectures to listen to on his website:

peterkreeft.com/audio.htm

And like I said before, you should read the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, particularly his Summa Theologica. Other than that, I don’t know what to tell you. After all, it is faith…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

What are you talking about? No atheist that knows what he’s talking about uses evolution as a disproof for the existence of any god. It is, however, a disproof of a literal Bible God.

Darwin admitted his own loss of faith after his work on evolution. Most of his disciples were confirmed atheists/agnostics, including the most famous, T.H. Huxley. Richard Dawkins is supposed to have argued that evolution made atheism intellectually respectable.

Of course it does nothing of the sort. God could well have devised evolution as the manner by which life would ascend upward from the molecular to the human level. Many Christians see that, but no atheists do.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Gilbert Keith:

Of course it does nothing of the sort. God could well have devised evolution as the manner by which life would ascend upward from the molecular to the human level. Many Christians see that, but no atheists do.

The fundies, however, don’t get this. They view God as if He created the universe the same way we humans might design a car or anything else, and in doing so, their “Intelligent Design” actually limits the intelligence of the Designer!

 

[Alois]

Darwin admitted his own loss of faith after his work on evolution. Most of his disciples were confirmed atheists/agnostics, including the most famous, T.H. Huxley. Richard Dawkins is supposed to have argued that evolution made atheism intellectually respectable.

Darwin was, to his death, a deist. He lost faith in the Bible and the Christian God, but still believed in a creator. Whether or not his “disciples” were atheist means nothing. They didn’t use evolution as a sole justification for becoming atheist, they based it on their own logical conclusions and beliefs. Could evolution have helped? Of course, it removes the need for a Creator of creatures and goes against a literal translation of the Bible, which was the most common form of Christianity back then. That doesn’t mean the based this belief only on evolution.

Of course it does nothing of the sort. God could well have devised evolution as the manner by which life would ascend upward from the molecular to the human level. Many Christians see that, but no atheists do.

Nonsense, it’s a possibility that God could have created evolution, but with a reasonable natural explantion for it that can be shown through evidence, there is no need for a supernatural being that can’t be shown through evidence to guide it. Therefore, logic (as I’ve discussed throughout this thead) strongly suggests that we pick the first option. A far less logical choice would be to choose the second option.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Then you’re just saying “I believe”. “I recognize” would only apply if there were something to to gain that recognition from.

The recognition is gained (for example) from perception, experience, and reason.

Alois:

You “believe” that existence is the thing that provides this recognition, therefore the base of your claim is “I believe”.

I can perceive existence, just as you can. I can recognize my own existence, just as you can. And it is quite reasonable to do so. I also believe I exist, but that is a response to what I recognize. I could not believe I existed if I did not recognize anything.

Alois:

This is assuming the base I mentioned above: that existence can cause the recognition of a God. It can, but only if you believe it. There is no evidence that is does so.

I do not believe existence causes recognition “of a God”. That statement doesn’t even make sense. I am not sure you are reading my posts very thoroughly.

Alois:

How is the recognition of unicorns because of existence any more of an assertion than the recognition of a God because of existence?

I am not making the second statement. That must be what you think I am saying.

Alois:

Why not? Why is God an acception to this? In your example below, why could a unicorn not be the “larger source”?

You mean to ask why a unicorn could not be the larger source of water? How about because unicorns are not sources of water? Neither are horses; it is hard enough to get them to drink it, much less be a source for it

Alois:

You assume that you know the size of the “hose”. If you actually do and have the evidence to back it up, you’ve just won a Nobel Peace Prize.

I gave the example thinking of a garden hose connected to the side of my house. When I was a child, I saw the hose connected to the house, and water came out of the hose. Even then I was able to reason that there was a source of water inside the house somehow.

Alois:

The problem is, no evidence has been put forth to prove that you don’t need faith to reach such a conclusion. There is no valid, logical argument for the existence of a god, or at least one has not been yet provided in this thread.

I don’t think anyone here is trying to provide an argument for “a god”.

Alois:

Which is why the assertion will fail. I was implying a true assertion.

Well, I looked up the word, and to recognize something is not to assert it. One is passive, the other active. Perhaps you can give your definition?

Alois:

When I say I recognize that God exists, I am referring to God defined as the source of all existence. It is just a term at this point. We could use another term, if you would feel better about it, but it can’t refer to any visible object.

If this is your definition of God; I have no problem with it.

Ok, we finally have a common point of understanding.

hurst

 

[Alois]

JSmitty2005:

The fundies, however, don’t get this. They view God as if He created the universe the same way we humans might design a car or anything else, and in doing so, their “Intelligent Design” actually limits the intelligence of the Designer!

Well, we can agree strongly on at least one thing.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Alois:

Well, we can agree strongly on at least one thing.

We also agree on reason. However, Catholics believe in both faith and reason. Coming to a Catholic forum was a good idea for you. We have always had the great thinkers. The Prots are the ones with the blind faith. Protestantism is quite illogical. Christ promised to preserve His Church all throughout history, yet they believe it went into apostasy early on, but good old Martin came along 1500 years later to restore it. To me, this seems to call Christ a liar.

Sorry about the rant. Here’s an article regarding the Catholic Church, evolution, and Creation:

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=81525

 

[JSmitty2005]

There was a little snippet on Fox News that talked about Wikipedia and Brit Hume described it as a site “where factual errors abound.” Maybe some Divine Providence that that came up on the news tonight.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

*Nonsense, it’s a possibility that God could have created evolution, but with a reasonable natural explantion for it that can be shown through evidence, there is no need for a supernatural being that can’t be shown through evidence to guide it. *

You are a living and breathing example of my point that evolution encourages atheism.