There is no God

[TySixtus]

Maranatha:

To an atheist, death (annihilation) would be the worst possible punishment because it’s an absolute end. To a Catholic, death is merely the end of one phase of your existence.

So tell me something. When you are sick, do you take medicine? Do you wear a seatbelt?

Ty

 

[Maranatha]

TySixtus:

So tell me something. When you are sick, do you take medicine? Do you wear a seatbelt?

Ty

Yes. If I were to die now because I want to go to heaven that would be selfish. To say here and spread the truth is selfless. Selflessness is the only true way to happiness.

 

[TySixtus]

Maranatha:

Yes. If I were to die now because I want to go to heaven that would be selfish. To say here and spread the truth is selfless. Selflessness is the only true way to happiness.

But you take medicine because you don’t want to die, right? And I bet you have lots of reasons for wanting to be alive, right?

Ty

 

[kev7]

For something that is only a statement (“No Belief in God”) you sure hold a lot of faith in it. With it you claim to have a complete understanding regarding the nature of the universe. You claim that your perception of the universe is a valid measurement and by that you conclude that a man should only believe in what he can prove.

The fact is mankind will never understand the nature of the universe. We will never be able to understand all possible perceptions of reality. What if there are an infinite number of perceptions? You can never say that the universe contains everything that exists. What about everything that could exist? What about everything that doesn’t exists? What about other questions of that we can’t possibly fathom? What if we are stuck in a universe where nothing significant can be proven? What if explaining the nature of the universe to a man is akin to explaining the nature of math to a bird? What if there are other concepts that are outside the realm of “Everything that exists”. Our own ability to fathom these concepts could in fact just be as limited as a birds understanding of numbers.

I submit to you that your perception can’t possibly be proven to be valid. If you don’t have a complete understanding of the universe then how can you make the assertion that God doesn’t exists? Why would you even lower yourself to that level and attempt to make such a claim without a compete understanding of the universe? Would that not be like saying, “the earth is flat“ without first having proof? Therefore, it is clear to me you are taking a huge leap of faith by saying that there is no God. In a very basic way you are no different then someone that puts their faith in God.

You see, as Catholics we accept that there is no proof that God exists. We accept that we can possibly fathom the nature of the universe. We accept that we can’t possibly have all the answers or even all the questions. We accept that all possible questions and answers are infinite. With that said however, we do know that love is just as infinite.

The capacity in all of use to love is infinite and that is what is important. It is in fact only our doubts that stop us. When we have doubts and make assertions as to the nature of the universe (like the atheists have) we fail in our capacity to love. In fact we only have to observe what happens when man rejects God. Look at nazi Germany. Look at the evil acts of Stalin. Both of which are atheistic societies. The greatest atrocities in history are there legacy of those who reject God. Join with them if you will, but know when you adopt a doctrine of doubt (which is what atheism is) you reject love and in the process you reject God.

You claim that love is simply an abstraction and that your heart is only filled with blood. Can you honestly look into the eyes of your daughter when she puts all her faith and trust in you and claim that her love is only an abstraction? Does it not move your heart to experience her love? How then can you claim that your love is only an abstraction?

The very fact that love is intangible and that you have admitted to that suggests that you are open to the possibility of things in this world that can’t be proven by science. Why you would accept the “abstraction” of love and not be open to the “abstraction “of God is a mystery to me.

Your daughter doesn’t need proof that you are her father in order for her to love you. The same is true with our relationship with God. We do not need proof to open our arms to God. Jesus in fact teaches us to be like the children for this very reason.

I’m sure that in time you will see God in your family and your daughter. You will even see him act through you. You will reject it all for a while, but in time you will come around and Christ will reach out to you. You just haven’t experienced it yet. When it happens it will be all the proof that you need.

 

[kev7]

TySixtus:

See if you can follow me here.

Kev7 said that “god is love”.

God was responsible for murdering all the firstborn of Egypt.

If god is love, then love must include the desire to kill babies.

Really, this is all in your holy book.

Ty

This is the God of the old testament. Christ is the revelation of the truth . In fact he is the word an source of what we know about our loving father in heaven.

As Catholics we put the bible in context. Such arguments don’t hold any weight with us because Christ has shown us the truth through his life, death, and resurrection. Again please understand that your arguments will only upset the fundamentalist protestants.

It was infact the mindset of the old testament that played a part in Christ’s crucifixion.

That’s ok however; I accept that your understanding of the catholic faith is limited. It is the source of your discomfort with your own religion of atheism.

I would invite you to learn more about the faith. We would all welcome you and I’m sure we will pray for you .

 

[mikew262]

TySixtus:

See if you can follow me here.

Kev7 said that “god is love”.

God was responsible for murdering all the firstborn of Egypt.

If god is love, then love must include the desire to kill babies.

Really, this is all in your holy book.

Ty

And what used to be your holy book. Not sure what happened to make you abandon God, but it must’ve been big. As someone else said, he’s patient, when you’re ready to come back, he’ll be waiting.

 

[kev7]

TySixtus:

For someone who claims that they don’t know anything about god, you seem to know an awful lot about god. And eager to tell me, too.

Ty

Again, I don’t claim to understand the nature of God.

I only have faith in him. And I have faith in his Love for everyone.

 

[kev7]

TySixtus:

So tell me something. When you are sick, do you take medicine? Do you wear a seatbelt?

Ty

Faith in Gods love does not prevent us from showing respect for the life that he gave us.

 

[Maranatha]

kev7:

You see, as Catholics we accept that there is no proof that God exists.

This is incorrect. The Catechism if the Catholic Church stats that the existence of God is knowable through reason. There are many logical proofs of God’s existence.

 

[Maranatha]

TySixtus:

But you take medicine because you don’t want to die, right? And I bet you have lots of reasons for wanting to be alive, right?

Ty

I don’t want to needlessly die. I do want to die. I really have one reason to live and that because it was a free gift and to wast it would be an insult. Catholics put a very high value to life. Each person is more valuable than the entire universe.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Yet another wandering atheist arrives.

Regarding the cosmological questions that have been discussed previously:

The “classic” version;
1: Everything that exists has a cause
2: The Universe exists
3: Therefore the universe must have some uncaused cause, which is God.

The problem with this argument, as previously mentioned, is that the conclusion contradicts premise 1 - it claims that there is a thing which exists and is uncaused. And without 1, the argument doesn’t work; end of story.

Furthermore, there are reasons to doubt applying premise 1 to the universe. As I think Ty alluded to, the principle of causality is an inductively discovered one. It seems to be true because we observe causes for most of the things we see in nature. The problem is that applying this principle to the universe is what is sometimes called a “category error.” A good example of such an error is assuming that the number 5 must have some particular color. We’ve never been “outside” a universe; all our observations come from within this universe; hence it would be wrong to apply the principle of causality to the universe itself. This criticism also applies to the KCA (below).

The Kalam cosmological argument:
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
3: Therefore the universe hass a beginingless cause, which is God.

1: As was mentioned previously, there is good evidence that there are events that begin to exist without causes on the quantum level. As was also noted, it is possible that quantum mechanics as a theory is wrong. But as of right now, it appears to be pretty true; so pending strong evidence that it is false we should be wary of premise 1.

2: This is where the major problems come in. For a thing to begin to exist, there must have been a time when it did not exist, and a later time when it did. But time is a part of the universe, as it were. It would be neat if ya’ll could point to the time when the universe did not exist.
Secondly, we are neglecting the possibility that the universe might be finite but unbounded - rather like the surface of a sphere is finite in area, yet has no edges. Indeed, as Steven Hawking says:

“The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: ‘The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

 

[TySixtus]

kev7:

For something that is only a statement (“No Belief in God”) you sure hold a lot of faith in it. With it you claim to have a complete understanding regarding the nature of the universe. You claim that your perception of the universe is a valid measurement and by that you conclude that a man should only believe in what he can prove.

You believe in stuff you can’t prove. This is irrational. I don’t require proof for everything. I require evidence for everything I believe.

The fact is mankind will never understand the nature of the universe. We will never be able to understand all possible perceptions of reality. What if there are an infinite number of perceptions? You can never say that the universe contains everything that exists. What about everything that could exist? What about everything that doesn’t exists? What about other questions of that we can’t possibly fathom? What if we are stuck in a universe where nothing significant can be proven? What if explaining the nature of the universe to a man is akin to explaining the nature of math to a bird? What if there are other concepts that are outside the realm of “Everything that exists”. Our own ability to fathom these concepts could in fact just be as limited as a birds understanding of numbers.

Again, this is nonsensical. If you can’t make sense of the universe, how do you contend to understand anything contained in the universe? This is solipsism, plain and simple. And solipsism is a bankrupt philosophy.

I submit to you that your perception can’t possibly be proven to be valid.

Well then neither can yours! You’re wrong, of course. My perception is valid,

If you don’t have a complete understanding of the universe then how can you make the assertion that God doesn’t exists? Why would you even lower yourself to that level and attempt to make such a claim without a compete understanding of the universe? Would that not be like saying, “the earth is flat“ without first having proof? Therefore, it is clear to me you are taking a huge leap of faith by saying that there is no God. In a very basic way you are no different then someone that puts their faith in God.

Am I taking a huge leap of faith when I say there is no leprechauns?

You see, as Catholics we accept that there is no proof that God exists.

You need to read your Catechism.

Ty

 

[TySixtus]

kev7:

This is the God of the old testament. Christ is the revelation of the truth . In fact he is the word an source of what we know about our loving father in heaven.

Kev7, I appreciate the effort you are putting into your posts. Sincerely. But there are some problems here.

You claimed that you don’t know anything about god. I posted a list of things that you said that contradicted that statement. You didn’t even acknowledge that.

It’s almost like you’re not even reading what I write. Then, you write another huge post telling me I can’t be sure of the nature of reality. This philosophy is false. If you’re telling me that I cannot be sure of the nature of the universe, you are committing a contradiction. Because your statement is a part of the universe, you could be wrong, and I could fathom the nature of the universe.

Do you see why this is nonsense? That’s like you saying that god is unknowable You posit traits that god supposedly has, then tell me that you don’t know anything about god. You are confused. And you are consistently contradicting yourself.

Ty

 

[TySixtus]

mikew262:

And what used to be your holy book. Not sure what happened to make you abandon God, but it must’ve been big. As someone else said, he’s patient, when you’re ready to come back, he’ll be waiting.

Here we go. No, I didn’t suffer some huge tragedy that pushed me away from my religion. I didn’t have a death in the family, and I didn’t start playing Magic: The Gathering.

It was a position I came to after a lot of study and a lot of thought. 8 months out to sea will give a man opportunities like that.

Ty

 

[TySixtus]

Maranatha:

I don’t want to needlessly die. I do want to die. I really have one reason to live and that because it was a free gift and to wast it would be an insult. Catholics put a very high value to life. Each person is more valuable than the entire universe.

If you want to die, you need to seek psychological help. I am not being insulting, and not I’m trying to be funny. If you truly want to die, and the only reason you haven’t is to avoid torqueing off god, my friend I am terribly sorry for you.

Catholics put a high value to life, yet you say you want to die. You claim life is gift? If it is, you squander it by wanting it to end. If you want it to end, you must not be satisfied with it.

In all seriousness, this is saddening to read. A few posts ago someone told me their heart was full of joy, and they had god to thank for it. Then I read this. And it reminds me of how terrible I felt when I was a Catholic. The guilt, the shame, the fear. I live with none of it now, because I am better than it. I have accepted that we are all we have. I don’t need threats of hellfire to keep me in line, and don’t need the “love” of tyrant to to make me feel worthy. I love myself for who I am, and revel in the strength of life.

Ty

 

[TySixtus]

Hey EnterTheBowser!

Thanks for the wingman support! I was trying to articulate my point, and you nailed it on the head. Excellent post.

Ty

 

[Maranatha]

EnterTheBowser:

Yet another wandering atheist arrives.

Regarding the cosmological questions that have been discussed previously:

The “classic” version;
1: Everything that exists has a cause
2: The Universe exists
3: Therefore the universe must have some uncaused cause, which is God.

The problem with this argument, as previously mentioned, is that the conclusion contradicts premise 1 - it claims that there is a thing which exists and is uncaused. And without 1, the argument doesn’t work; end of story.

Whoa there big boy. Not so fast. The first premise implies everything in the natural universe. Everything that exists “in the natural universe” has a cause. This proof shows the universal cause must be supernatural.

 

[Maranatha]

EnterTheBowser:

Furthermore, there are reasons to doubt applying premise 1 to the universe. As I think Ty alluded to, the principle of causality is an inductively discovered one. It seems to be true because we observe causes for most of the things we see in nature. The problem is that applying this principle to the universe is what is sometimes called a “category error.” A good example of such an error is assuming that the number 5 must have some particular color. We’ve never been “outside” a universe; all our observations come from within this universe; hence it would be wrong to apply the principle of causality to the universe itself. This criticism also applies to the KCA (below).

Limiting your acceptable proofs to “observable” data and not the use of logic is another way of saying you will only accept scientific proof. Liking the question of weather the universe has a cause to comparing numbers and colors seems to me to be a shift in category.

 

[Maranatha]

EnterTheBowser:

Indeed, as Steven Hawking says…

As was previously pointed out, Dr. Hawking is a Theist. If he can study these matters for his whole life and come to that conclusion, what should we do in the comparatively little time we are spending on this topic.

 

[TySixtus]

Maranatha,

If it’s so painfully obvious, please provide verifiable proof of the supernatural.

Thanks.

Ty