What if the Church did this in response to the same-sex "marriage" debate?

[Regular_Atheist]

But in what world would Prince Charles be skipping with Leo? Please 'splain.

Well, that’s just silly. That would never happen. You can clearly see in the picture that Princes Charles is running. The only one who actually appears to be skipping is Stephen Fry.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, hey, sorry. That’s not really a group I want to be lumped in with. If it’s any consolation, I probably have a view closer to ‘Giants’.

Okey dokey, then. I almost had my buy-bye sign ready for you.

I mean, I did state that he may not have existed, but I didn’t state as to whether or not I think it’s more likely that he existed than didn’t. I don’t really understand why I get viewed as the conspiracy nut, though. Giants basically said the same thing, but simply worded it differently.

So here’s the thing, RA. I find your degree of skepticism for Christ’s existence so inconsistent with how you live your life in all other areas. (You, again, being a rhetorical you).

That is, your demand for proof of his existence in history is particularly high, while your demand for proof of, say, the Peloponnesian wars, is extremely low. No atheist ever goes around dismissing the proofs of these wars with the same vehemence they do to the historical records of Jesus’ existence.

In fact, I posit that you have a peculiarly high degree of faith in things that you ought to demand more evidence for than you do for Christ’s existence. To wit: I would bet my Bible that you’ve never examined the credentials of the pilot who flies you across the ocean. Why? Why do you trust that she’s passed her exam but give great skepticism to historical accounts of Jesus’ life?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s just silly. That would never happen. You can clearly see in the picture that Princes Charles is running. The only one who actually appears to be skipping is Stephen Fry.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Please note that I’m on my phone, now. I can’t quote everything you say on this wretched device, I’m afraid.

Okey dokey, then. I almost had my buy-bye sign ready for you.

Phew, good save on my part.

So here’s the thing, RA. I find your degree of skepticism for Christ’s existence so inconsistent with how you live your life in all other areas. (You, again, being a rhetorical you).

That is, your demand for proof of his existence in history is particularly high, while your demand for proof of, say, the Peloponnesian wars, is extremely low. No atheist ever goes around dismissing the proofs of these wars with the same vehemence they do to the historical records of Jesus’ existence.

But people generally don’t base their lives around the existence of the Peloponnesian wars, or attempt to convince me that they happened. That’s why I wouldn’t be vocal about any sceptisism I had about their existence. I’d never get the chance to, nor would I need to. Of course, I’d also be lying if I said I’d even bothered to study them. That’s another reason.

In fact, I posit that you have a peculiarly high degree of faith in things that you ought to demand more evidence for than you do for Christ’s existence. To wit: I would bet my Bible that you’ve never examined the credentials of the pilot who flies you across the ocean. Why? Why do you trust that she’s passed her exam but give great skepticism to historical accounts of Jesus’ life?

I never really think to doubt the pilot’s credentials. I suppose it’s similar to the way we always trust taxi drivers, despite them being complete strangers. It’s partly due to the fact that I’ve been raised to blindly trust these people, but also due to the fact that I don’t have the information avaliable me and it’s not something I can research on my own time at a leisurely place. Besides, being analytical of historical sources is one thing - that’s called being sceptical, but wanting to know about a pilot’s credentials is just beeing paranoid.

I’m off to bed now. It’s late. At least, where I am. I’m afraid I won’t be replying to you anymord until the morning. Night!

 

[down_under]

okay lets start from the beginning. That’s not a pun I’m serious. why is the big bang theory significant? Because thanks to verification by first Einstein then Hubble, and much later the discovery of the 2.7 degree centigrade back ground radiation from the big bang we were able to trace the origins of the universe back 10 to the 18 power seconds (13.7billion years). why is that important? well it may not be 13.7 but its not 12 and its not 15 13.7 is the most quoted number I have seen. The math is hard. Again why does that matter?

It matters because the only ideology on the planet that says that
A the universe was created
B out of nothing
C and that God pre-existed the universe

Not other theology (atheism as you might remember teaches that the universe is infinite) teaches all three of these things.

a interesting quote from an article on the subject might be.

In 1933, Lemaître and Einstein gave a series of lectures in California. Recanting his earlier objections, Einstein now called Lemaître’s theory “the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

After which this inconvenient truth caused Einstein to become a non conforming theist who defended Christ publicly form “the pen of phrase mongers” rather interesting read if you can find it alas I cannot any longer, but here is an interesting overview article.

decodedscience.com/georges-lemaitre-discovered-the-expansion-of-the-universe/5588

I submit that Einstein is smarter than me and you put together and if he thought that the big bang = Jesus Christ you might want to rethink your idea. especially in the face of so much scientific information that shows that in Robert Jastrow’s words “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact”

look him up at wiki here (then do other research as wiki is semi reliable. in this case historically accurate)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow

 

[down_under]

just for the record I am not sure exactly what it matters.

I am a married guy with 4 kids living in Australia but I was born in the states.

I seem to be having an on going disagreement with the spell checker which at times corrects to a word I did not intend by itself and as I know how to type I don’t always look at the screen that I am writing on. So sometimes the errors stand. Sorry for the inconvenience if I sometimes sound like I am from Russia. I promise not to purposefully drop the to often.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, sorry to disappoint you. A few accounts from historians writing in the first century wasn’t really enough to convince me. The only eye witness accounts we have are the Gospels, and their origin is shaky at best. I also find most of their claims to defy reality, and it seems strange that no one else should report on them. Matthew 27:52, for example.

Curious, this.

I was on another thread with another atheist who was claiming as one of your own a hero named Linda Norgrove.

I asked for some evidence that she was indeed an atheist, and some eye-witness accounts of her heroic activities.

The evidence provided was, well, rather sketchy. Nothing at all in her words of her atheistic beliefs.

Certainly nothing at all that would meet the demand that is given by atheists for Jesus.

Do you not find it curious that a different level of evidence is demanded for Christians to prove Jesus’ existence than it is for you to claim someone as one of your own?

When I posed the request for evidence for Ms. Norgrove’s atheism I was told, “I’m sure you can find this on line if you’re interested.”

Imagine if any Christian, when asked to provide evidence for Christ’s existence said, “I’m sure you can find this on line if you’re interested.”

The double standard is astonishing to me. It should be to you, too.

 

[PRmerger]

I never really think to doubt the pilot’s credentials.

Yep. That’s what I’m saying. (Thankfully, I made a smart bet and won’t be losing my Bible. )

Don’t you think you should have a higher degree of investigation for the woman who’s got your life literally in her hands than you have for the evidence of a historical Jesus?

You really have it backwards: you ought to be saying, “I never really think to doubt that Jesus existed” and then be demanding proof that your pilot got the best grades on her flying exam. Are not the stakes higher for having faith in her abilities? What if you’re wrong??

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yeah, sorry to disappoint you. A few accounts from historians writing in the first century wasn’t really enough to convince me. The only eye witness accounts we have are the Gospels, and their origin is shaky at best. I also find most of their claims to defy reality, and it seems strange that no one else should report on them. Matthew 27:52, for example.

Feel free to set me straight, though, if there’s something I’ve missed. I’m only working with what I’ve read.

You do realize that your point about the Gospel claims “defying” reality does not amount to an argument, but more like a bias. It simply belies and presumes an atheistic view of reality but does nothing to argue for it.

It is not a reasonable argument to claim that Jesus was only a man and his claims to being God false because wonders that defy reality were ascribed to him by others. Certainly, if God brought the time-space universe into existence when and where it did not exist before, together with all the laws that order its processes, simply multiplying bread or turning water into wine would be child’s play in comparison. So making a claim that Jesus could not have been God because such wonderous deeds could not occur amounts to nothing more than a statement of disbelief in the existence of God.

That is fine, as far as it goes, but it does not provide an additional argument against the existence of God nor does it support a case against the veracity of the Gospels or the claims of Jesus except to those who suffer from materialistic myopia to begin with.

Your secondary claim that the origin of the Gospels is “shaky” depends heavily on your beliefs about the claims made in the Gospels. Doubtless, no one, not even you, would question their origin, given that, as ancient documents, their historical pedigree far exceeds anything else from the time period, if statements that challenge your beliefs about reality were not contained in them. Again, this only betrays a bias on your part, but is not an argument, per se.

As an argument it amounts to no more than: Jesus could not have been God because men cannot change water into wine or multiply loaves and fish.

Certainly it is true that human capacities do not extend to altering essential reality at will, but that fact is not an argument against the existence of God, just that men, in general, do not have the powers ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels. How does that prove that God could not or would not have done those deeds? It just doesn’t. So, clearly, your claim about the veracity of the Gospels rests upon an atheistic world view and does not serve to argue for it.

 

[DrTaffy]

Ya but then God himself showed up and spoke directly to what marriage was suppose to be.

Yah - but no. He didn’t. Even if you accept the (unproven) assertion that the New Testament does accurately relate the visit of a creator God to our planet.

Aren’t you the guy who tried to argue “the Roman legal institution” invented marriage in the first place. We have your word on that right?

No - I’m the guy who pointed out the fact that our word ‘marriage’ comes from the Roman legal tradition. As does much of our legal institution of marriage. Your Christian sacrament comes from the Judaic tradition nisuin.

 

[DrTaffy]

You are quite correct about my taking liberties with the definition on the site,

“Taking liberties” being your personal phrase for “deliberately misrepresenting the truth”?

 

[PRmerger]

You do realize that your point about the Gospel claims “defying” reality does not amount to an argument, but more like a bias. It simply belies and presumes an atheistic view of reality but does nothing to argue for it.

'zactly.

It is circular reasoning: “I don’t believe in the Bible because it contains myths, such as a resurrection” and “I don’t believe in a resurrection because it comes from a book of myths, the Bible.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Taking liberties” being your personal phrase for “deliberately misrepresenting the truth”?

The problem with this assertion is that the urban dictionary does not even claim to represent the truth, so the most I could be accused of is misrepresenting a misrepresentation of the truth, and since that was done with tongue firmly planted in cheek, it amounts to the same quality of guilt that a political cartoonist bears for depicting a political personage as a caricature.

I, therefore, plead guilty, your honor, DrTaffy, of this reduced charge of deliberately misrepresenting a caricature of the truth to make the point that there does indeed exist truth that should not be misrepresented, such as the definition of marriage, over which you, apparently, have no qualms about undermining, misrepresenting or “taking liberties” concerning.

Let’s be equally “sticky,” DrTaffy, in applying your rules concerning truth, then, shall we? Redefinition of marriage, is also about “taking liberties” and “misrepresenting the truth,” is it not?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

-snip-

You’re wrong about what you claim atheism “teaches”. Atheism does not teach anything. It’s not a religion. It has no dogma, and no teachings. It is simply a label used to describe those who don’t believe in gods. Atheism certainly doesn’t teach that the universe is infinite.

a interesting quote from an article on the subject might be.

In 1933, Lemaître and Einstein gave a series of lectures in California. Recanting his earlier objections, Einstein now called Lemaître’s theory “the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

After which this inconvenient truth caused Einstein to become a non conforming theist who defended Christ publicly form “the pen of phrase mongers” rather interesting read if you can find it alas I cannot any longer, but here is an interesting overview article.

decodedscience.com/georges-lemaitre-discovered-the-expansion-of-the-universe/5588

I know he was a pantheist. I knew that ages ago. Hasn’t changed my religious views (or, rather, lack of them).

I submit that Einstein is smarter than me and you put together and if he thought that the big bang = Jesus Christ you might want to rethink your idea.

I think that, on the subject of these philosophical concepts, knowledge alone doesn’t necessarily help people make the right decisions. Trust your own judgement, not that of others. I also think it is a demonstration of an extreme lack of imagination if the only explanation you can think of is God. I think it is what is often referred to as an ‘argument from ignorance’. I don’t know, so God did it.

especially in the face of so much scientific information that shows that in Robert Jastrow’s words “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact”

look him up at wiki here (then do other research as wiki is semi reliable. in this case historically accurate)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow

As I stated regarding Einstein, Robert Jastrow is using an argument from ignorance. He can’t possibly understand how the universe could have been created, so God must have done it. That’s just silly.

Sorry for the late reply. It’s been a busy day.

Curious, this.

I was on another thread with another atheist who was claiming as one of your own a hero named Linda Norgrove.

I asked for some evidence that she was indeed an atheist, and some eye-witness accounts of her heroic activities.

The evidence provided was, well, rather sketchy. Nothing at all in her words of her atheistic beliefs.

Certainly nothing at all that would meet the demand that is given by atheists for Jesus.

Do you not find it curious that a different level of evidence is demanded for Christians to prove Jesus’ existence than it is for you to claim someone as one of your own?

Why are you assuming that I’d be like this particular person? Us atheists, we are our own individual people, you know. We aren’t connected via some telepathic link. The only thing I could think of that would be enough evidence to suggest someone was an atheist would be if they themselves professed to be a non-believer.

When I posed the request for evidence for Ms. Norgrove’s atheism I was told, “I’m sure you can find this on line if you’re interested.”

Imagine if any Christian, when asked to provide evidence for Christ’s existence said, “I’m sure you can find this on line if you’re interested.”

The double standard is astonishing to me. It should be to you, too.

Yes, it is.

Yep. That’s what I’m saying. (Thankfully, I made a smart bet and won’t be losing my Bible. )

Don’t you think you should have a higher degree of investigation for the woman who’s got your life literally in her hands than you have for the evidence of a historical Jesus?

In the perfect world, yes, but I don’t really have access to or the time to check each pilot’s qualifications. I’m also not that paranoid. I’d just have to hope they are qualified.

You really have it backwards: you ought to be saying, “I never really think to doubt that Jesus existed” and then be demanding proof that your pilot got the best grades on her flying exam. Are not the stakes higher for having faith in her abilities? What if you’re wrong??

Keep in mind that I would never have faith in the pilot being qualified. If someone asked if they were, I would say “I don’t know.” Because I wouldn’t. I’d be agnostic towards the existence of the pilot’s credentials, if you like.

If anything, my view of the pilot’s qualifications are much like my view on Jesus. Jesus may have existed, he may not have. The pilot’s qualifications may exist, they may not do.

 

[down_under]

Yah - but no. He didn’t. Even if you accept the (unproven) assertion that the New Testament does accurately relate the visit of a creator God to our planet.

No - I’m the guy who pointed out the fact that our word ‘marriage’ comes from the Roman legal tradition. As does much of our legal institution of marriage. Your Christian sacrament comes from the Judaic tradition nisuin.

The New Testament has been proven by the science of textual analysis to be the most accurate historical record of the time. Even secular historians believe this. And yes in the new testament Jesus perfects our understanding of what marriage is suppose to be very clearly and unambiguously.

And like I said we have your word on that right? You are a Roman era historian of note? Perhaps you have translated some interesting Manuscript that the rest of us are ignorantly unaware. Maybe you have done new exciting research. Strange that you did not tell us in the beginning that you were an authority on Roman legal tradition. Oh that’s because you are not. So unless you site some reasonable source for this I will continue to see it as just as accurate as myself claiming to have seen aliens. You have no factual basis for saying these things. Certainly none you have given to us to support your case. This is how an argument is made.

You are new I gave you the benefit of the doubt once. Perhaps you missed my advise where I explained we around here are accustomed to logical argument that depend on more than the authority of the speaker to support them. Please either give us a source (many will prefer an online source though I can understand if you use some offline source), or stop talking nonsense.

My contention is that marriage is not a roman legal term in its origin. My contention is marriage is fundamentally a religious idea given to man from the beginning and perfected by the person of Christ. (historically verifiable by the new testament which is the best recognized historical document of the era according to the science of textual analysis and every historian on the planet secular or otherwise. We are talking about the most scientifically studied book on the planet. A book that could be reproduced almost word for word from letters that were written in the first century. If you believe that conquest of Gaul then you have no reason not to take the word of science on these documents which are of the same age, period, and social circumstance.)

 

[down_under]

You’re wrong about what you claim atheism “teaches”. Atheism does not teach anything. It’s not a religion. It has no dogma, and no teachings. It is simply a label used to describe those who don’t believe in gods. Atheism certainly doesn’t teach that the universe is infinite.

I know he was a pantheist. I knew that ages ago. Hasn’t changed my religious views (or, rather, lack of them).

I think that, on the subject of these philosophical concepts, knowledge alone doesn’t necessarily help people make the right decisions. Trust your own judgement, not that of others. I also think it is a demonstration of an extreme lack of imagination if the only explanation you can think of is God. I think it is what is often referred to as an ‘argument from ignorance’. I don’t know, so God did it.

As I stated regarding Einstein, Robert Jastrow is using an argument from ignorance. He can’t possibly understand how the universe could have been created, so God must have done it. That’s just silly.

Sorry for the late reply. It’s been a busy day.
QUOTE]

Perhaps I was not clear. Atheism IS an ideology with a specific set of values. Logically if you want to be an atheist then you have to accept Darwinism or some close spin off. which requires an infinite, more accurate perhaps would be eternal, universe that is static and never changes. Einstein became a non conforming Christian theist because he proved these claims to be verifiably false scientifically. Robert Jastrow is using an argument based on the accurate definition of natural. He found the point and proved there was a point when all natural things came to exist. Logically then whatever caused this moment of creation was Supernatural something beyond the natural world we have seen. That fits the Christian argument of God, AND NO OTHER ideology that man has yet thought of.

That is a game changer. There is no other way to put it. My hat is off to you to be an atheist today you need an extraordinary amount of faith in you ideology which you must cling to with religious zeal. This is not the middle ages where all the scientific proof is on the Atheistic side of the argument. Robert Jastrow Head of NASA “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

As to the rest he is a good as source as any this is what the head of NASA thinks about Scientific Atheism in light of this discovery.
“There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.”
He has written several books but none online. sorry for that. this I believe came from an his book God and the astronomers but I find no online source for it. so if you want to know you have to read it in real life.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Perhaps I was not clear. Atheism IS an ideology with a specific set of values. Logically if you want to be an atheist then you have to accept Darwinism or some close spin off.

Possibly. There are atheists that don’t, though. I’ve read about some guy who believes that all animals came at once from somewhere, but is an atheist. It’s little help, since I can’t remember what his name was, what he believed and it’ll take me a while to find. I’ll PM you if I do find anything. There are also atheists that may believe in ‘ancient aliens’ and other weird things creating stuff. However, you are correct in that most atheists believe in some form of Darwinian evolution.

which requires an infinite, more accurate perhaps would be eternal, universe that is static and never changes.

Nope. I’m an atheist, and I believe in the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, which is known as Red Shift, and CMBR exists. That’s basic, GCSE science.

Einstein became a non conforming Christian theist because he proved these claims to be verifiably false scientifically. Robert Jastrow is using an argument based on the accurate definition of natural. He found the point and proved there was a point when all natural things came to exist. Logically then whatever caused this moment of creation was Supernatural something beyond the natural world we have seen.

By what logic? I’d agree that it is most likely something we haven’t seen, or are unaware of, but why does it need to be supernatural?

That fits the Christian argument of God, AND NO OTHER ideology that man has yet thought of.

Even if your assumption about the cause having to be a supernatural being was correct, it also fits the ideology of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and so on. It pretty much suits the ideology of every theistic religion. Besides, some Christians would argue otherwise. Many believe that if you don’t take the Genesis story seriously, and don’t believe it literally, then you aren’t following the Christian religion.

That is a game changer. There is no other way to put it. My hat is off to you to be an atheist today you need an extraordinary amount of faith in you ideology which you must cling to with religious zeal. This is not the middle ages where all the scientific proof is on the Atheistic side of the argument.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that there was more support and “scientific proof” of atheism in the Middle Ages?

Firstly, people in the Middle Ages were much, much more zealous and fanatical about religion than the most fanatical religious folk today. Secondly, there was much more reason to believe in God back then. God gave an explanation for everything? Why does it rain? God makes it rain. Why do people die? God makes us die. Why does the sun go down? God does it. The more we discover, the less God is needed. There has never been more “scientific proof” of atheism than at any other time. Though I personally don’t believe anything in science has demonstrated the existence or non-existence of a god, our greater understanding of the world has made us need the use of God as an explanation much less frequently.

No, I do not need to have faith in my disbelief of God and atheism is not an ideology.

Robert Jastrow Head of NASA “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Why should I care? You seem to think that just because this guy is clearly a very well educated and respected man, I should agree with him. Well, I don’t. He seems to be arguing against reason, and that believing in a God is the best way to explain things away. Also, looking at some of his other quotes he seems desperate to prove the Bible correct. For example, in one of his supposedly notable quotes he mentions that the Big Bang theory is extremely close to the Creation story of Genesis (it isn’t) and his only reason for this is that “the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy”. That is an absurd claim to make. Not only could that apply to the majority of Creation stories, it is also an extremely silly connection to make. He’s trying far too hard to find a connection that simply isn’t there.

 

[PRmerger]

Why are you assuming that I’d be like this particular person? Us atheists, we are our own individual people, you know. We aren’t connected via some telepathic link. The only thing I could think of that would be enough evidence to suggest someone was an atheist would be if they themselves professed to be a non-believer.

Fair enough.

I did think about giving a proviso that I understood that you were not the same poster, but I figured you would understand that tacitly.

However, that was my assumption, and it was a wrong assumption, so I will never make that error again.

 

[down_under]

By what logic? I’d agree that it is most likely something we haven’t seen, or are unaware of, but why does it need to be supernatural?

Even if your assumption about the cause having to be a supernatural being was correct, it also fits the ideology of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and so on. It pretty much suits the ideology of every theistic religion. Besides, some Christians would argue otherwise. Many believe that if you don’t take the Genesis story seriously, and don’t believe it literally, then you aren’t following the Christian religion.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that there was more support and “scientific proof” of atheism in the Middle Ages?

Though I personally don’t believe anything in science has demonstrated the existence or non-existence of a god, our greater understanding of the world has made us need the use of God as an explanation much less frequently.

Also, looking at some of his other quotes he seems desperate to prove the Bible correct. For example, in one of his supposedly notable quotes he mentions that the Big Bang theory is extremely close to the Creation story of Genesis (it isn’t) and his only reason for this is that “the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy”. That is an absurd claim to make. Not only could that apply to the majority of Creation stories, it is also an extremely silly connection to make. He’s trying far too hard to find a connection that simply isn’t there.

From the top, the logic is that everything that exists was created in that moment and therefore something that existed before matter was the cause. Everything natural by our experience came to exist because of this one moment and therefore this moment of creation cannot have as its cause anything in the natural world.

No other idology teaches that God made the world (pre-existence) in one moment out of nothing. Notable exception Judaism, and Catholics are Jews of the new covenant.

Yes there was more scientific proof after Copernican theory was proven before many of the more modern discoveries in biology and astronomy.

We use God as an explanation less frequently, but when we do this explanation has more power.

This is not absurd it is the Big Bang theory (primordial molecule theory if you like) and it states biblical creation theory almost exactly in that God made everything in one moment out of nothing. This is exactly what the big bang proved. This guy is not a religious nut. He was the head a NASA for 20 years or so. That is why the quote carries so much weight. If he was an evangelical protestant (no offense meant) we would not listen to him in matters of Astronomy.

 

[PRmerger]

In the perfect world, yes, but I don’t really have access to or the time to check each pilot’s qualifications. I’m also not that paranoid. I’d just have to hope they are qualified.

Then it is by a deep, abiding faith that you live, RA.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. You’re on a forum filled with faith-based people.

Keep in mind that I would never have faith in the pilot being qualified. If someone asked if they were, I would say “I don’t know.” Because I wouldn’t. I’d be agnostic towards the existence of the pilot’s credentials, if you like.

That’s an interesting rhetorical question to answer…until you get on that plane. Then it becomes, “I have faith in the pilot.” Then you are putting faith in the pilot’s ability to fly you, when you have never checked her credentials.

Again, nothing wrong with that. I’m just pointing out that you live your life in a faith-filled manner, and ought not object to someone else following that paradigm as well.

If anything, my view of the pilot’s qualifications are much like my view on Jesus. Jesus may have existed, he may not have. The pilot’s qualifications may exist, they may not do.

You have to make a decision at some point. You get on the plane or you don’t. You accept Jesus as a historical person or you don’t.

In the end, there is no such thing as an agnostic Delta customer.