B
bdelykleon
Guest
Exactly, the second law of thermodynamics only pressuposes a singularity. Actually, it forbids infinite past.
- Status
P
ProveIt312
Guest
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion is simply that there’s a difference between preventing fertilization, preventing implantation, a clump of cells shortly after fertilization/implantation and a fetus advanced enough in it’s development to be deemed a sentient being.
P
ProveIt312
Guest
I’m trying to find some sort of point to your post, as it neither responded to mine nor presented a new point or asked a question. However, there are actually 67 commandments throughout the bible, some of which include :
“make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle” (Ex 20:24),
anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. (Ex 21:17),
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (Ex 21:20-21)
Do not allow a sorceress to live. (Ex 22:18) (I hope no one here really believes in sorcery…)
Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. (Ex 23:29)
You can find the list yourself online or pick through your bible, but my points are these; that some of these are barbaric and despicable, and others ridiculous or just trivial. Yet nowhere is rape forbidden, or slavery. In fact, god is perfectly fine with slavery, rather blase about rape and - SURPRISE CATHOLICS - nothing forbidding child molestation. Maybe that’s why Ratzinger actively conspired to cover it all up and protect pedophiles - because in the eyes of god it wasn’t forbidden?
As a guide for life, the bible is uneven at best and downright vile at it’s worst. If someone truly lived by this book they’d be despised by nearly all of society and likely rot in prison for life - as they should.
Reality really is awesome people. I’d recommend at least giving it a try!!!
P
ProveIt312
Guest
A few quick points; first, depending on what your definition of “proof” is, scientists can “prove” the existence of black holes by the effects it’s gravity has on surrounding bodies. It’s an indirect observation, but an observation nonetheless.
Secondly, you don’t actually believe the biblical creation story of Adam and Eve, the talking snake, Garden of Eden, magic apple, etc, literally do you?!?
F
FanChan
Guest
I don’t believe the world was created in six days, and I don’t pretend that humans just popped into the world as-is. I believe in the basic idea of evolution, and that humans came about through evolution, touched by God for our intelligence, made to be like God. Do I believe that there were two first humans that lived in a place set aside by God for what should have been their eternal happiness? Yes. Without Adam’s initial sin, a great deal of the Judeo-Christian faith doesn’t make much sense. There have been a few breakthroughs to suggest our genes all have a common descendant; but I don’t pretend to know everything in that area.
Also, there was no ‘magic apple’. The Bible doesn’t say what kind of fruit it was, and it certainly wasn’t magic. The key was in the restriction itself. Breaking that rule, disobeying God, that’s where the ‘magic’, if you want to call it that, was.
I don’t take the story word-for-word literally, but I believe in the core of the story, that the basic outline of events did happen. I have no reason not to.
A
Abu
Guest
Facing reality
We do not become a human person when we become “sentient” at some stage.
What then is the embryo? A living human being, a distinct, self-integrating organism internally directing its own growth and already possessing the active capacity to develop itself to further stages of maturity of its own kind retaining intact its distinctiveness and identity, as its DNA shows — the same DNA sequence that he or she will have in every cell of his or her fully developed body — this is what science has confirmed. This development is from the embryo to the foetus, infant, child and adolescent. You or I are the same being that was once an adolescent, and before that a toddler, an infant, a foetus and an embryo. To have destroyed the being at any of these stages would have destroyed you or me.
Neither the sperm cell from the father, nor the ovum from the mother, both of which unite to bring into being a distinct, self-integrating organism that is organically part of neither the father nor the mother regardless of where he or she is conceived, are themselves distinct self-integrating organisms.
[See *The Clash of Orthodoxies, Robert P George, ISI Books 2001, p 69-73).
That is why we value all human life.
T
Thing
Guest
Grand.I’m trying to find some sort of point to your post, as it neither responded to mine nor presented a new point or asked a question. However, there are actually 67 commandments throughout the bible, some of which include :
“make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle” (Ex 20:24),
anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. (Ex 21:17),
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (Ex 21:20-21)
Do not allow a sorceress to live. (Ex 22:18) (I hope no one here really believes in sorcery…)
Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. (Ex 23:29)
You can find the list yourself online or pick through your bible, but my points are these; that some of these are barbaric and despicable, and others ridiculous or just trivial. Yet nowhere is rape forbidden, or slavery. In fact, god is perfectly fine with slavery, rather blase about rape and - SURPRISE CATHOLICS - nothing forbidding child molestation. Maybe that’s why Ratzinger actively conspired to cover it all up and protect pedophiles - because in the eyes of god it wasn’t forbidden?
As a guide for life, the bible is uneven at best and downright vile at it’s worst. If someone truly lived by this book they’d be despised by nearly all of society and likely rot in prison for life - as they should.
Reality really is awesome people. I’d recommend at least giving it a try!!!
But, I thought there were 670 ‘commands’ not 67 as you said, though I may be wrong.
Of those 670, God gave to Moses the stone tablets on which God wrote what we call the Ten Commandments.
Now, in a brief chronology;
The Ancient Jews believed in a Messiah.
The ancient jewish prophets prophesied a Messiah.
The Jewish Messiah, when he arrived, gave out stink to the Jewish leaders. He said they were overburdening His people with laws [commands] whilst at the same time exempting themselves from the spirit of the laws. He called the jewish religous leaders hypocrites, a brood of vipers, and said which of them would escape. All in all, God was not happy with them.
Then someone decided to ask God [Jesus Christ] which commandments of His was the most important. And God said: to love God and love one another, as I have loved you.
These, then, are the Commandments received by the followers of the prophesied Jewish Messiah. In Catholicism, Jesus, as God, became man and fulfilled the jewish faith. No longer did the jews need to keep the hundreds of laws from the jewish leaders, the law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. If the jewish people kept those two greatest commandments they would also be fulfilling and keeping to the spirit of the ten commandments given to Moses.
So you are a little confused ProveIt, as the Banners on the tops of all the pages you are viewing say - we are Catholic not Jewish, so we follow along under those two great Commandments. You are confusing us with Jewish people, who, some of them, continue to try and live under the 670 laws given to them by God and their old jewish religous leaders.
A
Andy_III
Guest
Sorry, you’re right. I did make a mistake in writing it. The point still stands, just with the units reversed. Zero entropy implies complete organization.
A
Andy_III
Guest
Remember, infinity means unbounded. I didn’t want to express it in terms of limit theory because not everyone’s had Calculus.
A
Andy_III
Guest
I agree. I was a little too excited when I wrote it down. I also didn’t have a Physics book in front of me at the time. I wasn’t trying to write a scholarly work.
P
ProveIt312
Guest
The problem I have when theists start bringing up things like infinity, physics and the need for a first cause in defending their belief in a creator is they usually either don’t consider how or why these things would then also have to apply to the creator or simply assert he’s “excused” without further explanation.
Ultimately, the idea of the universe having an infinite existence is a pretty difficult thing to wrap one’s head around and it’s something that scientists today are just now beginning to understand (the LHC is definitely exciting in this regard). However, when I’m pondering the vastness of the universe, there are a few things that come to mind that, from my perspective, not only help digest the concept of a universe with an infinite past, but also makes the concept of a single personified creator and personal caretaker of the universe and it’s inhabitants rather absurd.
I’m not going to ramble on here, but the one concept that’s harder to grasp than infinity is nothingness; it’s a lot easier for me to grasp an infinite past then a past with absolutely nothing, as that would seem to be the very definition of non-existence. I’m purely a hobbyist when it comes to astronomy and cosmology, but I have a hypothesis about this topic that, when I emailed the head of the department at a prominent university with it, figuring I’d be corrected in my mistakes, I was instead told that it’s a new hypothesis that a handful of people in the field around the world are just now starting to do serious research on.
Without going into specifics, it has to do with the theory of a “multiverse”, yet taking it a step further in relating to the increasing rate of expansion in the universe as well as the origin of our universe. We’re limited by our “light horizon”, which means even if there are objects out there beyond 13.5 billion years old, we can’t see them because the light hasn’t reached us yet. However, knowing what we do about galaxies, they’re formation, their gravitational effect on each other, etc, if one extrapolates that out to a multiversal scale, it doesn’t contradict the understood mechanics of our known universe. It’s also plausible that this gravitational affect of these external universes could be “pulling” matter from ours outward, rather than the common concept that a dark energy is pushing it out. The formation of our universe wouldn’t have needed to be a singularity, but rather would have looked more like the formation of a galaxy, perhaps as when two galaxies merge, partially destroy one another and eventually form a new one. Again, this is purely hypothetical at this point, but it’s an idea some researchers are exploring and it’s yet to be disproven.
In contemplating things of this magnitude and how it relates to the hypothesis of god, there are a few things that come up that simply make the Abrahamic god a bit absurd. First and foremost, everything we know of evolves rather than appears in it’s finished form from the get-go; the universe, galaxies, solar systems, organisms all change, die, evolve. To claim that god is an exception when there are no other known exceptions is a bit ludicrous to me. To then claim that this eternal, infinite being created all of the known universe (at least), 13.5 billion years ago, then waited…THEN created the earth about 4.5 billion years ago…then waited…THEN created microscopic organisms, dinosaurs, and countless species of which 99% are now extinct, THEN created modern humans about 500,000 years ago, then waited…until a few thousand years ago (depending on your religion) to reveal himself and his desires, intentions, rules and laws? Not to mention the idea that in spite of the age and vastness of the universe in relation to this small rock in a random corner of a generic galaxy, that can support life some of the time on some of it’s surface, this being not only pays special attention to this planet, but also the most trivial moments of the individuals of one mammalian species and will punish those same individuals for eternity over even the most petty things, including thoughts?
Even if there were a god, to suggest it wouldn’t have better things to do than worry about the petty blip of a life of individual animals on one tiny planet is absolutely ridiculous. Christians claim that their faith is one of humility and meekness, yet it is the height of arrogance and self-centeredness to believe that a being of this magnitude cares for, keeps track of and at times intervenes on their individual behalf. You can wrap it up any other way, but ultimately that’s what it comes down to.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
i have done no studying of this topic at all, i just was introduced this topic in my physics class the other day and i was wondering if that what you were talking about
PSYC 336 Physics text book, if you have a problem you might want to take it up with the school that is teaching my class of 16 these “absurd” ideas
or better yet, maybe you should come teach us
we use “transfer” from PE to KE, so my apologies, i will use transforms from now on for you mr. einstein.
and helium
can’t wait
D
donsnow
Guest
Yeah, I’ve heard that argument before; it didn’t wash with me then, from a good friend; and it doesn’t impress me now, from you. There’s the philosophical concept, that in the seed is the creature. When seed and sperm unite, then, I believe, an act of God creates a human being. If your belief deprives you of recognizing your Creator, that’s not my shortsightedness.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
The arguments of the atheists defeat themselves in that they are the limits of their human reasoning. It is in fact the direct revelation of God historically and personally, directly and indirectly that has been passed on through word of mouth and in writing that is needed to give us a fuller revelation of who God is. To deny this revelation is to ignore this possible means of knowing God.
One of the games that atheists like to play is to suck you into their way of thinking. They say for instance that there is no evidence for God. But that is a misleading statement. One has to define what is considered evidence. Many people on this thread have given many different evidences. All of these were overlooked by the atheists who posted. Now, why is that?
There are many logic arguments for the existence of God. I think one of my favorites is the causal arguments. The other is the intelligence argument. Imagine that you were walking along a beach and saw a perfectly formed sand castle and you looked at it and saw that it had little flags, furniture, and intricate details. There was even little stick figurines inside intricately carved. Now, would you say this sand castle is the result of 1000s of years of wind and waves causing erosion on the beach to result in this perfectly formed sand castle? No, any intelligent person would say that it is the result of an intelligent creator. This is because we naturally know that the more intelligent a design is the more the need for an intelligent designer to make it.
Yet atheists expect us to believe that our intelligence is the result of random, unintelligent chance. That is even less likely than the sand castle being formed by wind and waves. Think about it. That would mean billions and billions of random, unintelligent, chance events that somehow resulted in intelligence. The probability of these billions of events being successful without an intelligent guiding hand resulting in intelligence we intuitively know would be so small that it would not even be worth considering. No one would buy a lottery ticket based on those odds. No, the logical choice is to assume that their is an intelligent designer that made all of us and is the cause of our intelligence.
Atheists also like to point out that we can not prove that God exists so the only logical choice is to not believe. But that does not make any sense. We know that we exist. And we can derive that God exists from the fact that we exist. Since our existence requires a cause. Intelligence comes from Intelligence not from random chance. We don’t have to prove that he exists any more than we have to prove that we exist.
One of the other things I got from reading some of these posts is how God proves his existence to us each individually in different ways. Don’t let the devil rob you of the word of God and that proof in your soul. The devil will use any tactic to get to you. If he can get you involved in sin then he will do that. If he can get you to not believe in God he will do that. Whatever weakness you have he will go after. If you have a tendency to doubt then get away from that which causes you to doubt like you would any other sin. Avoid the temptation. Instead pray the rosary or some other prayer that gets you into the right spirit.
One of the other thing that frees us from atheism is knowing that atheists don’t have any more knowledge about the existence of God than anyone else. They haven’t interviewed any dead people to find out if there is no life after death. They haven’t done any scientific experiments that disprove God’s existence. So really, what do they base their belief on that God doesn’t exist, since they have no proof? They don’t really know like they claim to. They are really taking a leap of faith that God doesn’t exist similar to the theist. The difference is the theist is at least honest that he requires faith.
‘knowledge puffs up but love builds up’.
One of the games that atheists like to play is to suck you into their way of thinking. They say for instance that there is no evidence for God. But that is a misleading statement. One has to define what is considered evidence. Many people on this thread have given many different evidences. All of these were overlooked by the atheists who posted. Now, why is that?
There are many logic arguments for the existence of God. I think one of my favorites is the causal arguments. The other is the intelligence argument. Imagine that you were walking along a beach and saw a perfectly formed sand castle and you looked at it and saw that it had little flags, furniture, and intricate details. There was even little stick figurines inside intricately carved. Now, would you say this sand castle is the result of 1000s of years of wind and waves causing erosion on the beach to result in this perfectly formed sand castle? No, any intelligent person would say that it is the result of an intelligent creator. This is because we naturally know that the more intelligent a design is the more the need for an intelligent designer to make it.
Yet atheists expect us to believe that our intelligence is the result of random, unintelligent chance. That is even less likely than the sand castle being formed by wind and waves. Think about it. That would mean billions and billions of random, unintelligent, chance events that somehow resulted in intelligence. The probability of these billions of events being successful without an intelligent guiding hand resulting in intelligence we intuitively know would be so small that it would not even be worth considering. No one would buy a lottery ticket based on those odds. No, the logical choice is to assume that their is an intelligent designer that made all of us and is the cause of our intelligence.
Atheists also like to point out that we can not prove that God exists so the only logical choice is to not believe. But that does not make any sense. We know that we exist. And we can derive that God exists from the fact that we exist. Since our existence requires a cause. Intelligence comes from Intelligence not from random chance. We don’t have to prove that he exists any more than we have to prove that we exist.
One of the other things I got from reading some of these posts is how God proves his existence to us each individually in different ways. Don’t let the devil rob you of the word of God and that proof in your soul. The devil will use any tactic to get to you. If he can get you involved in sin then he will do that. If he can get you to not believe in God he will do that. Whatever weakness you have he will go after. If you have a tendency to doubt then get away from that which causes you to doubt like you would any other sin. Avoid the temptation. Instead pray the rosary or some other prayer that gets you into the right spirit.
One of the other thing that frees us from atheism is knowing that atheists don’t have any more knowledge about the existence of God than anyone else. They haven’t interviewed any dead people to find out if there is no life after death. They haven’t done any scientific experiments that disprove God’s existence. So really, what do they base their belief on that God doesn’t exist, since they have no proof? They don’t really know like they claim to. They are really taking a leap of faith that God doesn’t exist similar to the theist. The difference is the theist is at least honest that he requires faith.
‘knowledge puffs up but love builds up’.
V
vjtorley
Guest
Greylorn and Proveit312
You both seem to think that Catholics are a bunch of clueless, unscientific troglodytes. Frankly, we don’t need a science lecture. You want a good scientific argument for the existence of God? OK, fine. Try this one:
commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf
Regarding the status of the embryo, I suggest you have a look at the Web page of Professor David Oderberg and read his pro-life philosophical articles. We are well aware that embryos aren’t sentient. So what? They have bodies, with a complete developmental program that terminates in a rational adult, and the program is in run mode. Even if I were an atheist, I’d say that’s enough to make an embryo matter as much a I do.
Have a good weekend.
Vincent.
You both seem to think that Catholics are a bunch of clueless, unscientific troglodytes. Frankly, we don’t need a science lecture. You want a good scientific argument for the existence of God? OK, fine. Try this one:
commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf
Regarding the status of the embryo, I suggest you have a look at the Web page of Professor David Oderberg and read his pro-life philosophical articles. We are well aware that embryos aren’t sentient. So what? They have bodies, with a complete developmental program that terminates in a rational adult, and the program is in run mode. Even if I were an atheist, I’d say that’s enough to make an embryo matter as much a I do.
Have a good weekend.
Vincent.
A
Andy_III
Guest
No one is asking you to believe this notion of a god you have written here. But you are missing a few key concepts about God. First, he did not “appear” fully formed - he is the same eternal unchanging God, not subject to the constraints of time or space. He does not have sequential thought processes like we do. He sees all of time as easily as you see an entire painting. I just prayed for your mother while she was giving birth to you, and I have no doubt that the prayer was effective (even though no one has proved that your mother existed).
You seem to have an odd view of what Christians believe, probably because too many people call themselves Christian without learning enough of the faith from the teaching authority that Jesus gave us (myself included - although I’m working to remedy that). Some are even taught not to listen to the teaching authority, which is a very sad state of affairs. Anyway, the Church teaches that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. The key aspect of this is that they are rational beings. If we to discover additional rational beings, such as dolphins or rats (I don’t think so) or alien life from another planet, we would then (be obligated to) treat those rational beings with the same dignity as all human life and give them the Good News. This argument seems to be a bit off-topic and esoteric, so I’ll let it go at that. Even if all Christians were arrogant and self-centered as you suggest, it would not affect the fact that God exists.
God loves you Provelt312, individually, and knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head, what you had for lunch, and the contents of your heart. He wants to give you a gift, and He asked us to tell you about it. The question is, will you accept it?
C
cranster
Guest
The God we Catholics worship is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent which by definition means that He is limitless and all things were not only created by Him but are always present to Him. What better things would God have to do than care for His children. That’s what He considers us so called, “petty blip of a life of individual animals”. He cares for us and loves us. A god that is limited and uncaring which you are describing is not the one we worship. What you are describing is the opposite of the Christian God. In fact an unlimited being can be concerned with an infinite amount of things and each one of us all at the same time. A limited being which is by definition not God would only be able to handle a limited amount of things. I’m not even sure what you are describing but it is definitely not the Judeo Christian God.
J
jdwood983
Guest
Why is the Big Bang so absurd? It is accepted as how the universe began: we know the universe is expanding, so moving a step backwards in time means it’s a little smaller, another step and it’s a bit smaller, continue this until you have the “primeval atom.”
Which model do you prefer? The steady state? Milne? Tired light? One you’ve developed? Or, even crazier, the cyclic model?
P
ProveIt312
Guest
So do you believe contraception is the same as a late-term abortion? Are means that prevent fertilization ok? How about those that prevent implantation - is that the same as an abortion?
Also, on what do you base this belief that “an act of God creates a human being” at the moment of fertilization? It’s a very well understood and natural process; by your rationale, does the same thing happen when a trout’s sperm meets with a trout’s egg? Or how about dogs? Whales? That sounds like quite the busy work, keeping track of every instance of fertilization; you’d think a being that created and rules the entire universe would have more important things to do.
I don’t have any “beliefs” that deprive me of recognizing a creator. I’ve simply followed the evidence available that overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that there is no creator other than the laws of nature. There’s a big difference between basing a conclusion on all the available evidence and jumping to a conclusion and clinging to it in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
The good news is though if you don’t want to take part in an abortion, you don’t have to. But for those that don’t share the same baseless belief as you, they have a choice. Those choices are limited to a degree by a combination of science and reasonable, objective ethics, as they should be, as I’m no fan of the procedure. But I realize that I can’t make the call in every possible situation that someone else may find themselves in; it’s not my place, not my call, not my business.
P
ProveIt312
Guest
Look, if we find sand castle as you describe, we know it didn’t occur naturally, because we know how sand castles are made; we’ve seen it happen, done it ourselves. Put another way, the sand castle isn’t evidence for it’s builder, but simply evidence of the sand castle itself. That’s like finding a dam made of wood and branches is evidence of a human builder; it’s not. It could have been made by beavers, or perhaps a flood washed debris downstream and it collected NATURALLY. Further research is needed; we know beavers build similar dams, but do beavers live in the area? Are there tooth marks where the wood was cut, or does it appear to have been cut by an ax or saw? Or is it rotted and/or broken wood, indicating it was simply debris? Was there a storm recently that flooded an area upstream? There is nothing inherent in nature that implicitly indicates a god unless you already have the concept of god on your brain - you find patterns or design based on a preconceived idea. If you were raised and taught that dams occasionally rained from the sky, upon finding one you’d assume that’s where it came from.
People also forget all of the unintelligent “design” around us; birth defects, developmental disabilities, the fact humans eat, breath and speak out of the same opening, our crippled eyes that see only in a very narrow spectrum, our inferior sense of smell, the appendix, pathogens, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and the 99% of species that utterly failed and are now extinct - some design!! The causal argument is equally stupid, as any being capable of creating the universe would need an even more impressive cause than the universe itself.
Again, no individual has PROOF that there’s a god, but rather if one believes in god, they thing they find his presence because they’re looking for it. I prayed, I found my car keys - GOD!! I beat cancer, so it wasn’t the surgery, chemo, radiation, doctors, etc, but - GOD! Some poor 4 year old kid died of leukemia - must’ve been my benevolent god’s will.
Atheist’s are not taking any more of a leap of faith that god doesn’t exist than you are in believing Zeus doesn’t exist, or the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist, or leprechauns; if there’s no evidence where there should be some, it doesn’t mean that we KNOW that none of these things do or ever did exist anywhere EVER. Instead, it’s the most reasonable conclusion that it’s extremely unlikely that they don’t or didn’t.
You’ve also proven in your post you know absolutely nothing about evolution, natural selection or genetic drift, as well as have little to know capacity to comprehend that many minute changes over vast periods of time equal very big changes.
In the end, you’ve summed up my frustration with theists quite nicely; cling to your beliefs, kicking and screaming, while dismissing the opposing sides case without know jack about it. I was raised to be Christian and considered myself one for a long, long time. I figured my journey into the subject of god would lead me closer to him, but rather all evidence made it clear how baseless the concept is. If one’s too weak, fearful or stupid to be honest, objective and simply THINK, I don’t see how I’m the one with the problem.
- Status