W
Warrenton
Guest
Well I wish you the best of luck! When they ordain you, say the tridentine mass!!!
Read my other posts on this thread, and you will see where I’m coming from.
- Status
Read my other posts on this thread, and you will see where I’m coming from.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Then your escape is to redefine morality. There’s no “your definition” vs. “my definition.” Words have meaning. And natural events aren’t moral or immoral. They are acts of nature.
Plus even by your own definition, since the people “acting” in accord with whatever values you decided are just acting according to their own nature as well, there is no free will involved, and thus “moral” and “immoral” are irrelevant concepts in the materialist world.
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
I ask practical questions:
Why do you celebrate Christmas?
Why did you have a church wedding?
Questions like that
W
Warrenton
Guest
LOL! Now I know what questions non- believers hate!!!
P
Pieman333272
Guest
That’s a fine answer for discussing it, AT. But I mean, why would you rather have me, or the reader, or whatever apologist you’re currently debating, take on your worldview over Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Paganism when according to that same worldview there is no point, due to the absences I acknowledge? Like I said, this only works if the atheist is trying to convert the theist(s), so if that isn’t the purpose of your presence here, than it doesn’t apply to you and never was meant to apply to you.
D
dcmission
Guest
AntiTheist,
What JeffersonD has done is walk you to the back wall of scientific knowledge and point to it. You acknowledge that science can not yet answer the question “does the universe need to exist?”, but you seem to hold out hope that we will eventually come across some sort of empirical evidence which can provide an answer to this question. I must ask - what could this empirical evidence possibly be? I contend that there can be no such evidence, because this question of necessity is utterly outside the realm of empirical science. This is not a question of physical origins, it is of necessity. Was there any possibility of the universe not existing? It is a philosophical question and must be addressed as such. You may choose to dismiss this question as irrelevant, but that would be irresponsible, as it’s very important. The universe is commonly defined as everything that physically exists, so if there was any possibility of the universe not existing, then it absolutely would not exist unless it was compelled to exist by something else. This something else must then be above and beyond physical existence, as it would otherwise be part of the unnecessary universe. Infinite contingency is still contingency, so there must ultimately be something which has a necessary existence in and of itself, upon which all other existence is contingent. Must this necessarily be the God of Christian Tradition? No, but it must be something nevertheless. The God of Christian Tradition happens to make perfect sense of many otherwise unexplainable phenomena in the same way that the law of gravity makes perfect sense of many otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Is belief in the Christian God based solely upon philosophy? No, but it is perfectly compatible with philosophy. Does philosophy matter? I’d say it’s more important than physical science, as it is concerned with our fundamental identity and value. Ignorance of and disregard for philosophy is often what makes atheists. Personal issues like misdirected anger and resentment are what make anti-theists. It’s very human, but that doesn’t make it the reasonable choice.
God bless,
VC
What JeffersonD has done is walk you to the back wall of scientific knowledge and point to it. You acknowledge that science can not yet answer the question “does the universe need to exist?”, but you seem to hold out hope that we will eventually come across some sort of empirical evidence which can provide an answer to this question. I must ask - what could this empirical evidence possibly be? I contend that there can be no such evidence, because this question of necessity is utterly outside the realm of empirical science. This is not a question of physical origins, it is of necessity. Was there any possibility of the universe not existing? It is a philosophical question and must be addressed as such. You may choose to dismiss this question as irrelevant, but that would be irresponsible, as it’s very important. The universe is commonly defined as everything that physically exists, so if there was any possibility of the universe not existing, then it absolutely would not exist unless it was compelled to exist by something else. This something else must then be above and beyond physical existence, as it would otherwise be part of the unnecessary universe. Infinite contingency is still contingency, so there must ultimately be something which has a necessary existence in and of itself, upon which all other existence is contingent. Must this necessarily be the God of Christian Tradition? No, but it must be something nevertheless. The God of Christian Tradition happens to make perfect sense of many otherwise unexplainable phenomena in the same way that the law of gravity makes perfect sense of many otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Is belief in the Christian God based solely upon philosophy? No, but it is perfectly compatible with philosophy. Does philosophy matter? I’d say it’s more important than physical science, as it is concerned with our fundamental identity and value. Ignorance of and disregard for philosophy is often what makes atheists. Personal issues like misdirected anger and resentment are what make anti-theists. It’s very human, but that doesn’t make it the reasonable choice.
God bless,
VC
K
kenofken
Guest
Those are too easy.
1)NOBODY gets out of Christmas in America. Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, anyone who has been off the boat long enough to pick up the culture…everyone is obligated to trudge to a mall or Best Buy for friends and family. The official religion of America from early November on is Retail. (If I were feeling uncharitable, I would ask you why YOU celebrate Christmas as you do. There is not even any decent speculation which puts Jesus’ birth on Dec. 25. It is a transparent rebranding of the solstice festival, but I digress)
Not all of us have a church wedding. In fact relatively few believers do so anymore. Those who do so despite disbelief no doubt do so to keep the family peace. That, in fact, is THE strongest force of momentum keeping Catholic identity alive in much of the West. Nobody really in Europe goes to Mass anymore, but they still nominally identify as Catholic. Why? Getting your kid baptized is family tradition, and people’s grandmas get all weepy and hysterical if you don’t, so people maintain the forms of tradition. I was raised Catholic to keep the family peace. My brother, who is essentially an atheist, had his kids baptized to keep the family peace, even though his wife’s family is purely nominal in their Catholicism. What can I say, people are full of contradictions.
The Church and the centuries have done such a good job at ingraining Catholicism in some cultures that it’s almost like a blood type or an ethnic identity. That, of course, has its downsides.
You might also be surprised to learn that many of us do not hate being questioned at all. Accusations and ignorant assumptions do get a bit wearisome, but not questions.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Science can not answer the question but continues to ask it, and is open to changing viewpoints held by the community based on more information. Not only is it open to that, but hopes eternally for that to come about. There is no DOGMA in science. Dogma only limits your understanding to a threshold that someone sets for you.
In Science, you can and do welcome critics.
You WANT to know more. You don’t want the questions unanswered.
The questions that science will continue to probe, no matter the consternation of those who would wish it would be pacifiyed by platitudes.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I can not wait to see my first Christmas Mass in a Catholic Church and compare it to all the time I have spent at Mass in a Catholic Church. It’s palpable.
I have attended weddings at the Catholic Church.
They were my friends, what can I say? I did the right thing and sat in the back, wrote a check to the church, and promptly went to the reception. 3 out of 7 are still married.
I have no regrets attending or giving to all of the weddings in the Catholic Church as a guest.
I actually was fascinated by the devotion I saw in the ones I met that were there. It’s too bad I never saw them afterward. They flew in for the weddings.
I have a client who is close to this place:
parishesonline.com/scripts/hostedsites/Org.asp?ID=5256
I wish I could say, Let’s meet right after Mass tomorrow morning but I know I can not bring the topic up. So I will go alone.
J
JeffersonD
Guest
Thank you dcmission! God cannot be proved scientifically. This question is philosophical which is not in the arena of science. One of the biggest problems with scientists trying to use science to say there is no god is that science and philosophy are completely different. They can help each other but can only go that far. The question, “Does the universe need to exist?” is philosophical. AntiTheist, when you say you don’t know I am assuming that you are saying that you can’t prove the existence why the universe needs to exist based on scientific evidence. Of course you can’t nor can science. Philosophy can though. Philosophy is the beginning of all science and therefore you cannot just throw out philosophy as a way of proving or disproving God.
Pax
Jeff
Pax
Jeff
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Show me the Philosophical answer to the question “Does the Universe need to exist?”
Philosophy can NOT “prove” the need.
But, I am sure you will be a groundbreaker in this cause and start a new answer on a long asked question that somehow was never contemplated before. Let’s hear it.
J
JeffersonD
Guest
I’m not a “groundbreaker” as you say. Aquinas has used contingency as a proof for God.
If the universe didn’t need to exist then it wouldn’t. The very fact that our universe does exist means that the universe is contingent on something that needs to exist. God created the universe because He wanted to. If you read my second post and dcmission’s post you would have understood better. We have already made the case for contingency. If you wish to learn more about contingency go back to Aquinas’ Five Ways.
Why do you say that philosophy cannot make a proof for the existence of God?
Pax,
Jeff
If the universe didn’t need to exist then it wouldn’t. The very fact that our universe does exist means that the universe is contingent on something that needs to exist. God created the universe because He wanted to. If you read my second post and dcmission’s post you would have understood better. We have already made the case for contingency. If you wish to learn more about contingency go back to Aquinas’ Five Ways.
Why do you say that philosophy cannot make a proof for the existence of God?
Pax,
Jeff
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
Both your replies are stawmen. When I talk to “atheists”, not wishy-washy agnostics or Catholics, “atheists” who are strong in their convictions, I ask these questions. They always get coy and usually either change the subject or blame their spouse. I consider them “weak”. Some, like my brother in law, are people of conviction who did not baptize and don’t celebrate Christmas.
K
kenofken
Guest
You just don’t like “cafeteria atheists”!
W
Warrenton
Guest
Well, sort of. The discipline of “science” (and I will presume we agree that we are talking primarilly about the physical sciences here) is neither open nor closed to viewpoint. Scientific methodology tries to factor viewpoint out because viewpoint is subjective. Nor does scientific method hope for anything, because that would be to prejudge an outcome. Its method asks a series of yes-no questions, performs tests, derives and answer, from which inferences may be then tentatively be drawn. Hope has nothing to do with it.
There is absolutely dogma in science. The dogma is perhaps best observed in action: an excellent example is the pythagorean theorem. Without the dogma of repeatability and the veracity of observed phenomena, science would be impossible. And by its own limits, science can only explore what can physically be tested.
Because science can only test the physical, and because it admits is conclusions are valid only insofar as its tests are valid and the conclusions are valid, science cannot and does not speak to ultimate truth. It is thus an incomplete description of the full human experience.
If they did nothing else, the existentialists demonstrated this fact.
When Neitzche proposed that humans invented gods because they were weary of searching, he was wrong.
They probably invented gods at about the same time as they invented science, and for the same reasons.
Science, like the gods, does not “want” to know anything. It simply bends to what is best called fate. If science discovered that there is nothing further to be known, it would be as content with that answer as if it discovered that it would never know everything.
Saying science wants to know is like saying a pitcher “wants” the batter to hit the ball. It is merely the rule of the game.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
You are confused. The only “evidence” you have for your miracle-claims – things that have never been known to happen before in history – are texts written by anonymous people sometime within a century of the supposed events. This is not sufficient evidence.
The evidence that I have in favor of an incompetent person being elected to a political office – something known to have happen again and again in human history and not particularly surprising or unusual – is manifold: not just reports of “eyewitnesses,” but empirical evidence, including the actual election results and the concession of the politician’s opponent.
To try to suggest that the two scenarios are equivalent in any way or that the amount of evidence is equal in any way is to be completely dishonest.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Well, obviously, I think atheism is correct – i.e. in line with reality – and I, like almost everyone else, think that it is best if people hold beliefs that are in line with reality so that their decisions – which affect everyone who lives in the same society as they do, including me – will be based on accurate beliefs.That’s a fine answer for discussing it, AT. But I mean, why would you rather have me, or the reader, or whatever apologist you’re currently debating, take on your worldview over Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Paganism when according to that same worldview there is no point, due to the absences I acknowledge? Like I said, this only works if the atheist is trying to convert the theist(s), so if that isn’t the purpose of your presence here, than it doesn’t apply to you and never was meant to apply to you.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Again, I don’t know. There are scientists working on figuring out cosmic origins, so I would read some of their books to get an idea of the work that they are doing.
On what grounds do you make this claim? Either you are making this claim on the grounds of evidence, or you’re making it up.
The question of how the universe came to exist – including whether its existence is the inevitable outcome of some kind of cosmic law – falls sqaurely into the domain of science to answer.
Again, as I said earlier, questions about reality cannot be addressed by sitting in your chair and thinking hard. Questions about reality – if we want to be sure that we’re right – have to be answered by looking at the world around us.
As to the other questions that have been asked in this thread:
Because other people have parties on this date, and I like to go to parties.
To give you some frame of reference, I also celebrated Talk Like a Pirate Day this year. I didn’t do it because I believe in that all people should talk like pirates – I did it because it was fun.
Well, leaving aside the fact that I’m not going to have a church wedding, I’ll address the fact that some atheists do.
And the answer is simple: social necessity. Sometimes going to church is something that pleases relatives or other people you care about, so in some situations it’s worth doing. It doesn’t mean that the person actually thinks that there’s anything to the supernatural bunk.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
I just noticed this and want to address it:
What you’re talking about is making up stories that seem to fit with what we see – and while you’re free to do that, there’s nothing that tells you that those stories are actually true.
Atheism is, for a lot of us, anyway, based on evidence and reason. If you want to sway us, you’ll need something in that department.
No. The law of gravity and the theory of gravity make testable predictions.
What you’re talking about is making up stories that seem to fit with what we see – and while you’re free to do that, there’s nothing that tells you that those stories are actually true.
I like philosophy – particularly epistemology, the study of how we know things. I know a lot of atheists who enjoy philosophy. And you do know, of course, that the majority of professional philosophers are atheists, don’t you?
I don’t doubt that there are a bunch of dumb, angsty teenagers out there who have become atheists for emotional reasons. These are the kinds of atheists – who become atheists for irrational reasons – who will be won back to theism by similar irrational arguments.
Atheism is, for a lot of us, anyway, based on evidence and reason. If you want to sway us, you’ll need something in that department.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
- Status