Why is disbelief a sin?

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

This is a misleading statement. Even antimatter has positive mass, and mass does not naturally come from nowhere. Even science contends that they do not come “out of nowhere”, but rather from energy in the vacuum (~1MeV for electron-positron pair).

The mass of the antimatter is irrelevant - what relevance does it have? Certainly there is no causation present, there is merely a random fluctuation, and that is the crux of the matter (or antimatter??? )

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

Unfortunately that is not convincing. The word “believe” is a thoroughly well defined one, and we must go along with the proper meaning. Next time you might bring up an old Hebrew word, and assert that the word “slave” in the OT is not really a “slave”, just an “indentured servant”. Such word games are irrelevant.

The Bible was not written in English. If you were to tell me what “imaginary numbers” mean as a Math whiz, yet I were to then argue with you and say you were wrong about what “imaginary numbers” mean because everyone knows the word “imaginary” has a well-defined meaning and we must go along with that “proper meaning” then that might seem rather ridiculous to you, right?

I’m not playing word games. Just trying to teach theology to someone who claimed he was willing to listen. Appearantly that was just lip service, since you already know everything there is to know about the meaning of kione Greek words and their 1st century New Testament usage.

You seem to me like an ignorant 4th grader, challenging a Professor of Electronics to explain why some materials are better conductors than others. Then when he does explain it to you in terms a 4th grader might understand, you say “Uh uh, that’s not true.” It’s baffling. Like the 4th grader, you don’t have the pre-requisite education to even understand the answer, but when we take the time to teach you and answer the quesiton YOU YOURSELF solicited from us, you reject the answer. You seem to be asking questions, not actually wanting an answer, but merely to tee up an argument. Is that it? Is that why you are here? If so, I certainly have smarter 4th graders to attend to who actually want to learn.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

The mass of the antimatter is irrelevant - what relevance does it have?

Everything. Antimatter is not the opposite of matter. It is merely another particle with an opposite charge. Both particles have mass that are subject to gravity. Thus, to say matter-antimatter pairs pop into existence is like saying mass suddenly exists from nothing, when in fact it didn’t - it formed from energy (E=mc^2). And energy is not “nothing”.

Hitetlen:

Certainly there is no causation present, there is merely a random fluctuation, and that is the crux of the matter (or antimatter??? )

By your own statement, a “random fluxation” caused it. That is not “nothing”, either, even if true.

The point is that nothing can come from total nothingness. To deny the logicality of this is … illogical.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

hurst:

But before we consider the universe, let’s consider ourselves. Did we always exist, or were we made? Did we “require a creator”? What is your answer?

The answer is obvious: we did not always exist, and my birth was the direct result of sex between my parents. In this respect, yes, I had a creator. Please go on.

Ok. I think you would then also agree that everything made by people did not exist before there were people to make them: houses, roads, cars, radios, computers, etc. These things had people as a creator.

Concerning matter. Would you agree that there could be no water molecules unless there were first hydrogen and oxygen atoms around that could be combined to form water?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

hurst:

Originally Posted by Hitetlen
The basic question is not: “who created the universe?”, rather it is: “does the universe require a creator?”. And unless you can prove that the universe does require a creator, the other question does not even pop up.

You must admit that the other question has indeed popped up for other people…

For sure. That does not make it a valid question, however.

What is a “valid question”?

The fact remains that it is being asked by others and has been made known to you. You therefore cannot claim ignorance, nor can you claim that no one else considered it. How are they different from you in their search for truth?

But let me ask you this: on what basis are you judging that the questions asked by others are not valid?

What I am getting at is this: where did your basis come from, by which you judge what path you should take in life, and by which you are willing to risk your life on?

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

The Bible was not written in English. If you were to tell me what “imaginary numbers” mean as a Math whiz, yet I were to then argue with you and say you were wrong about what “imaginary numbers” mean because everyone knows the word “imaginary” has a well-defined meaning and we must go along with that “proper meaning” then that might seem rather ridiculous to you, right?

As a matter of fact, that is not a hypothetical scenario. Every year when I taught the freshmen class, even before they they could have pointed out the incredible stupidity of the phrase “imaginary” number, I preempted it, and apologized for the horrible misnomer - and also suggested a better terminology. The same applied to the word “irrational” number. These misnomers are a serious impediment of understanding, and should be corrected.

itsjustdave1988:

I’m not playing word games. Just trying to teach theology to someone who claimed he was willing to listen. Appearantly that was just lip service, since you already know everything there is to know about the meaning of kione Greek words and their 1st century New Testament usage.

I seriously doubt that either you or anyone else can really speak with authority about the precise meaning of words 2000 years ago. (Words are very fluid and change their accepted meaning quite frequently, sometimes in a few years.) At best you can have educated guesses.

However, we are here and now: conducting our conversation in modern English, not in ancient Hebrew or Greek - since no one speaks the 2000 years old variant of those languages any more. If the translations of the Bible are incorrect, you can take the issue to the translators and publishers.

itsjustdave1988:

You seem to me like an ignorant 4th grader, challenging a Professor of Electronics to explain why some materials are better conductors than others. Then when he does explain it to you in terms a 4th grader might understand, you say “Uh uh, that’s not true.” It’s baffling. Like the 4th grader, you don’t have the pre-requisite education to even understand the answer, but when we take the time to teach you and answer the quesiton YOU YOURSELF solicited from us, you reject the answer. You seem to be asking questions, not actually wanting an answer, but merely to tee up an argument. Is that it? Is that why you are here? If so, I certainly have smarter 4th graders to attend to who actually want to learn.

And you are condescending in your manner. When I was teaching, I never “talked down” to my students, always spoke to them in a respectful manner, and thus I earned their respect. I suggest you learn civilized behavior in your method of conducting a conversation.

Furthermore, the question you brought up has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you wish to open a thread about the incorrect translations in the Bible, please do so, and I will be happy to participate.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Everything. Antimatter is not the opposite of matter. It is merely another particle with an opposite charge. Both particles have mass that are subject to gravity. Thus, to say matter-antimatter pairs pop into existence is like saying mass suddenly exists from nothing, when in fact it didn’t - it formed from energy (E=mc^2). And energy is not “nothing”.

Sorry, the equation you quoted is the expression of showing that matter and energy are the same thing. There is no “pure” energy. The emergence of the particle pair is quite astonishing, and the scientist have no real explanation for it. But those particles really come from vacuum - nowhere, for no discernible reason whatsoever.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Ok. I think you would then also agree that everything made by people did not exist before there were people to make them: houses, roads, cars, radios, computers, etc. These things had people as a creator.

Concerning matter. Would you agree that there could be no water molecules unless there were first hydrogen and oxygen atoms around that could be combined to form water?

Yes, we are still in agreement in your analysis. Please carry on. You may even speed it up a little, if I cannot cope with it, I will ask you to slow down. (Though I am pretty sure I know where you are heading )

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

What is a “valid question”?

I can give you examples of invalid questions, and we can try form there. Here is one: “When did you stop beating your wife?” Another one: “Is light a particle or energy?” One more: “What happened before the Big Bang?” or “What is north from the North Pole?”.

The question “Who created the universe?” is not necessarily invalid, merely premature. In order to gain “validity” the question “Does the universe need a creator?” must be answered in an affirmative manner.

hurst:

The fact remains that it is being asked by others and has been made known to you. You therefore cannot claim ignorance, nor can you claim that no one else considered it. How are they different from you in their search for truth?

They ask premature questions.

hurst:

But let me ask you this: on what basis are you judging that the questions asked by others are not valid?

I can only answer this for specific questions, since I am not fully aware of my own thinking process (and neither is anyone else).

hurst:

What I am getting at is this: where did your basis come from, by which you judge what path you should take in life, and by which you are willing to risk your life on?

These are much too open ended questions, cannot be answered in detail in a paragraph or two. A short answer: I try to use reason and knowledge.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

When you say you were a believer, do you only mean a believer in God generically speaking, or were you in a Christian family? Were you baptized? Were you Catholic?

Oops, almost missed this. I was raised as Calvinist (Presbyterian), not Catholic. My Mother was Catholic, but since she married a Protestant, she was not welcome at her Church (I don’t know if she was formally excommunicated). However her family was Catholic, and I have been exposed to Catholicism at a very young age. None of my exposure was uncomfortable, the pastors were very nice people, and I still remember them with respect and love.

 

[EtienneGilson]

itsjustdave1988:

You seem to me like an ignorant 4th grader, challenging a Professor of Electronics to explain why some materials are better conductors than others. Then when he does explain it to you in terms a 4th grader might understand, you say “Uh uh, that’s not true.” It’s baffling. Like the 4th grader, you don’t have the pre-requisite education to even understand the answer, but when we take the time to teach you and answer the quesiton YOU YOURSELF solicited from us, you reject the answer. You seem to be asking questions, not actually wanting an answer, but merely to tee up an argument. Is that it? Is that why you are here? If so, I certainly have smarter 4th graders to attend to who actually want to learn.

What a masterful display of Christian charity and theological learning

With friends like this, who needs enemies of the faith?

To the original poster, this is also an issue that I have struggled with. What is really boils down to is a clear definition of faith which is acceptable to us. There is a little book, a debate book by John Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto called ‘A Reformation Debate’ which explores an expanded concept of the meaning of the word faith other than intellectual assent. Unfortunately the good Cardinal’s positon was not taken up by the Council of Trent. But don’t let that bother you

Writing which might interes you on the subject (forget about all the Peter Kreeft nonsense…he is really overrated, superficial and a popularizer) are the writings of Augustine and Pelagius on free will. Though Augustine prevailed in the Western Church (and later even grew to gerater pominence in the reformation) the Eastern Orthodox to this day maintain a more balanced approach.

Another Patristic author would be Origen who deals with universal salvation.

Thomas Aquinas, understood in a moderate vein like that of Frederick Copleston is another good writer on the subject and so is the correspondance between two of his followers: Banes and Molina.

Another writer you might be interested in was Erasmus and his exchange with Luther on Free Will.

Finally, some modern Christian theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner have developed various methods of dealing with this problem.

Please don’t dismiss all of Christianity as being narrow and juvenile. Your struggle is not a new one though it may be a difficult one for more conservative Christians to deal with.

 

[marysson]

Hitetlen:

Merely this; the sentence: “The universe simply exists” is either an impossibility according to the known laws of nature, or it leads to a logical contradiction. Either one would be sufficient to ask the next question: “So, then who created the universe?”. But until it can be shown that the universe is not sufficient unto itself, or the above sentence leads to a logical contradiction, the secondary question has no reason to be asked. Fair enough?

The Universe (time and matter) had a beginning. This is an accepted scientific fact. Given that fact, coupled with the face that energy is running out due to entropy, the Universe is not self-sufficient.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

The fact is that the answers are not convincing. I am using my intellect and it refuses to accept the “evidence” which is offered, because it is insufficient - in my eyes. I have heard of alleged “evidence” for God’s existence many times, and it simply was not enough to take it seriously.

The only question here is that you are blind, or maybe worst, you don’t want to see. All your reason and knowledge are deceiving you. Don’t trust yourself. In man dwells sin, falseness, inconstancy. You made your choice: to be your own little god, despising the True God. Then you ask: “Why is disbelief a sin?”. Look at yourself and you are going to find the answer: pride, superbia, vanity, laziness, are all mortal sins that deserve hell. This thread and the closed one on “free will” are like trying to explain a blind guy the beauty of colors. “Colors don’t exist, I don’t see them”. That is why the Christ healed the blind. This is why the Christ remained silence before Pilate. Because “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4, 6).
Tell us the truth, what do you pretend? To believe because God can be measured with human tools? To believe because God can be demonstrated as Pythagoras Theorem? You don’t believe because you made your choice: to be your own little god, a little god who is nothing more than dust.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Sorry, the equation you quoted is the expression of showing that matter and energy are the same thing. There is no “pure” energy. The emergence of the particle pair is quite astonishing, and the scientist have no real explanation for it. But those particles really come from vacuum - nowhere, for no discernible reason whatsoever.

no discernible reason - exactly. this is not the same thing as no actual reason.

hidden variables theories stipulate there is such a reason (or cause), and we just don’t know it yet. and hidden variables theories work just as well as their canonical counterparts.

 

[Leon_Miguel]

Hitetlen:

There is a very strict rule that I apply: “extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs”.

I agree totally. Do you think that life just arising at random from clumps of atoms is most extraordinary? Not only do the original clumps manage to replicate and multiply but they also get bigger and smarter. Eventually the clumps care about other clumps, they plan for the future, they organise other matter to make life more comfortable, they discuss how they became clumps in the first place and what happens to themselves when they cease to function. But if they are just clumps of matter that are destined to return to the earth are all their achivements of any value? I think sometimes we can overlook how extraordinary life actually is.

You mentioned in an earlier post about the mind just being matter only - do you trust it to give you accurate information? JP Moreland has published some very readable articles on this.

Keep searching

 

[Hitetlen]

EtienneGilson:

What a masterful display of Christian charity and theological learning

With friends like this, who needs enemies of the faith?

Thank you for your support. I will keep your suggestions in mind.

EtienneGilson:

Please don’t dismiss all of Christianity as being narrow and juvenile. Your struggle is not a new one though it may be a difficult one for more conservative Christians to deal with.

No, I would not do that. I know that there are many brilliant people who sincerely believe the tenets of Christianity. To dismiss them would be arrogant and stupid. But that does not mean that I can accept their arguments uncritically.

 

[Hitetlen]

marysson:

The Universe (time and matter) had a beginning. This is an accepted scientific fact. Given that fact, coupled with the face that energy is running out due to entropy, the Universe is not self-sufficient.

Sorry, that is not convincing at all. The Big Bang is simply the beginning of what we call universe. How it happened, we don’t know. What was the physics like in the first few seconds, we don’t know. But there is no reason to suspect supernatural intervention. That would only be appealing to the “God of the Gaps”.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

no discernible reason - exactly. this is not the same thing as no actual reason.

hidden variables theories stipulate there is such a reason (or cause), and we just don’t know it yet. and hidden variables theories work just as well as their canonical counterparts.

Possible, and all we need to do now is wait until an explanatory theory comes along, which can be tested and provisionally kept or discarded based upon the test.

 

[Hitetlen]

Leon Miguel:

I agree totally. Do you think that life just arising at random from clumps of atoms is most extraordinary? Not only do the original clumps manage to replicate and multiply but they also get bigger and smarter. Eventually the clumps care about other clumps, they plan for the future, they organise other matter to make life more comfortable, they discuss how they became clumps in the first place and what happens to themselves when they cease to function. But if they are just clumps of matter that are destined to return to the earth are all their achivements of any value? I think sometimes we can overlook how extraordinary life actually is.

What is your point? That life emerged was really a very “unlikely” event? Yes, it was. Do we know how it happened? No, we don’t, not exactly. So, we can admit our ignorance and keep on searching. The argument called the “God of the Gaps” is not to be taken seriously.
Leon Miguel:

You mentioned in an earlier post about the mind just being matter only - do you trust it to give you accurate information? JP Moreland has published some very readable articles on this.

I said that the mind is the product of the brain, it does not exactly mean that the mind is “matter”.

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

Possible, and all we need to do now is wait until an explanatory theory comes along, which can be tested and provisionally kept or discarded based upon the test.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that God exists? Why do you need concrete proof? Do you desparately want it to be true but you are like doubting Thomas.
Its not just simple uneducated people who have faith but well educated folks too, world leaders, scientists, teachers etc etc. Why do you think they believe?