To all Catholics

[Kant we all...]

Science demands that God cannot have any hand in this universe and yet also be infinite in anything. If you are in this universe, you must obey the laws of Physics within it. Miracles do not.

I don't know whether science actually demands that. As far as miracles go, no one ever said anything about that. But since you brought it up:--

A "miracle" does not "do" anything. Some men blessed by God have been known to perform them, however. The common assertion that miracles never happen as a "fact," though, is usually based on the assumption that they can't happen; it's an argument in a circle. A miracle can happen (and miracles have happened, and do, and will) so long as He Who holds the Laws of Physics in place wills/allows it. This is not my own:--

but calling it a "law" hardly enforces anything: for something to be a "law," what must be included is the possibility that it can be broken.

 

[Xlock]

Kant we all...

Originally posted by Kant we all... As I think Xlock pointed out, it is a logical fallacy. (in reply to "Why do you consider it absurd for something to have no beginning?")

I didn't claim that it is a logical fallacy for something to have no beginning, I said that it's a fallacy to assert that all physical things must have a cause -- even if that means resorting to a supernatural uncaused cause.

God is that entity which the universe itself is dependent on

So, god is physics? After all, that's Stephen Hawking's definition of god. If you mean the Christian god then you must present proof for this statement.

so our knowledge of God depends upon our need to "know"--this is, after all, one of the reasons God must have created human reason: to find Him.

Science does much more than theology in expanding man's knowledge. And the scientist has actual proof.

by what "person" or "thing" or "essence" or "consciousness" has this matter come to be, similarly as, say, a thought comes to be in the mind of you or me?

Well, seeing how thought comes to your mind due to neurons of your brain firing. Are you trying to claim that you have thoughts due to a god?

God and science do not contradict each other; they reassure each other.

Oh yes, the bible's claim to creation of a flat Earth in the center of the Universe in seven days certainly does reassure the theories of modern science.

 

[Cris]

Kant we all,

As I think Xlock pointed out, it is a logical fallacy. (absurdum ad infinitum, I believe)

I think you have now resolved that in a subsequent post.

But if there was a beginning to the universe, then there can/could/might-be a first cause.

No I don’t think that is possible. If there was a point at which nothing existed then there could not have been anything to initiate a cause, and hence the universe could never have come into existence.

The arguments against this seem to be spontaneous creation from nothing for which support is being offered by quantum events. However, the quantum events involved all occur within an already existing universe, i.e. the state of true nothingness does not exist, which leads me to question that hypothesis.

The other popular concept is a supernatural event but there is nothing to support that, beyond imaginative speculation.

How do we know that the observed big bang is the only one and is not just one in an infinite universe full of other big bangs?


I think you once pointed out to me that speculation carries no weight, am I right? You must have some sort of "empirical/sensate data." Or were you limiting that possibility only to the Scriptures?

Current science is examining the very start of the big bang which has led to inflationary theory. This is leading scientists towards the conclusion that inflation is not the result of a big bang but that big bangs are the result of inflation. The implication is that the big bang is unlikely to be unique. I.e. it is more than just speculation.

the point I am making as a response is simply that that is just as much a speculation as that of what might have happened in recording Christ's last words.

There is yet no conclusive evidence that Jesus actually existed. There is even less evidence about what he allegedly said. If you then add to that multiple variations of speculations then I think you enter a world far below speculation, i.e. pure fantasy.

In any case, the universe can have as many big bangs as it wants; that doesn't make it infinite.

The case that was being suggested was that the big bang indicates a beginning which indicates a potential first cause. The probability of more than one big bang significantly dents that speculation.

The universe is still a material object.

We know of nothing other than material objects.

What I want to know is this:-- by what "person" or "thing" or "essence" or "consciousness" has this matter come to be,

We know of nothing that is sufficiently powerful that could create a universe. By all our senses the prospect is ludicrous. We also have no basis to suppose that the universe has not always existed.

Matter itself is a "thought" of the God who willed it into being; all time and eternity, all that is material and all that is spiritual, is but a single image and a single moment before the eyes of the imageless God.

But that is just fantasizing.

Perhaps I am guilty of it--though in a different way--but it seems to me that you found that the scientific method was reliable for some things, and so then decided to apply it to the validity of the whole of humanity.

The scientific method is a formal and disciplined process for the discovery of new knowledge. It is the best proven method we have for such discoveries. It can be applied to any situation. Why use it in some places and not for others?

It is about the same as an economist telling a mathematician that his beloved numbers are only any good for money calculation.... but maybe that is a bad analogy.

Yes it is a bad analogy. Try this – when you are hungry food is the only solution. When you want to discover new knowledge then science is the only solution.

 

[Xlock]

Benedict,

You are using a human brain with purely human structures to apply human reason to a situation that exists purely in the world outside of your brain.

The theist's claim to a defficiency in human reason is also arbitrary. What has human reason achieved? Space flight, modern medicine, advanced construction. What has religion achieved? Obedience, irrationality, restricted scientific growth. It certainly is convenient for the theist if human reason is deficient, they can simply make any supernatural claims they wish and proclaim it a "mystery" that man can't understand.

Plus I grew up my whole life with it, it is more comfortable.

But being comfortable with something is no reason to resist change. Once you actually begin thinking and analyzing religion you'll became uncomfortable retaining it.

Edit: added "to resist"

 

[Kant we all...]

I said that it's a fallacy to assert that all physical things must have a cause

Up until now I would have thought that to assert that all physical things must have a cause would be to assert a simple tenet of common sense.

So, god is physics? After all, that's Stephen Hawking's definition of god. If you mean the Christian god then you must present proof for this statement.

No, God is God; but it would be reasonable to assume that physics are a reflection of God. No proof that I could present would make you believe it; for, as you have already said, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are "not a reliable historical document" in your eyes. And along with that, you probably don't believe that there could ever be Divine revelation, because you don't believe in there being a "divine"--and further, even if you did believe in a divine, your tendency to follow the skeptic crowd would bend you to disbelieve in revelation anyway.

Science does much more than theology in expanding man's knowledge. And the scientist has actual proof.

I beg to differ, first of all, in that theology is a science. I beg to differ, secondly, insofar natural sciences go, they are sciences of common sense. Theology is a science of "uncommon" sense. Uncommon sense would not be regularly encountered in the day to day world, thus embarking to learn more about it opens the mind beyond what can be discerned or imagined from resorting to sense-experience alone. The scientist has actual "physical" proof; but there again, you don't believe in non-physical proof.

Are you trying to claim that you have thoughts due to a god?

Well that's true anyway. However it wasn't what I meant. If you'll take the time to actually read what I said I was using "human thought" as an analogy to "God thought." "Matter" being one of the many "God thoughts." But perhaps I could have found a tighter analogy.

Oh yes, the bible's claim to creation of a flat Earth in the center of the Universe in seven days certainly does reassure the theories of modern science.

Oh come now, don't be so silly. You're smarter than that, I hope. What the Bible claimed to know about the Earth (if it even claimed that...I really don't know) is a matter of anthropological evolution, not of biblical authority. People back then had no idea about scientific inquiry as we know today. Besides, if the Bible says that, such a thing has nothing to do with theology (i.e., the study/science of God).

 

[Jolly Rodger]

the subject of this post is "To all Catholics" Shouldn't it be "To all Christians" after all they do believe in the same God.
Futher more if you dont believe in anything fair enough, but what is it that causes you to question other peoples faith?
I mean everyone hates those people that come up to you and say "god loves you" or "god can save you". Its annoying but when you are questioning peoples faith you are doing the same thing as the people we hate.
What i am tring to say is, i am a catholic, i dont preach or try and win people over to my faith so, my question to you is, what is your motivation to take away peoples faith?

 

[Xlock]

Kant we all...

If you'll take the time to actually read what I said I was using "human thought" as an analogy to "God thought." "Matter" being one of the many "God thoughts." But perhaps I could have found a tighter analogy.

Yes, especially since you're trying to say that "God thoughts" are nothing like human thoughts.

Up until now I would have thought that to assert that all physical things must have a cause would be to assert a simple tenet of common sense.

Actually, there are events in quantum mechanics that are truly random and have no cause.

...insofar natural sciences go, they are sciences of common sense

I disagree. As an example from a post in the Physics forum, common sense would say that an object travelling at .6 times the speed of light toward another object travelling .6 times the speed of light in the opposite direction would have a relative speed of 1.2 times the speed of light. This idea stems from our everyday experiences with large, slow-moving objects. However, this problem requires the Lorentz Transformation and comes up with a different answer (slightly above .8*c). But the difference between this and your theological "uncommon sense" is that:

The scientist has actual "physical" proof; but there again, you don't believe in non-physical proof.

That is correct, scientists have actual physical proof and they, nor I, believe in imaginary proof.

as you have already said, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are "not a reliable historical document" in your eyes.

People back then had no idea about scientific inquiry as we know today. Besides, if the Bible says that, such a thing has nothing to do with theology

Aren't you the one being silly? You infer that the "Judeo-Christian Scriptures" are reliable documents and then claim that scientific error in them are due to the peoples' ignorance? Many religions believe that these scriptures are infallible -- I don't think this is a non-issue.

Besides, if the Bible says that, such a thing has nothing to do with theology (i.e., the study/science of God).

The study (not science) of god is meaningless without these scriptures and documents. You've already said that there is no physical proof of a god, so what, if not documents, would theologians study?

 

[Kant we all...]

No I don’t think that is possible. If there was a point at which nothing existed then there could not have been anything to initiate a cause, and hence the universe could never have come into existence.

Of course you don't think it is possible; you don't believe in a God which would have initiated the cause.

The other popular concept is a supernatural event but there is nothing to support that, beyond imaginative speculation.

Probably no material/physical evidence, no. However, when dealing with God, why would there be physical evidence? All of what we call "physical" is a creation.

There is yet no conclusive evidence that Jesus actually existed. There is even less evidence about what he allegedly said. If you then add to that multiple variations of speculations then I think you enter a world far below speculation, i.e. pure fantasy.

There is plenty of evidence, but you choose to reject it. You find complications with it because you don't want it to be true. Children make excuses about everything if they want to get out of having to live up to something. And there is far more evidence of what he said than that he existed; and if there is evidence of his sayings, then the person who said them had to have existed.

The case that was being suggested was that the big bang indicates a beginning which indicates a potential first cause. The probability of more than one big bang significantly dents that speculation.

I don't see how. That one should ever occur at all assumes that a certain one came before the rest of them.

We know of nothing other than material objects.

Yes, that is the doctrine of materialism. You're not free to believe anything else.

We know of nothing that is sufficiently powerful that could create a universe. By all our senses the prospect is ludicrous. We also have no basis to suppose that the universe has not always existed.

Of course not; not empirically anyway. By all our senses, the prospect is just bloody commonsensical! Everything that exists exists because of at least one other thing which also exists. Do we have no basis to suppose that the universe 'has' always existed? I might have missed that one (honestly, I might have).

But that is just fantasizing.

No, that is theology. But wait, I can hear it now....

Cris: "Like I said. Fantasy."

The scientific method is a formal and disciplined process for the discovery of new knowledge. It is the best proven method we have for such discoveries. It can be applied to any situation. Why use it in some places and not for others?

Because not all of reality is material reality. By the way, do you use the scientific method for deciding who you're going to take out on a date?

when you are hungry food is the only solution. When you want to discover new knowledge then science is the only solution.

It's a used up analogy, but a good one. I agree with you, but, for some, science is boring and annoying. E.g., some might find literature and politics more stimulating and fulfilling than science.

 

[Kant we all...]

Such venom in you atheists. What are you so afraid of?

 

[Mors]

Jolly Rodger,

the subject of this post is "To all Catholics" Shouldn't it be "To all Christians"

I called it "to all catholics" because i was not sure if christians confessed

Futher more if you dont believe in anything fair enough, but what is it that causes you to question other peoples faith?

When did i question anyone's faith, I only want to know how other people view their religion.

what is your motivation to take away peoples faith?

That is not my intention.

 

[Cris]

Kant,

Such venom in you atheists. What are you so afraid of?

To whom are you referring? What venom?

 

[Kant we all...]

! I think I made it pretty clear.

 

[Cris]

Kant we all,

Of course you don't think it is possible; you don't believe in a God which would have initiated the cause.

I was limiting myself to rational causes.

Probably no material/physical evidence, no. However, when dealing with God, why would there be physical evidence? All of what we call "physical" is a creation.

But there is no other type of evidence. Can you demonstrate a non-physical example of evidence?

There is plenty of evidence, but you choose to reject it.

There is plenty of claimed evidence, but none is conclusive. Can you show conclusive evidence that Jesus existed?

You find complications with it because you don't want it to be true.

Why would I not want to escape death? Personal desire is not appropriate here, only proof.

Children make excuses about everything if they want to get out of having to live up to something.

What is the relevance of this statement in this context?

And there is far more evidence of what he said than that he existed;
and if there is evidence of his sayings, then the person who said them had to have existed.

Can you provide proof of any single word allegedly said by an alleged Jesus?

We know of nothing other than material objects.


Yes, that is the doctrine of materialism. You're not free to believe anything else.

Can you show proof of anything else?

Everything that exists exists because of at least one other thing which also exists.

If God exists what is he dependent on?

Do we have no basis to suppose that the universe 'has' always existed? I might have missed that one (honestly, I might have).

The universe exists. Can you show that at some time it didn’t?

But that is just fantasizing.

No, that is theology. But wait, I can hear it now....

Cris: "Like I said. Fantasy."

I’m glad you understand that there is no difference.

Because not all of reality is material reality.

What is your proof?

By the way, do you use the scientific method for deciding who you're going to take out on a date?

Why do you want to make the debate personal? If you want to seriously discover truth then the scientific method currently provides the best approach. But there are other aspects to life where it is fun to leave things to chance.

.. for some, science is boring and annoying. E.g., some might find literature and politics more stimulating and fulfilling than science.

It’s a common problem among religionists - A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.

 

[Cris]

Kant we all,

! I think I made it pretty clear.

Clearly you didn't otherwise I would not have asked. I sense you are taking something personally and you don't need to. Let's see if we can stay objective.

 

[Kant we all...]

I was limiting myself to rational causes.

Maybe we should define "rational."

Can you demonstrate a non-physical example of evidence?

I believe they are called philosophical arguments.

Can you show conclusive evidence that Jesus existed?

1) you don't believe in God
2) you don't believe in the possibility of divine revelation
3) you don't believe that the Judeo-Christian accounts are reliable historical documents

So now we're back to square one. Like I said, there is plenty of "conclusive" evidence, but you choose to reject it on your dogma that none of them (1-3) can be true.

Why would I not want to escape death?

I never said anything about death.

What is the relevance of this statement in this context?

It was an analogy. I could put it more blunty, if you like.

Can you provide proof of any single word allegedly said by an alleged Jesus?

Here we go again. There's plenty of proof. Several documents, and countless testimonies. But you do not believe that--despite their distance from one another--any of these could be accurate.

Can you show proof of anything else?

Again, these would amount to philosophical proofs, not empirical proofs. But I guess that doesn't carry any weight with you. By the way, when did "reason" become limited to this pedantic memory of what comes through sense-experience?

If God exists what is he dependent on?

Such a cliché. He is dependent on nothing. That's the point. He is immaterial, He is not in motion. All that is in motion is dependent. God is the Mover (which is not to say that "He moves around", but that "He moves everything else around").

The universe exists. Can you show that at some time it didn’t?

Certainly I cannot. But time also exists. And unless you think time is an illusion (which you might, but I don't), to say that the universe has always existed is to say that either we are already in eternity or that nothing ever began to exist in the first place.

Why do you want to make the debate personal? If you want to seriously discover truth then the scientific method currently provides the best approach. But there are other aspects to life where it is fun to leave things to chance.

Personal? Am I not a person? Are we not people? We can discover all the truth we want about physical reality by using the scientific method, sure. But for the spiritual realm, we must rely heavily on right reasoning and revelation. I understand your point of view, and thinking in such terms does, in fact, make it very hard to believe in God. But if you will never accept that some things can be revealed by God (which you wouldn't, since you think God doesn't exist), you won't get all the truth, only some truths. Reason can only take us so far, for our minds are limited. As for these "other aspects" to life where it is fun to leave things to chance alone, one might use that very statement to justify their need for religion.

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.

'

I don't think that is true at all. Some very profound physicists were also devout mystics; notably, Thomas Aquinas. The intellectual life and the spiritual life are two parts of one whole; to be intellectual and not be spiritual is to be less than human, just as to be spiritual and shun the intellect is to be less than human. Faith and Reason do not contradict--but I suppose I am guilty: for I am often wont to begin from that premise.

 

[Kant we all...]

By the way, and pardon me if it is just too "personal"--

Why do atheists go to the religion board in the first place?

If you just don't really care, why fight it out?

Did you hate your father as a child, or what?

Or are you just a "bully"?

 

[Free Cycle]

This Relgion forums hasn't been created for christians. Non-christians have just as many spiritual concerns as anyone else, we disagree with something that pervades many aspects of modern life. It isn't as if christians exist as a group to themselves, they spread their influence like a fungus spreads its spores.

 

[Cris]

Kant we all,

Why do atheists go to the religion board in the first place?

To debate their points of view against theism. In the same way that theists debate their points of view for theism. It is not clear why you asked the question. Religion here does not imply only those that are pro-religion.

If you just don't really care, why fight it out?

It is because atheists who debate here do care very deeply about how religion affects their lives.

Did you hate your father as a child, or what?

Your rationale for this statement is not clear. It looks like you are quoting Christian propaganda. I suspect atheists can generate equally derogatory implications about Christians. Do you want to engage in such an exchange?

Or are you just a "bully"?

Bully is defined as “one who is habitually cruel to others who are weaker”. You appear to be accepting that you are weaker, but I would seriously question your perspective that atheists here are being cruel.

Since this is a debate then the strength or weakness is revealed through our arguments. Are you claiming that your arguments are weak because there is nothing stronger or that your ability to debate is weak? I suspect you would assume the latter and I would see nothing wrong with that. Practice will improve that condition.

 

[Red Devil]

"so our knowledge of God depends upon our need to "know"--this is, after all, one of the reasons God must have created human reason: to find Him."

Oh come on! Thats got to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard!! I am not here, I do not exist, I cannot be found, so - find me!! Yeah right!

 

[Kant we all...]

It is because atheists who debate here do care very deeply about how religion affects their lives.

How should religion affect your life if you are not religious? And if you come here seeking debate on religion, you are asking for it to affect your life. Perhaps you want to believe, and are here with an unconscoius motive; that is, that you might find a reason to believe. Yet the entire enterprise is quenched with ambivalence, it seems.

It looks like you are quoting Christian propaganda. I suspect atheists can generate equally derogatory implications about Christians.

No, not Christian propaganda, Freudian propaganda. It is not meant to be derogatory; it is more or less a psychological statistic that most who do not believe in God hate their fathers, and that their disability to believe stems from that.

You appear to be accepting that you are weaker

Sure, I accept it. But not that I am weaker than you, but weaker than God. I only speak on behalf of Truth. Any good thing I say does not come from me, but from God; for only God is really good, and only God really possesses wisdom. Philosophers only seek it.

I made the bully comment because bullies seek to hurt others with no real justification as to why except to make them feel better about themselves. It is a matter of pride and humility, not a matter of weaker or stronger, methinks.