As the votes start to get tallied for one of the biggest elections in Philippine history, Filipinos are already in an uproar over the projected results. The second place position of the convicted plunderer and ousted president, Joseph Estrada, in the presidential race has people all over the country scratching their heads in sheer incredulity. And though the predicted landslide victory of Noynoy Aquino has some in rapture, others have been overtaken by pessimism, with the impending defeat of their bets. In the face of seemingly bleak prospects, Filipinos once again turn to God.
While the Appointed Son of God Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy’s “next president” continues to slip in the polls and the hope of the Evangelical right wing, Eddie Villanueva, braces for another multimillion peso rout, prayers still continue to stream from people hoping that the Creator of the entire universe will make good on the promises they had imagined made to them. To be fair, the Lord of all seems to have delivered good news to the Iglesia Ni Cristo in spades.
Incompetent candidates seem to have flooded the top ranks of the election results and there is no other way to rectify this situation with an omnibenevolent God than to say that “He has a plan” — the glorious exemplar of non-thinking that appears at the end of every wild theodicean goose chase.
“Lord, Ikaw na bahala.”
“Jesus, take care of the Philippines”
“I will accept the will of God.”
These are some professions of faith one would find through a cursory look at a Facebook or Twitter feed as we wait for the final results from COMELEC. Apart from a classic depiction of the Filipino at a loss, grasping for any semblance of control, however illusory, these prayers are thinly-veiled admonishments by the religious against people who didn’t follow their will. Behind the ostensible humility portrayed by each of these declarations is a believer bewildered and disappointed that their focused psychic intentions appear to have no sway over the direction of the universe.
Prayer permits people to think that they are doing everything in their power to turn the tide without leaving the election coverage on television. Faith that, whatever happens, God will work things out in the end has replaced critical thought and activism. It has allowed people to compromise on platforms and ideologies in favor of celebrity and facade. For as long as people rely on the year-round Santa Claus to fix everything, we will remain mired in the society that we deserve — one with Congressman Manny Pacquiao on the floor of the House of Representatives.
"Those who vote changes nothing, those who count the vote changes everything" – Joseph Stalin
I agree with comrade chairman Joe Stalin on that. You can pray, or you can pay. What is your pleasure?
Eddie Villanueva and sons. Remember that folks, its an enterprise not a public service.
Eddie Velarde of El Shootae. Red suite, red (spinning) ribbon, white shirt and pants with Navy white shoes. Bright lights, cameras, worshipers weeping. Who the fuck is he supposed to be?
If these charlatans run don't vote for them. As for their followers, they need an enima.
My name is Eddie and I approve this endorsement.
Prayer is just a PLACEBO. You do it and you find calm because of your trust in prayer. You pray so you can face your problems better.
How can we test if a prayer was answered or not? If it was the prayer that caused the situation you needed to happen? Or, Would the situation have happened anyway even without prayer?
Events in our life happen even if we pray or not. I don't pray and yet why am I still here? If somebody prays for rain to come for relief from the heatwave or if we pray for a soldier to return safely from war or if we pray for a conflict to be resolved. Rain will come when it wants to, Some soldiers are bound to die in war, People will be people.
If you pray for something that doesn't happen either you will deny to yourself that God is not Listening to you or just forgot already that you prayed for it. If what you prayed for happens then you immediately attribute it as God's handiwork because you asked for it. So you feel happy. But for those who haven't seen any change most will think it's not God's plan and keep on praying. So Why pray in the first place if God is still going to do what he wants? I just completely removed prayer from my life so that I know that I didn't get anything from prayer. My problems are only caused by the people who are living in misery trying to make me do what they want when they have no idea how to do it.
It's just that people grow up being told that IF they pray then God will give it to them. The adults are giving you a CAUSE with no VALUE to get the EFFECT that you want, only to be disappointed again and again.
Mark, I dont know the bearing of these in the discussion.
"Prayer must come from the heart, and not by memorizing “Hail Mary” and “The Lord’s Prayer.” These are just vain repetitions and not true prayers ( Matthew 6:7)."
"You have never realized or do not know that these people, first of all, cannot test the effectiveness of prayer simply because THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRAY TO GOD because they do not belong to the true church/religion. Of course their prayers won’t work. Prayer works because GOD and JESUS say so and they command it, for they have the authority to do so.(Luke 18:1; Matthew 21:22)."
"Why pray at all when God’s will is obviously infallible as he is both omnipotent and omniscient? He already knows what’s going to happen to you and to think that your night time meditations are going to influence to Lord of all creation seems to me entirely arrogant. If his will is going to be done anyway, then all petitionary prayer is nothing but a conceited and disingenuous public display of piety." -Garrick
in the language of us catholics, a night time mediation is done before retiring at night…alone, how can that be a "conceited and disingenuous public display of piety"? it is quite obvious and this is the same with all your other posts and comments that your arguments directly stem from and are directed by "hatred" towards religion, or in this case God. i can understand that. however my hope is that in the future arguments will be made from the rational and reasonable point of view rather than emotions taking over logic.
it is not difficult at all to have such kind of impression when things are oversimplified and looked through the narrow lens of the mind. yes, praying to a god who is supposed to be all-knowing and who has His own will seemed to be an arrogant thing to do in the part of the one who prays but only because it was taken out of context and out of place from the whole theology of faith. it is like concluding that parents are bad for saying no to their kids without considering the whole situation and circumstances. any act can be made to looked bad when taken out of context. at this particular topic one has to consider the will of God, the spiritual state of the person praying, the purpose of praying, the God-given gift of freewill, its effect and consequences, the relationship of eternity and the "earthly time" that we are subjected to, etc…
to give you an example, the Lord is all-knowing but it cannot be looked at the same way as when a person knows everything, He knows things all at once, outside time, only us is subjected to time and therefore our life has to be left lived gradually suffering or enjoying the consequences of our actions; while He knows already what would happen, because of our situation things are to happen in the same way as we are subjected to succession of events.
then we also have to consider the gift of freewill. We can will it upon ourselves to reject His will. the expression of our wants and needs in prayer is the transmission of our will. it can also be said that it is not much for him as it is for us. it is a way of realizing our will, weakness, and dependence.
Prayer is not just or simply a "petition prayer" where in we ask what we want and by that we can judge His existence by the results of our petition. Prayer is an ascent of the human mind to God, it is a way of understanding and knowing ourselves, exploring our relationship with Him, each other, and the world we live in, realizing who we are in this world and what it means to be a created being of God, and discerning the purpose of our being.
even in, let's say, the constitution, one cannot simply pick a sentence and deemed the whole as invalid. the point is that prayer has to be understood in the whole context of the faith.
You picked one particular form of private prayer, the one I was obviously not talking about when I pointed out Twitter and Facebook, nighttime prayer, and decided I was entirely wrong on all grounds. I thought it was clear that I meant that public displays of prayer (such as Mass in the mall or rosary rallies) are conceited and disingenuous. They are even contrary to the Bible. (Matthew 6:6)
First of all, I don't "hate" God. I can't hate God as much as I can't hate Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Please don't project on me. Even if I did "hate" God, it does not in any way diminish that rationality of my arguments. You are deflecting and to criticize me, or my intentions, is fallacious and beside the point.
Comparing the acts of God to parents is an example of deepity. On the surface, it makes sense that God would have intentions that we don't know about. It's like you said, how parents have their own reasons that they don't tell the child. But this comparison is quite banal. It is at least possible to understand the intentions of parents. The child works on the same scope of moral possibilities as the parents. A deeper reading into it would entail that parents could resort to locking up their kids in the basement for all eternity because they misbehaved and the child would not be warranted in his objections. What could any parent possibly have up their sleeve to justify eternal torture? What context could possibly rescue this atrocity?
You are using special pleading to justify the acts of depravity attributed to God in the Bible and in the everyday human experience of suffering. You demand rationality from me but set apart your own conclusions to a higher plane that I cannot ever meet you on until I "ascend" my human mind. I just don't understand God's will, therefore I am wrong.
It seems to me that what you are saying to me is that we cannot use our own moral proclivities to judge God because his ways are infinitely higher than ours. Am I right to read this from your statements? If this is so, then you are as invalid in judging Yahweh as good or righteous as I am in calling him violent, unless you want to stick to your double standard. Since God supposedly gave us the ability to feel disgust at the sheer depravity of rape or torture, why is it invalid to feel the same way when God does the same things? Is God's morality different from ours? If so, then God's morality is arbitrary. He could consider genocide as a perfectly good way to spend an afternoon and humans would have no right to question it. If his morality is not arbitrary, then his actions can be understood by man, at least in principle, if not in practice.
Religion is inherently arrogant because it supposes that some types of people have knowledge about the cosmos available to them that is not open to others. This knowledge is privately revealed to them and cannot be, allegedly, shown through empirical data. What I'm saying is that you can't possibly know that God exists and that he had a son 2000 years ago born of a teenage virgin in the only part of the Middle East without oil where violent and superstitious tribes settled in. And, I think that, to assert that we have any knowledge concerning God, his will, or his being "outside time", is dishonest. We just don't know anything about God that can be reasonably shown with evidence. Everything about him is taken on faith, which is inherently unreasonable.
I would sincerely start praying if there were conclusive evidence showing its effectivity. But since there is no evidence for it, I consider prayer the same way an orthodox Christian would view Tarot cards and horoscopes. Effectivity is the only thing that matters in petitionary prayer. Does it actually do what it's supposed to do? It's one thing to meditate and be in silent introspection. This has been proven, clinically, to have positive effects on human psychology, irrespective of religion (which takes the factuality of any faith out from the equation). It's another thing to expect to get something because you asked God to get it for you and assume this to be a rational course of action.
I overtly mentioned "petitionary prayer" because I know there are other types of prayer and this type is the most senseless, in my view, even if you allow the premise that an omniscient and omnipotent God sometimes changes his future mind instead of already knowing what to do in the first place.
We can consider one mistake, taken in context (and the Bible is explicit in its prescriptions on what to do with women who aren't virgins on their wedding night), to be damning of the whole lie. Criminal suspects can weave completely consistent stories and this wouldn't be proof of their honesty. If they slip up on important details, however, such as the time of the crucifixion, this can be taken as evidence for the falsehood of their statements. Since the Bible is the only book God found important enough to write himself, we must read and criticize it more than we would Shakespeare or Homer. The Bible should be the greatest book ever and should be immaculate in its moral and historical instruction. This is not unfair because the author is God, the highest of the high, and he is incapable of error.
First, I am not here to proselytize. No one is forcing you to pray nor trying to convert you or anyone to believe what we believe. All I am saying is that if a claim about or against our faith is to be made at least get the facts straight. Arguments against our faith should be presented not based on misconception or misunderstanding but always in the context and verity of our understanding and belief. It is not to force you into saying we are right but a simple call to be correct in representing what we believe when you argue that we are wrong.
“I thought it was clear that I meant that public displays of prayer (such as Mass in the mall or rosary rallies) are conceited and disingenuous…”
I believe that this is exactly what you wrote and exactly what I was referring to.
“Why pray at all when God’s will is obviously infallible as he is both omnipotent and omniscient? He already knows what’s going to happen to you and to think that your night time meditations are going to influence to Lord of all creation seems to me entirely arrogant. If his will is going to be done anyway, then all petitionary prayer is nothing but a conceited and disingenuous public display of piety.”
Public displays of prayer or not, who is to say, without really knowing what is in the hearts of those who are participating, that they are being conceited and disingenuous unless you are claiming that you have the ability to look deep into their hearts and gauge the sincerity of each and everyone involved.
“…They are even contrary to the Bible. (Matthew 6:6)” -Garrick
It was meant to specifically deal with the practices of Pharisees using prayers to feed their own vanity, in this particular case, taking a supposedly private prayer in public. It is not meant to be understood as a ban for public prayer nor is it to say that the only form of prayer is that of a private prayer. Among many instances are Acts 4:24-30, Matthew 26:40, Acts 12:12, 2Corinthians 1:11.
“What could any parent possibly have up their sleeve to justify eternal torture? What context could possibly rescue this atrocity?”-Garrick
It’s called freewill, that same freewill that lets you decide to believe or not in God. It is a gift by which God honors. It just so happens that we believe that choosing to be away from him would mean an eternal torture.
In the same way that should you believe that being with him would be a torture or that believing in him is an arrogance or lack of intellect and reason, he lets you be…and the only thing up his sleeve to justify his honoring of your will is that he gave you that freewill and therefore bounded to honor that.
“You demand rationality from me but set apart your own conclusions to a higher plane that I cannot ever meet you on until I “ascend” my human mind. I just don’t understand God’s will, therefore I am wrong.” –Garrick
I wonder the reason for the quoted ascend. Is it not true for everything that we try to understand that we need to submit our minds to their intellectual demands? Case in point is that it is not that you are wrong because you simply do not understand; your claim is wrong because you have failed to back it up with the right understanding of the will of God. Would it not be only rational to back such claims based on the right understanding of facts that lead to it? A rational and scientific mind should know very well that erratic data can only lead to a wrong conclusion.
“…If his morality is not arbitrary, then his actions can be understood by man, at least in principle, if not in practice.” –Garrick
I agree with this except that there are many whose lives are considered to have been successful in living the faith. hence, the saints.
“We just don’t know anything about God that can be reasonably shown with evidence. Everything about him is taken on faith, which is inherently unreasonable.” –Garrick
It is not that we cannot know anything about God but we just cannot know everything about God. If we follow your reasoning then the question that we have to ask to everyone else is that on what basis, standards, and knowledge of God do they have in order to conclude that god does not exist? Rephrase, how can we conclude something as non-existent without knowing anything about it?
Oh, and on another note, God did not write the Bible himself.
"in the language of us catholics, a night time mediation is done before retiring at night…alone, how can that be a “conceited and disingenuous public display of piety”?"
This was the example of prayer you put forward as a counterpoint to my mentioning public acts of prayer. It's obviously a red herring.
I do not deny that most Christians believe that they are being humble in passively accepting the will of a higher power. This is not the conceit that I was arguing against. What I am talking about is that the belief that some people have access to this will is arrogant. I call this belief disingenuous in the sense that it is deceitful because people who pray assert that they have knowledge, that is not available to other people who are not willing to simply take Christian claims on face value, derived from the designer of the cosmos.
Matthew 6:6 does not only prohibit vainglorious intent. The secrecy of any act of piety is just as important. Note the extreme lengths used by the writer of Matthew to emphasize secrecy to the point of not allowing one hand to know the business of another.
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matthew 6:1-5)
Your citation of verses contradicting Matthew 6:6 just adds another nail in the coffin of the claim that the Bible is a credible source of knowledge. I will even support your verses with another one that refutes Matthew 6:6.
"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (1 Timothy 2:8)
How does free will rescue the horrible doctrine of hell in any way at all? Why does he need to create a state where nonbelievers must be tortured forever? He's God. He could just annihilate nonbelievers instead of torturing them. That's what many atheists think will happen anyway. But no, infidels must burn in an eternal fire. Free will does not justify hell. What rational being, while still believing in the reality of hell, would ever choose eternal torture? No one freely chooses eternal torture and no one deserves eternal torture. Not even the most depraved psychotic mass murderer would deserve to be in hell because we're not just talking about millions or even billions of years. These conscious beings are damned to experience no other sensation but searing pain — forever.
God is omniscient. He knows all the acts you will ever do in your entire life. God also creates good people who freely choose to do good, say you or me. He also creates people who freely choose evil, say Hitler. God could just not create a person who would freely choose to do any act of atrocity. This would not be a violation of free will and this would infinitely benefit the lives of all human beings, in no uncertain terms. He would also prevent the creation of any being that would have gone to hell anyway, and consequently, prevent the unending suffering of a conscious being. Yet, God does not choose to do this. He would rather that sentient beings suffer on Earth and then suffer in hell forever.
The burden is not on me to provide a supposed understanding of the will of God. The onus is on you, the believer. You believe that this will exists and is a proper guide for humans, show me how this knowledge is available to you. Until there is evidence supporting the specific Catholic portrayal of the interventionist God, it is simply irrational to believe in this will, that you contend exists. Just as you don't have to provide an understanding of the will of Odin or of Persephone to validate your disbelief in them, I don't need to back up my dismissal of Jesus if there is no evidence for him in the first place.
I do not deny that your God may exist, but the probability is infinitesimal and is no greater than the probability for other Gods to exist. I haven't seen evidence that would convince me to believe in Jesus over Amaterasu or Tonacatecuhtli. I don't claim that there is absolutely no God, simply that there probably isn't one. Just because I can't disprove that there is a chunk of ice in the Kuiper belt with my face carved on it doesn't mean it's reasonable to go around telling people that there is. Again, the burden is on the believer to prove the existence of any deity.
And finally, I know God didn't write the Bible himself. Scribes first wrote the books that would be included in the Bible decades after Jesus was supposed to have died. Many of the books were pseudonymously written, probably all the Gospels, and some letters of Paul (such as Colossians and Timothy) These writings were then edited and copied, reflecting the agendas of those scribes. Those were then changed then copied, and so on. Then, at least 100 years after any of the apostles could have possibly been alive, Marcion (declared a heretic by the Catholic Church) compiled the first canon of what he believed to be "The Word of the Lord", consisting of just the Gospel of Luke and ten other books. It would take centuries more to decide which books would be part of the Bible, booting out the more mystical ones such as the Gnostic Gospels and whatever else was incompatible with the agendas of leaders of the Church.
“in the language of us catholics, a night time mediation is done before retiring at night…alone, how can that be a “conceited and disingenuous public display of piety”?”
This was the example of prayer you put forward as a counterpoint to my mentioning public acts of prayer. It’s obviously a red herring. -Garrick
Again, I am only going by what you said. “He already knows what’s going to happen to you and to think that your night time meditations are going to influence to Lord of all creation seems to me entirely arrogant”
"I call this belief disingenuous in the sense that it is deceitful because people who pray assert that they have knowledge, that is not available to other people who are not willing to simply take Christian claims on face value, derived from the designer of the cosmos." -Garrick
There are people who do assert and I agree that would be wrong but to simply put that people who pray do…that would be generalizing. In reality, without the issue of being arrogant, every person has a different gift that we can always deem better or less, whatever the case maybe, I believe that we are all created equal and/but different from each other. Nevertheless, we are all called, each one of us, to look for that knowledge and that knowledge is available to us all.
"Matthew 6:6 does not only prohibit vainglorious intent. The secrecy of any act of piety is just as important. Note the extreme lengths used by the writer of Matthew to emphasize secrecy to the point of not allowing one hand to know the business of another…Your citation of verses contradicting Matthew 6:6 just adds another nail in the coffin of the claim that the Bible is a credible source of knowledge." -Garrick
It is not difficult at all to find a contradiction if you are looking, expecting, and hoping to find one just to prove a point – that there is a contradiction. The passages from Matthew are specifically addressed to the Pharisees displaying publicly what is supposed to be a private prayer. It has nothing to do with the validity of public prayers but everything to do with praying the right prayers at the right and appropriate places and times. A public prayer is to be prayed in public and a private prayer in private, as simple as that.
"How does free will rescue the horrible doctrine of hell in any way at all? Why does he need to create a state where nonbelievers must be tortured forever?" -Garrick
A believer of God believes that everything about Him is good and opposite of that is bad. Being in the presence of God is bliss and His absence is suffering. An ineffable love requires the gift of freewill towards the beloved. It follows then that the beloved will always have the freedom to choose between being with God or not, between bliss and suffering and whatever the beloved chooses God has to honor.
Should the beloved feel that being with God will be a suffering thereby choosing to be without Him then God has to honor that will. The consequences of that choice are severe, yes, but that exactly is the reason why He came down to earth to die in order for us to be saved. Even with that people still choose to not believe in Him. And with that I am with you in asking, “What rational being, while still believing in the reality of hell, would ever choose eternal torture?”
The choice has always been to believe in God or not. To believe in Him is to be saved and to not believe in Him is to be away from Him …unfortunately being away from Him means eternal damnation…it is not that He tortures us but a simple case of being away from Him is torture in itself and experiencing all that is not good.
“Not even the most depraved psychotic mass murderer would deserve to be in hell because we’re not just talking about millions or even billions of years. These conscious beings are damned to experience no other sensation but searing pain — forever.” -Garrick
It is a choice that one makes. The consequences are clear and had been given to us. A person who chooses not to study before, let’s say, a final exam for graduation is bound to experience the consequences of it. Should we be asking the question “not even the most notorious and laziest student deserve to fail and not graduate…we are not talking about months or years but his whole life without a degree.” Yes, the professor may have the power to simply mark his exam as passed and let him graduate…but that would be an injustice, wouldn’t you agree?
"The burden is not on me to provide a supposed understanding of the will of God. The onus is on you, the believer. You believe that this will exists and is a proper guide for humans, show me how this knowledge is available to you. Until there is evidence supporting the specific Catholic portrayal of the interventionist God, it is simply irrational to believe in this will, that you contend exists. Just as you don’t have to provide an understanding of the will of Odin or of Persephone to validate your disbelief in them, I don’t need to back up my dismissal of Jesus if there is no evidence for him in the first place." -Garrick
1. Everything boils down to the question of believing in Christ, in God or not. To believe in Him is to accept all things that came from Him and that includes this “proper guide” you are looking for.
2. An interventionist God is not a Catholic portrayal but your own perception as evidenced by what you wrote. I hope you have the decency to distinguish between the two.
3. I wasn’t asking you to back up your claim. I was just asking you that if you are going to claim that we are wrong about our faith, at least present it with accuracy. Judging our faith inaccurately and using that judgment to claim that we are wrong does not mean that we are but what you think we are.
The burden is not on me because I have acknowledged the possibility, I know that I do not know everything there is to know and when we are in that situation the most reasonable and logical thing to do is accept the possibility, to proceed with caution, to live life as if there is God because…eternal damnation is just too long and severe of a suffering being wrong.
"And finally, I know God didn’t write the Bible himself…"-Garrick
If you didn’t then why did you say so. “Since the Bible is the only book God found important enough to write himself…”
@Reynor
I seem to have misunderstood your first objection about night time meditations. I mean to say that if such meditations are intended to influence the course of events as planned by the omniscient creator of the universe as if he made a mistake, then that would be arrogant. As for public acts, those are just as conceited since they also pretend to allow a direct line to the grand designer of all existence.
You don't assert special knowledge from the creator of the universe? You don't know that resurrection of the dead is true? You don't know that the creator of heaven and earth had a son born of a virgin? You don't know that he was crucified and he resurrected from the dead? You don't know that souls and spirits exist and God takes the form of the Holy Spirit to guide the one true holy catholic and apostolic church? I haven't seen any evidence supporting the truthfulness of any of these central tenets and to claim to know that these things are true is to assert that secrets of the cosmos are available to you that are not available to someone who is unwilling to take these on faith. I don't think I'm generalizing because the essence of orthodox Christianity relies on belief in these things.
It's not at all difficult to find a contradiction in the Bible because it's not divinely inspired and was written by human beings with their own agendas. My point stands since there wasn't anything specific about Pharisees and not even just about prayer. The verses were explicit that even acts of charity must be enacted privately.
So, is God simply good or does he choose to be always good? If he is simply good then his morals are arbitrary and enacting slavery or genocide for him is good (and he does commit many acts of mass murder in the Bible). God would be the ultimate moral relativist. If he chooses to be good, then he is subordinate to a grander scheme of right and wrong, which diminishes God to impotency.
These are exactly the claims that I am saying are unavailable to be verified by any skeptic: "Being in the presence of God is bliss and His absence is suffering. An ineffable love requires the gift of freewill towards the beloved." Nothing follows because the premise has yet to be proven.
I must repeat: it is not against the doctrine of free will to only create people who freely choose God all the time. People aren't blank slates. Psychology and genetics prove this. We all have our certain proclivities and God is entirely in his power to create only those who will freely choose him, just like he creates people who freely choose Sprite at McDonald's every time. He will know who will freely choose him because he knows the future. This is not coercion and it is a simple solution to God's problem of evil.
This is the scenario that you are painting:
God: Love me or burn in hell forever.
That's not much of a free choice is it? Hell is not simply the absence of God. Even Catholic tradition (in agreement with the Bible) depicts hell as real fire and torture. God allows the active torment of nonbelievers in this place. Suffering is not a passive default that simply occurs. God created the environment in which suffering was possible in the first place. The ramifications of the choice between God and disbelief are not clear to me because the existence of God is not plainly evident. Not to mention, the reality of Christian tenets are not plainly evident and have to be taken on faith. That is, how can we be sure that disbelief in God will result in hell and the only thing to prevent this is belief in the specific tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, as opposed to the thousands of other religions (even just within the umbrella of Christianity)? I don't want to waste my time and I honestly don't want to support a movement that is against the rights (however earthly they may seem) of certain types of people.
Hell is not analogous to your example of studying before an exam. Failing an exam doesn't result in a disproportionate amount of suffering, that is, endless torture. Yes, flunking is a fair sentence and it is a direct consequence of not giving the right answers in a test. But, would torture be? Torture is another step actively taken up by an external agent. In our earthly realm, even that would eventually end. But in God's big test? Nope. Boundless agony and hellfire!
But, let's allow your exam analogy. So, one person born in Ireland would credulously study the proclamations of the magisterium that happened to be the one his parents followed. Another would study a different set of tenets, those believed in his birthplace, Iraq. Still another would simply buy into the beliefs of his neighbors in India. While, the skeptic checks the references of the books required for the exam and decides that they weren't credible. He tests the predictions of each one and sees that they are either false (Genesis story, Noah's flood, Hebrew captivity in Egypt, the existence of giants and witches, etc.) or unfalsifiable (souls, invisible beings that can't be seen or heard or felt or detected by any electromagnetic spectrum receiver, etc.). Come testing time, the exam answers were consistent with Buddhist precepts, which none of the examinees thought were believable, damning all four of them to another reincarnation cycle. The big exam analogy isn't exclusive to Catholic belief.
I don't think loving God is a problem for many religious skeptics. It is simply that there is no evidence supporting the existence of this supposed God and to love something that has no discernible effect on you is a waste of time, at best. Loving Jesus is another matter entirely. Even if we allow the premise that there exists a God that intervenes in human affairs, it does not follow that this God had a son born of a virgin. It does not follow that we must love him. It does not follow that he even desires worship. It does not follow that there exists a hell for nonbelievers. It does not follow that Christianity depicts an accurate representation of this God.
If incontrovertible evidence supports the belief that God exists, I don't see how a rational person would not act accordingly. Just like how there is incontrovertible evidence supporting evolution: no rational human being, upon seeing the evidence, would deny it.
Belief in an interventionist God, with our current state of knowledge, is simply irrational — belief in the specific Catholic God is even more so. To become a believer, one must take particular dogmas on faith and without further proof or evidence, such as the existence of souls and the truthfulness of the resurrection of the dead. A believer must also deny all other Gods, risking the consequences of other religions, if they are true.
See, in my estimation, you are an atheist as well with respect to thousands of other Gods. You are an atheist with regards to Allah. You are an atheist with regards to Shiva. You are an atheist with regards to Janus. You are an atheist with regards to Shennong. I simply dismiss one more God than you: Jesus.
1. You must show that belief in Christ is superior to belief in Allah.
2. The concept of an interventionist God is not exclusive to Catholics or Christians and these ideas of God have contradictory requirements from believers. Only one of them is true or none at all. The Catholic portrayal of the interventionist God is that the God of the Jews had a son and this son died and resurrected. This is clearly not the same God as Hanuman or Angwusnasomtaka.
3. I apologize for any inaccuracies wherever they may appear.
I do not contend that you know everything, but the fact that you claim that you know anything supporting the factuality of the existence of souls or of supernatural agents is problematic. (James Randi is giving away 1 million dollars to anyone who can provide proof for the existence of the supernatural.)
If you are simply being cautious and think that belief in God is the rational choice because you don't want to go to hell, then you must consider the validity of all the other religions that you weren't born in (or, at least, adjacent to). There are other hells too and belief in Catholic dogma is no guarantee for heaven. Are you not afraid of the hell of Islam? Are you not afraid of the hell of Zoroastrianism? Are you sure that Roman Catholicism is superior to Evangelicalism or Eastern Orthodoxy? How do you know there is even a hell for unbelievers? What if hell is for believers?
As for me, I would rather hope that, if there is a God, he would respect my skepticism and unwillingness to be a credulous believer in the popular religion of whatever patch of land I happened to be born in.
Believing isn't a simple matter of choice for me. It has to be backed up by evidence and reason, which I have no control over. I don't choose to believe that the sun is a nuclear furnace at the center of the solar system. I don't choose to believe that DNA is the unit of heredity of organisms on Earth. I don't choose to disbelieve in the Christian God just like I don't choose to disbelieve in the Roman Gods just like I don't choose to disbelieve in unicorns and magic fairies. I can't just choose to believe in something because I want to hedge my bets and not risk eternal torture.
I wrote that "the Bible is the only book God found important enough to write himself" facetiously, like I wrote that "God is omniscient" or anything else that might be read as a statement of belief in the Christian God. Under the scope of Christian belief, however, the Bible was indeed written under the guide of the Holy Spirit, at least. The ten commandments were the only words God chose to physically write himself. More fundamentalist readings of the Bible would agree that the Bible is an inerrant documentation of the word of God and considered to be of his own writing, ultimately. I must apologize for implying this as your belief, since you are a Catholic and not an Evangelical.
"I seem to have misunderstood your first objection about night time meditations. I mean to say that if such meditations are intended to influence the course of events as planned by the omniscient creator of the universe as if he made a mistake, then that would be arrogant." -Garrick
Yes, if it was done as if he made a mistake.
"As for public acts, those are just as conceited since they also pretend to allow a direct line to the grand designer of all existence." -Garrick
What I am getting from this is that you are saying that a public display of a belief that is not believed by everyone else is an insult committed against those who do not share that belief. Wouldn’t you be guilty of the same for publicly displaying your unbelief, or should I say your skepticism?
"You don’t assert special knowledge from the creator of the universe? You don’t know that resurrection of the dead is true? You don’t know that the creator of heaven and earth had a son born of a virgin? You don’t know that he was crucified and he resurrected from the dead? You don’t know that souls and spirits exist and God takes the form of the Holy Spirit to guide the one true holy catholic and apostolic church? I haven’t seen any evidence supporting the truthfulness of any of these central tenets and to claim to know that these things are true is to assert that secrets of the cosmos are available to you that are not available to someone who is unwilling to take these on faith. I don’t think I’m generalizing because the essence of orthodox Christianity relies on belief in these things." -Garrick
It is not a special knowledge. It is called faith, faith that is given by God to those who pray for it. You too can receive it if you pray for it.
"It’s not at all difficult to find a contradiction in the Bible because it’s not divinely inspired and was written by human beings with their own agendas. My point stands since there wasn’t anything specific about Pharisees and not even just about prayer. The verses were explicit that even acts of charity must be enacted privately." -Garrick
My point stands that what I have presented you before is what we Catholics believe. But of course, by all means, you are free to believe what you will.
"So, is God simply good or does he choose to be always good?" -Garrick
God is good.
"These are exactly the claims that I am saying are unavailable to be verified by any skeptic: “Being in the presence of God is bliss and His absence is suffering. An ineffable love requires the gift of freewill towards the beloved.” Nothing follows because the premise has yet to be proven." -Garrick
Sound reasoning spells out that an understanding about of god would have to be that he is bliss and the opposite of that is suffering. Reason should also spell out that should there be love there has to be freedom. There has to be a premise that can be reasonably proven and verified before a reasonable doubt could be considered. It is not the other way around.
"I must repeat: it is not against the doctrine of free will to only create people who freely choose God all the time…" -Garrick
How can one freely choose if there is only one choice?
"This is the scenario that you are painting:
God: Love me or burn in hell forever.
That’s not much of a free choice is it? …… In our earthly realm, even that would eventually end. But in God’s big test? Nope. Boundless agony and hellfire!
Either your desire to express your disappointment overtook your rational or that you just accidentally missed the point. The analogy is about the intensity of suffering. It is about perfect justice…where there simply are consequences for every act, that’s the point. In any case, my other guess is that you just cannot accept choices with bad consequences.
But, let’s allow your exam analogy. So, one person born in Ireland would credulously study the proclamations of the magisterium that happened to be the one his parents followed. Another would study a different set of tenets, …The big exam analogy isn’t exclusive to Catholic belief.
Again, the analogy is about consequences of acts.
I don’t think loving God is a problem for many religious skeptics. It is simply that there is no evidence supporting the existence of this supposed God and to love something that has no discernible effect on you is a waste of time, at best." -Garrick
If this is a personal experience of yours then let it be as it is and nothing more than that. Your lack of experience of God does not confirm it for everyone else. Respect should be mutual.
"Loving Jesus is another matter entirely. Even if we allow the premise that there exists a God that intervenes in human affairs, it does not follow that this God had a son born of a virgin. It does not follow that we must love him. It does not follow that he even desires worship. It does not follow that there exists a hell for nonbelievers. It does not follow that Christianity depicts an accurate representation of this God." -Garrick
It does follow for those of us who choose to believe Christ. Otherwise, why believe in Christ and not what is about him.
"If incontrovertible evidence supports the belief that God exists, I don’t see how a rational person would not act accordingly. Just like how there is incontrovertible evidence supporting evolution: no rational human being, upon seeing the evidence, would deny it." -Garrick
Again, it is matter of choice and you just choose not to believe.
"Belief in an interventionist God, with our current state of knowledge, is simply irrational — belief in the specific Catholic God is even more so. To become a believer, one must take particular dogmas on faith and without further proof or evidence, such as the existence of souls and the truthfulness of the resurrection of the dead. A believer must also deny all other Gods, risking the consequences of other religions, if they are true." -Garrick
Belief of one is of course the unbelief of another. We cannot simply believe on something and at the same time believe its contradictions.
"See, in my estimation, you are an atheist as well with respect to thousands of other Gods. You are an atheist with regards to Allah. You are an atheist with regards to Shiva. You are an atheist with regards to Janus. You are an atheist with regards to Shennong. I simply dismiss one more God than you: Jesus." -Garrick
Richard is that you? Kidding aside, what is your point? I have nothing against you and your personal belief. Just like what I said before, this is a simple call for you to be faithful to the truth in representing what we believe when you argue that we are wrong.
"1.You must show that belief in Christ is superior to belief in Allah.
2. The concept of an interventionist God is not exclusive to Catholics or Christians and these ideas of God have contradictory requirements from believers. Only one of them is true or none at all. The Catholic portrayal of the interventionist God is that the God of the Jews had a son and this son died and resurrected. This is clearly not the same God as Hanuman or Angwusnasomtaka.
3. I apologize for any inaccuracies wherever they may appear." -Garrick
I don’t believe that I need to show you anything. Like I said before I am not here to proselytize. If you ask me something about my faith I will share with you whatever it is that I know. If you are misrepresenting it I will try to present what we really believe. It stops there. Whether you or they will believe or not it is beyond me. It is not for me to decide, it is a personal choice of everyone that they can freely make.
"If you are simply being cautious and think that belief in God is the rational choice because you don’t want to go to hell, then you must consider the validity of all the other religions that you weren’t born in (or, at least, adjacent to). There are other hells too and belief in Catholic dogma is no guarantee for heaven. Are you not afraid of the hell of Islam? Are you not afraid of the hell of Zoroastrianism? Are you sure that Roman Catholicism is superior to Evangelicalism or Eastern Orthodoxy? How do you know there is even a hell for unbelievers? What if hell is for believers?" -Garrick
I did consider and I chose to be a Roman Catholic.
"As for me, I would rather hope that, if there is a God, he would respect my skepticism and unwillingness to be a credulous believer in the popular religion of whatever patch of land I happened to be born in.
" -Garrick
No worries, there is no place for credulousness in religion.
"Believing isn’t a simple matter of choice for me. It has to be backed up by evidence and reason, which I have no control over. I don’t choose to believe that the sun is a nuclear furnace at the center of the solar system. I don’t choose to believe that DNA is the unit of heredity of organisms on Earth. I don’t choose to disbelieve in the Christian God just like I don’t choose to disbelieve in the Roman Gods just like I don’t choose to disbelieve in unicorns and magic fairies. I can’t just choose to believe in something because I want to hedge my bets and not risk eternal torture." -Garrick
What you are forgetting about this is that belief in the examples you used, sun and DNA, is also a matter of faith, faith on the astronomers and microbiologists. Yes, we may have tons of information available about the sun and DNA but just the same our knowledge of it, the evidence that you are talking about is not of first hand. It is the testimony, the testament of those who have witnessed them first hand, their discovery and knowledge now passed on to us as they hand it down through the letters, papers, and books they wrote, pictures, speeches, classes, etc…
God is omniscient and also omnipotent. God sees into the future and he can do anything. Does this mean that he can change his mind in the future based on the prayer of a believer? If so, why did he not make the universe accordingly in the first place? If I have to ask God to provide food for starving children in Africa, why didn't he just provide them food in the first place? Was he blind to this need until I showed up to tell him? If so, then he is not omniscient. If not, then he already knew about it, and my prayer is unnecessary. As a corollary, God is not capable of answering any petitionary prayer because he already knows the correct thing to do the first time.
No, I am not saying that public acts of piety are conceited because they aren't believed by me or others and that they should keep their religion to themselves. Prayer is inherently arrogant because this is what it says: God built every single galaxy among trillions in the universe… and Christians have a hotline to this God and he cares about what they think and he wants to know their thoughts on what else he can do for them. If you changed "God" to "a can of spam" the absurdity is only slightly increased.
When you use faith to justify your belief in souls and spirits you are surrendering any rational argument concerning them. I can appeal to faith when justifying my belief in fairies, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I told people that I had a giant diamond buried in my backyard and I knew this because of a strong inner conviction, I would surely be asked for better reasons that simply faith, then thrown in a psychiatric ward upon failing to do so. But if every person in my neighborhood believed the same diamond myth, does it make my faith claim automatically valid?
Only the popularity of Christianity shields it from the same dismissal that people apply to less prominent beliefs such as palmistry. Faith in Jesus is just as valid as faith in Xenu or the Loch Ness monster. Consequently, faith is no justification for the opposition or support of anything (e.g. stem cell research and condom use).
Faith is given by God if you pray for it? That is circular. You need to believe in something without any evidence to be able to ask for the capability to believe in things without evidence?
If whatever God is is simply good then his morals are arbitrary. Murder is only bad because God thinks so. Genocide is only bad because God thinks so. This might not be the case tomorrow if God decides to wipe out another race like the Midianites or annihilate more innocent people in a place considered a hotbed of homosexual acts. God can also eliminate evil altogether by defining all evil acts as good.
"There has to be a premise that can be reasonably proven and verified before a reasonable doubt could be considered. It is not the other way around."
The premise is that, first, there is a God that intervenes in human affairs. Second, he cares about what people think. Third, his character is consistent with the Christian God. If none of these are proven within reasonable doubt, there is no rational basis for belief in the Christian God. The same sort of reasoning applies to unicorns. I don't have to absolutely disprove the existence of leprechauns in order for me to reasonably disbelieve in them.
"How can one freely choose if there is only one choice?"
If you find P1000 on the floor of, let's say, an orphanage, I sincerely doubt that you would even consider pocketing the money. Here you have freely chosen to do good and this is the proclivity that I am talking about. God could choose not to create the person who would keep the money because he would know the future of his creation and he would know if the person would take the money. You still made a free choice even though selfishness never came to your mind as a possible course of action. You could still conceivably commit the theft, but you're just not the kind of person who would act that way. Just like you're not the kind of person who would be a serial rapist and you refrain from becoming one of your own volition. No one is forcing you not to rape. Rape is not even within the scope of acceptable acts for you and you decided this for yourself. God could easily do this for all humans.
"If this is a personal experience of yours then let it be as it is and nothing more than that. Your lack of experience of God does not confirm it for everyone else. Respect should be mutual."
It is entirely more likely that the "experience of God" testified to by Christians is simply a very strong psychological, and ultimately physical, experience no different from those of Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, and alien abductees — more likely than there actually being flying saucers taking people and dissecting them with lasers. The fact that supernatural experiences are not exclusive to one religion shows that they are not reflections of an external supernatural truth but events residing solely within the human brain and explainable by natural causes. If Catholics were the only ones who could experience faith healing and powerful fits of ecstasy during worship, that would be an interesting situation to investigate since that would imply that Catholicism has a particularly special position in the battle royal of religions. As it stands, most of the miracles attested to by Christians are identical to those by the followers of Sathya Sai Baba.
Personal revelation is not evidence. If I call the police to report a murder and I told them that I simply had a strong inner conviction that this happened and that I had a very strong vision supporting it, I would not be entertained. The same skepticism is simply applied to people who purport a direct line to the creator of the cosmos. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And, there is no claim more extraordinary than: there exists a supernatural intelligent being looking out for our petty affairs.
"It does follow for those of us who choose to believe Christ. Otherwise, why believe in Christ and not what is about him."
It does not follow because all the claims must be independently proven. If Jesus was born of a virgin, this does not automatically mean that he was God. If God loves us this does not automatically mean that he requires worship. Unless you want to believe all these things without evidence, in which case you are welcome to abandon all rational discourse.
"Again, it is matter of choice and you just choose not to believe."
It simply isn't a matter of choice to believe. If my professor hands me a failing exam, it's not my choice to believe that I actually flunked the exam. If a pedestrian is run down by a car in front of me, it is not my choice whether I should believe that this person is dead (or at least horribly injured) or not. Belief is contingent on reasonable grounds such as evidence. I can't choose to believe in Lord Brahma just because I want to.
I am simply asking you for reasons why Christianity is any more plausible than astrology. In the spectrum of claims based entirely on faith, one system of beliefs is no more truthful than the other. It seems curious to me that you chose the most popular religion in the Philippines. Isn't it possible that Catholicism is entirely wrong and that New Age mysticism is the way to go? In fact, just in terms of probability, it is incredibly unlikely for you to be born even within earshot of members of the one true religion.
"What you are forgetting about this is that belief in the examples you used, sun and DNA, is also a matter of faith, faith on the astronomers and microbiologists."
No. Science is not a matter of faith by any stretch of the imagination. You are confusing the religious definition of faith (which I will refer to as "religious faith" for clarity) with the colloquial use of faith as a synonym for trust. Simply because external evidence is required for science automatically repudiates any accusation of religious faith (which is solely based on inner conviction). Any scientific precept discovered centuries ago can be readily tested right now. The only reason we don't repeat all of science during high school chem lab is that it is impractical. If I don't believe in the wave theory of light, I can test this in my microwave. If I don't believe in DNA, I can extract some from the green peas in my freezer. If I find definitive proof that DNA is a sham, then biology must be thoroughly revised. DNA doesn't become a "metaphor" like the disproved Genesis myth. It becomes a falsified model and will never be used again, except to highlight the problems of bad science.
Yes, there is an element of trust in scientists and the information laymen have is rarely first hand but all the needed experimental data (which is replicable for anyone through independent experiment) is still with us, in perfect reproduction, which is more than we can say for any religious text. This trust is based on rational grounds such as the meticulousness of the work of a researcher and the stringency of the review system and never on inner convictions. This diligence is vouched for by critics and editors within the scientific community and all skeptical outsiders are encouraged to challenge the scientific consensus. That is how science improves — through the error-correcting machinery of skeptical scrutiny. Science isn't perfect and mistakes are made all the time but it is vastly more believable than personal inner convictions. It has brought us everything from the large increase in life expectancy to men walking on the moon. There is simply no analogy between religious faith and trust in the scientific establishment.
Discoveries are reviewed by other scientists, regardless of authorship, in an effort to discredit nonsense and to enter valid discoveries into the body of human knowledge, thus removing any element of blind trust in authority. This is why we have the germ theory of disease and the demonic possession hypothesis of the Bible has been thoroughly refuted. The germ theory was based on careful experiments, while demonic possessions were taken on faith. The difference is clear and there is nothing remotely like the scientific method in religious dialogue, which relies entirely on personal and untestable revelation.
As an example, it takes no religious faith to believe that a news reporter at the scene of a murder for TV is telling the truth even though it takes a certain amount of trust. The information is not even second hand and has passed through various sources and editors before it reached the TV reporter. Similarly, it takes no religious faith to believe that scientists are not lying when they say that the moon is not intrinsically luminescent even though I might not be able to confirm this on my own without personally taking soil samples from the moon. Note that scientific discoveries must be reproducible, unlike journalistic reports. There are obviously reasonable grounds to believe the accounts of a news reporter or a scientist over that of someone who is claiming to be the reincarnation of Elvis. It does not make the previous statement any less truthful to change "the reincarnation of Elvis" to "the infallible vicar of the son of the lord of all creation".
"Yes, we may have tons of information available about the sun and DNA but just the same our knowledge of it, the evidence that you are talking about is not of first hand."
The "tons of information" we have on the sun and DNA make it so that to deny the truthfulness of the heliocentric model and DNA as the unit of heredity can only require religious faith — and these are strongly established discoveries. Is there any information regarding the divinity of Jesus remotely comparable to even sketchy scientific models such as string theory? No, there is none. Again, there is simply no resemblance between religious faith and trust in the body of knowledge collected by humans called "science".
The scenario that you have given against the omnipotence of god is not valid for the contradiction that it tries to imply as a power to be exercised by a god. the contradiction in there is between the gift of freewill and the intervention for the misuse of that freewill.
You have claimed these:
1. using faith requires surrender of rational argument.
-i can understand and will actually agree with your rationale against religion if the premise will be that faith requires that kind of surrender. however, that is not the case, and here i am speaking as a Catholic because for us, faith and reason is equally important. just like what Pope John Paul II have said, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth…" -Fides et Ratio, JPII
2. faith has no justification for the opposition or support of anything (e.g. stem cell research and condom use)
-false, opposition of the examples you mentioned are out of respect for human life and dignity. one of the many good resources for those topics is a bioethics website for the National Catholic Bioethics Center headed by Fr. Tad Pacholczyk. Not only is he a Catholic priest but also has earned a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University and has done post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/ Harvard Medical School.
http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?p…
I guess you haven't heard of the Pontifical Academy of Science that has its roots in the Academy of the Lincei which was founded in Rome in 1603 as the FIRST EXCLUSIVELY SCIENTIFIC ACADEMY IN THE WORLD. Here is a link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_acad…
3. faith in Jesus is just as valid as faith in xenu or the lochness monster.
-if i may ask, what is the reasoning behind this claim?
faith given by god as a circular statement is only circular in the premise that there is no evidence for the existence of god.
this is it for now and will post later to address some of your remaining arguments.
How does free will solve the problem?
1. Just because reason is important to Catholicism does not mean that faith is not a surrender of rationality. You may use rational arguments (stem cell research is immoral because it kills embryos) but if your claims eventually boil down to faith-based premises (there exists a soul because I believe there is), then your starting point is inherently irrational.
I can provide a rational argument for murdering all people who are unable to roll their tongues given the premise that I believe that all people without the tongue-rolling gene are secretly raping and butchering people with the gene. I can provide a rational argument against ocean cruises given the premise that I believe that the world is flat. Given any faith-based premise, you can conclude anything.
2. There may be rational arguments against stem cell research and condom use but these use reason and not faith. The arguments on the sites you showed attempted to use reason and evidence to support their opposition, not faith. If they said that abortion is immoral because they believe it is, that would not be entertained in any sort of discourse, and it would be an argument from faith. If they say that abortion is immoral because an embryo is already a human being, however flawed the argument is, this is still an attempt at a rational conversation because reasons are presented (an embryo is already a human being).
3. Faith in Jesus is as valid as faith in any other thing without evidence because there is nothing showing the superiority of one faith claim over another. That is, unless you cite evidence supporting the argument for Jesus or the Loch Ness monster, in which case reason takes the center stage in defense of specific beliefs, not faith. If I have faith that there is an invisible unicorn in my garage, can you disprove my belief using faith alone? Can you prove that I do not actually have an invisible unicorn in my garage?
'Faith is given by God when you pray' is circular because even if there were any evidence for the existence of God, it would not be faith supporting the belief in God but evidence.
If I believed that I had oil buried in my backyard and had no geological data to back this up, that would take faith. But, if I noticed oil spurting from the ground, this would be evidence supporting my belief that there is oil buried in my backyard thus removing any use for faith because there is evidence. Even the belief that there are 5 billion dollars in oil buried in my backyard, while far-fetched and not thoroughly well-supported, is still not a faith claim because it is at least in the scope of rational possibilities, given the evidence for oil.
"If I believed that I had oil buried in my backyard and had no geological data to back this up, that would take faith. But, if I noticed oil spurting from the ground, this would be evidence supporting my belief that there is oil buried in my backyard thus removing any use for faith because there is evidence. Even the belief that there are 5 billion dollars in oil buried in my backyard, while far-fetched and not thoroughly well-supported, is still not a faith claim because it is at least in the scope of rational possibilities, given the evidence for oil." -Garrick
The fact that you are trusting the idea that there must be a source of that oil even at the moment of not knowing that the source is or not verifying yet what the source is, not seeing first-hand what the source is – it is by faith that you believe there is a source.
rationalizing the oil spurting from the ground as an evidence is the reason and the certainty that you feel about the existence of the source even without seeing it yet, is the faith. both faith and reason go together, they are not to be pitted against each other.
Just like what Pope John Paul II said, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth…"
"The arguments on the sites you showed attempted to use reason and evidence to support their opposition, not faith." -Garrick
"Faith in Jesus is as valid as faith in any other thing without evidence because there is nothing showing the superiority of one faith claim over another. " -Garrick
"… while far-fetched and not thoroughly well-supported, is still not a faith claim because it is at least in the scope of rational possibilities, given the evidence for oil." -Garrick
for all you know a leak from an underground pipe could be the source of oil in that garden and not a 5B-dollar well…in any case you have considered that as "in the scope of rational possibility" no matter how far-fetched the idea is.
we can see creations and process of it everywhere in this world we live in, how far-fetched is it really to believe that there is a creator? we see evidence of goodness everywhere and that it is universal, how far-fetched is it really to believe that there must be a source of goodness…how far-fetched are they to be considered in the scope of rational possibility?
when we look at the historic rise and prominent definition of the western civilization attributed to the Judeo-Christian culture, how far-fetched are they to be considered as a legitimate evidence of the verity and significance of our faith?
you have likened our belief to that of lochness monster and xenu without significant rational reasoning for dismissing all that our faith has brought in this modern world, its contribution in the many fields of science in particular.
you have claimed that our faith is against reason, against science without even considering the 80 academicians, mostly nobel laureates, that presently comprises the pontifical academy of sciences; the many significant discoveries of catholic layman, clerics, and clergy; scientists supported by the Church…
it is clear from both of your statements that it is only by your own standard that you conclude when it is faith or not, maybe what needs to be remembered here is that what you think may be lacking of evidence may not be the case for others. following your own standard puts our faith in the mercy of your "faith", emotions, personal beliefs, conviction, assessment, level of familiarity on the subject, and intellectual capacity.
with that, what gives you the right and the credibility to claim the things you do about our faith? imposition of belief is always wrong and that goes for both sides, religious or not, believer or not.
Reply 1
"for all you know a leak from an underground pipe could be the source of oil in that garden and not a 5B-dollar well…in any case you have considered that as "in the scope of rational possibility" no matter how far-fetched the idea is."
Absolutely. But the evidence is that there is oil. Therefore there must be some event relating to oil, and probably not diamonds in the shape of Barack Obama's face or blue elephants that speak perfect Farsi.
"we can see creations and process of it everywhere in this world we live in, how far-fetched is it really to believe that there is a creator?"
How do you know all things are created? What is far-fetched is to postulate a creator for everything when it leads to the question: who made the creator? How do you know that the universe did not simply create itself? How do you know that the universe wasn't always there to begin with?
Even if there were a creator, it doesn't imply that this creator was the Christian God. It could be Marduk or Ahura Mazda. It doesn't even imply that this God cares about human life. As we can see from natural disasters, there is obviously an excessive amount of suffering that cannot even be remotely attributed to human evils.
We have evolution to explain the blind and entirely natural progress of simple molecules to complex beings capable of thought. We have quantum physics and nuclear chemistry — sciences that are filled with uncaused and non-deterministic events. To cling to the belief of a creator God just to fill our gaps in knowledge is an argument from ignorance.
"we see evidence of goodness everywhere and that it is universal, how far-fetched is it really to believe that there must be a source of goodness…how far-fetched are they to be considered in the scope of rational possibility?"
We also see evidence of evil everywhere. Animal life is violent. Natural disasters occur somewhere around the globe all the time. How do you know that there is no supernatural source of evil and goodness is entirely the consequence of man's actions?
"when we look at the historic rise and prominent definition of the western civilization attributed to the Judeo-Christian culture, how far-fetched are they to be considered as a legitimate evidence of the verity and significance of our faith?"
We can also attribute to Judeo-Christian culture the subjugation of women, the prominence of slavery in the Western world, the persecution of homosexuals and denial of their basic human rights, the murder of women accused as witches, the torture of sick people believed to have been possessed by demons, the persecution of scientists pushing the boundaries of thought and knowledge that appeared contrary to the prominent superstition (such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno), the promotion of the belief that humans are superior to animals simply for being human, and the mass torture and murder of heretics.
Judeo-Christian culture (while not entirely detrimental to society since it allows people to have a common identifier by which they can organize themselves around and enact charity) is not an exemplary model testifying to some higher supernatural truth. These atrocities were all done because of the tenets of Christianity. It's not some sort of perversion of the faith or the abuse of power. It's just like any other culture, with its good and bad sides.
Even if Christianity was an upstanding and blameless example for religion, it still would not be any proof towards the truthfulness of its claims. The only thing that needs to be tested is the claim that: there is a God that intervenes in human affairs and his character is consistent with that of the God of the Bible. All other human actions done in the name of the belief are unrelated to the truthfulness of the claim.
The Jains practice an extreme form of nonviolence — to the point of wearing masks and sweeping the floor before them in order to avoid injuring any insects. Not even the most extremist form of Jainism could ever possibly succeed in performing the same cruelties that the Judeo-Christian culture has accomplished. Does this mean that the Jains hold the truth concerning the supernatural? No.
If I am accused of being an art thief, it is no defense on my part for me to tell the jury that I pay my taxes, shelter orphans, and give all my friends Christmas gifts. No, the issue is: is it true that I stole a 3 million dollar painting? Similarly, whatever social utility the Judeo-Christian culture has provided is beside the point. Are their claims true?
"you have likened our belief to that of lochness monster and xenu without significant rational reasoning for dismissing all that our faith has brought in this modern world, its contribution in the many fields of science in particular.
you have claimed that our faith is against reason, against science without even considering the 80 academicians, mostly nobel laureates, that presently comprises the pontifical academy of sciences; the many significant discoveries of catholic layman, clerics, and clergy; scientists supported by the Church…"
You have not justified your belief in Jesus as superior to faith in Xenu. If you have evidence supporting your belief in Jesus, then that would not be faith. "…for we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7) If you see (observe) anything supporting your belief, that is not faith. That is reason, which is based on evidence. The next step would be to test the veracity of the observation and see the implications of the results.
Whatever contribution Christianity has provided to society is, again, beside the point. What matters is whether their claims are true. I did not ever say that Catholicism is against reason or science. I said that faith is the surrender of reason. I am fully aware that many religious persons have greatly contributed to the body of human knowledge. But, no Christian scientist has ever proposed a widely accepted model, such as the big bang, and justified it with faith. They used observations, mathematical equations, and evidence, just like any other secular scientist.
Wherever you use faith, you do not use reason. You may start from faith then rationalize from there on but they are opposite concepts, by definition. Through the use of evidence proving the factuality of Christianity (ancient relics, scripture, etc.) you are not using faith. Through the assertion that angels are real, without evidence, that would be faith. If you have physical proof of angels, that would be evidence. The matter is just that simple and there is no bias towards the hegemony of established science. One angel can overturn all atheistic discourse. Just one.
"it is clear from both of your statements that it is only by your own standard that you conclude when it is faith or not, maybe what needs to be remembered here is that what you think may be lacking of evidence may not be the case for others. following your own standard puts our faith in the mercy of your "faith", emotions, personal beliefs, conviction, assessment, level of familiarity on the subject, and intellectual capacity.
with that, what gives you the right and the credibility to claim the things you do about our faith? imposition of belief is always wrong and that goes for both sides, religious or not, believer or not."
I seem to need to keep reiterating this: if you use evidence, that is not faith. Faith is based on an inner conviction and not empirical proofs. Do you have empirical proof that God is composed of a Trinity? Probably not. (If you do, I submit again that James Randi is giving away 1 million dollars to anyone with proof of the existence of the supernatural). You are using faith, which you are completely entitled to. I am simply saying that, in the absence of reason and evidence, all faith claims are equally valid.
My definition of faith is derived from Merriam-Webster (sense 2). I am not imposing any belief on you. I am simply exhorting you to stick to the English definition of the word faith and avoid the equivocation of different concepts.
If you have any external and incontrovertible evidence supporting your belief in Catholicism, then well and good. But, don't blame me if I want to see the evidence. The truthfulness of the existence of the afterlife and supernatural agents would be a boon for scientific thought. I'm sure that atheistic scientists would like nothing more than to be proven wrong and be able to explore an exciting new section of rational inquiry.
The same right that allows you to accuse science of being based on religious faith and the same right that allows you to believe in things without evidence is the same right that allows me to say whatever I want. As for credibility, you can believe me or not. It's your choice. I am simply laying out the facts and questioning the established paradigm of theism.
Reply 2
"The fact that you are trusting the idea that there must be a source of that oil even at the moment of not knowing that the source is or not verifying yet what the source is, not seeing first-hand what the source is – it is by faith that you believe there is a source."
No. Because there is oil on the ground, it is rational to assume that there was a source since we currently have no knowledge of spontaneous generation of oil from air and our experience has shown that if there's oil, it came from somewhere. I also posited in my hypothetical that it was spurting from the ground. If we did have knowledge of spontaneous generation of oil, then it would entirely change my approach and spontaneous generation of oil would then enter the realm of possibility.
"rationalizing the oil spurting from the ground as an evidence is the reason and the certainty that you feel about the existence of the source even without seeing it yet, is the faith."
I have no certainty of anything, it is merely probable that there is oil underground. There is rational evidence supporting my belief that there is oil underground. It's not proof until I see the source. I could be wrong and there could simply be an insect that has evolved to spurt oil from its back. There could also be an invisible gas station setting up in my backyard. It is simply more probable that there would be oil buried in the backyard. I would further investigate and see if there really was oil or maybe I was having a mental breakdown.
"No. Because there is oil on the ground, it is rational to assume that there was a source since we currently have no knowledge of spontaneous generation of oil from air and our experience has shown that if there’s oil, it came from somewhere."-Garrick
it remains to be explained how you can easily accept and recognize the rationality in assuming that there was a source for that oil and yet could not recognize the rationality in the need for the source of all things.
"Wherever you use faith, you do not use reason." "I seem to need to keep reiterating this: if you use evidence, that is not faith." -Garrick
The flaw in your argument is taking blind faith as if it is the only kind of faith and that whenever reason is used it can no longer remain as a faith. However, that is not the case. There is such a thing as a well-founded faith, a faith based in reason.
"To cling to the belief of a creator God just to fill our gaps in knowledge is an argument from ignorance." -Garrick
This is the very thing that I have been talking about. Yes, there are people who do (cling to the belief…) but it cannot be a reason to generalize that all who believe in God believes in that…because we dont.
"It doesn’t even imply that this God cares about human life. As we can see from natural disasters,…"-Garrick
Then what of the good things in life that you cannot even remotely attribute to human goodness?
"Even if Christianity was an upstanding and blameless example for religion, it still would not be any proof towards the truthfulness of its claims."- Garrick
How easily you dismiss the good that it brings to the society and yet use the bad, caused by misunderstanding of it, in judging the validity of it.
"As for credibility, you can believe me or not. It’s your choice. I am simply laying out the facts and questioning the established paradigm of theism." -Garrick
I am also simply laying out the facts too that how you presented faith (and the Church) is not the same as the faith that we have. Defining faith and compartmentalizing it in a way that it supports your belief is not only wrong and inaccurate but unfair.
If you are going to claim that we are wrong, at least keep the facts straight, argue how we are wrong with what we think is right and not what you think we think is right.
"it remains to be explained how you can easily accept and recognize the rationality in assuming that there was a source for that oil and yet could not recognize the rationality in the need for the source of all things."
We have experience of there always being a requirement for a source of oil. We have no experience of there being a requirement for a source for the universe. What is true for some part of the whole (oil) is not necessarily true for the whole (universe). Even if there were a source of all things, what was the source of this source?
We already have models showing how the universe can bring itself to existence from nothingness. We know of particles that are created from nothing, created by nothing. But, even if we did not, filling in the gap with "God did it" is not an answer and is an argument from ignorance. Who made God?
"The flaw in your argument is taking blind faith as if it is the only kind of faith and that whenever reason is used it can no longer remain as a faith. However, that is not the case. There is such a thing as a well-founded faith, a faith based in reason."
No. You are again equivocating the various definitions of faith. Religious faith is necessarily blind. That is to say, it is not based on empirical proof but based on a strong inner conviction. Yes, you can employ reason in justifying belief in purgatory (by citing scripture, relics, and other pieces of evidence), but you must first take on faith that there even exists life after death.
Again, I am not denying that faith and reason can coexist within a belief system. I am simply saying that faith cannot be based on reason (empirical evidence) because this would be contradictory to its dictionary definition. But reason can be based on faith (strong inner conviction). I have provided examples of the latter.
"This is the very thing that I have been talking about. Yes, there are people who do (cling to the belief…) but it cannot be a reason to generalize that all who believe in God believes in that…because we dont."
I was not generalizing. I was merely referring to you, based on your statement: “we can see creations and process of it everywhere in this world we live in, how far-fetched is it really to believe that there is a creator?”
"Then what of the good things in life that you cannot even remotely attribute to human goodness?"
What of the evil things in life that cannot be even remotely attributable to human evil? Earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, infectious diseases, genetic abnormalities…
The simplest answer is: the universe is indifferent to our suffering.
If my neighbor is hit by a bus and killed, there is no higher purpose to this. My neighbor is dead and anyone else at the wrong place and at the wrong time could have easily taken his place.
"How easily you dismiss the good that it brings to the society and yet use the bad, caused by misunderstanding of it, in judging the validity of it."
I am not at all dismissing the goodness that religion brings. I am only saying that this goodness has no bearing at all on the truthfulness of their claims. The evils of Catholicism also have no bearing on its truthfulness. I was citing examples of Catholic atrocities to repudiate your use of its social utility as "legitimate evidence of the verity and significance of our faith".
I have presented an example of another religion that could have a much greater social utility than Christianity (the Jain doctrine of extreme nonviolence) but this also has no effect on this religion's truthfulness. I have presented my thief example wherein a defense based on the charity the accused is irrelevant to the truthfulness of his innocence.
You keep asserting that I have been misunderstanding or misrepresenting Catholicism but show no justification.
"Defining faith and compartmentalizing it in a way that it supports your belief is not only wrong and inaccurate but unfair."
This is another definition of religious faith, from the New Oxford American Dictionary (sense 2):
"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
“We have experience of there always being a requirement for a source of oil. We have no experience of there being a requirement for a source for the universe. What is true for some part of the whole (oil) is not necessarily true for the whole (universe)…”-Garrick
So there lies the difference. I, as a believer of God and my reasoning tell me that the existence of things dictate a source, be it oil or the universe, and that is true for all that exists. I just prefer not to stop reasoning out after the existence of the oil and you just prefer to choose the things you prefer to believe have source.
***
“We already have models showing how the universe can bring itself to existence from nothingness. We know of particles that are created from nothing, created by nothing. But, even if we did not, filling in the gap with “God did it” is not an answer and is an argument from ignorance. Who made God?” –
Garrick
We have not created anything from nothing. The particles you are talking about is not really created from nothing…how do you account for the raw materials and instruments? It is also not filling in the the gap. Yes, other believers say it and stop at that but that is not the same for every believers. While we do believe that “God did it” we recognize and actually rely upon science to further understand how God is doing it.
Your question about who made God is a contradiction in itself if you consider what we believe who God is. This is the same question that you have about who is the source of the source. It is like asking for a square with 3 sides or a triangle with 4 sides, it is self-contradicting.
***
“Religious faith is necessarily blind.” –Garrick
We can always agree to disagree, your personal opinion about our religious faith against our understanding of our own religious faith.
***
“That is to say, it is not based on empirical proof but based on a strong inner conviction.”- Garrick
A strong inner conviction based on reason.
***
“I was citing examples of Catholic atrocities to repudiate your use of its social utility as “legitimate evidence of the verity and significance of our faith”.” –Garrick
Exactly, while you are using atrocities, which basically are the consequences of actions taken by those who misunderstood the teachings of the Church, you are ignoring the goodness it has contributed to our world when lived faithfully – which is what is to be the standard for the “legitimate evidence of the verity and significance of our faith”.
***
“You keep asserting that I have been misunderstanding or misrepresenting Catholicism but show no justification.” –Garrick
It is not that I have not shown justification, it is just that you‘d rather continue believing your misunderstanding of our faith. No worries, like what I said beforehand, I am not here to proselytize. My goal is to present what we truly believe when our belief is presented otherwise. And it ends there, whether you will believe or not is entirely up to you.
***
“This is another definition of religious faith, from the New Oxford American Dictionary (sense 2):“strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” –Garrick
Using a dictionary to understand what religious faith means for us believers is like looking up the term purpose in order to determine what we think about the purpose of our lives as believers and in relation to what we believe as God’s will.
"So there lies the difference. I, as a believer of God and my reasoning tell me that the existence of things dictate a source, be it oil or the universe, and that is true for all that exists. I just prefer not to stop reasoning out after the existence of the oil and you just prefer to choose the things you prefer to believe have source."
You believe that God exists, right? What was the source of God then?
"We have not created anything from nothing. The particles you are talking about is not really created from nothing…how do you account for the raw materials and instruments?"
No, there are particles that are created from nothing (as shown in my previous citation). I'm not referring to man-made particles inside supercolliders. Quantum particles and their antiparticle counterparts are continuously created and destroyed ex nihilo.
"While we do believe that “God did it” we recognize and actually rely upon science to further understand how God is doing it."
Science isn't just a body of knowledge concerning nature. Science is a way of thinking that always depends on evidence, and rational and skeptical inquiry. There is no scientific theory based on inner conviction or authority. There is also nothing in science that supports belief in the efficacy of prayer, life after death, souls, the Genesis myth, geocentricism, demonic possession as the source for disease, the existence of witches, or miraculous apparitions.
"Your question about who made God is a contradiction in itself if you consider what we believe who God is. This is the same question that you have about who is the source of the source. It is like asking for a square with 3 sides or a triangle with 4 sides, it is self-contradicting."
If nothing created God, then there are some things that don't need to be created. Why can't it be the universe instead of a far more complex intelligent anthropomorphic being?
"We can always agree to disagree, your personal opinion about our religious faith against our understanding of our own religious faith."
It's simply not my opinion. See Merriam-Webster.
"A strong inner conviction based on reason."
I think I've already cited the dictionary more times than necessary.
"Exactly, while you are using atrocities, which basically are the consequences of actions taken by those who misunderstood the teachings of the Church, you are ignoring the goodness it has contributed to our world when lived faithfully – which is what is to be the standard for the “legitimate evidence of the verity and significance of our faith”."
Homosexuals are disparaged in society because of Christian beliefs. Witches were burned because of Christian beliefs. Heretics were murdered because of Christian beliefs (as put forward by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica). These aren't "misunderstandings". These are direct tenets from Christian beliefs.
But, I am simply saying these to discredit any assertion that Christianity would be a force for good if only it were followed faithfully. It does not mean that Christianity is wrong with its supernatural claims.
"It is not that I have not shown justification, it is just that you‘d rather continue believing your misunderstanding of our faith."
Another assertion without justification.
"Using a dictionary to understand what religious faith means for us believers is like looking up the term purpose in order to determine what we think about the purpose of our lives as believers and in relation to what we believe as God’s will."
The definition of faith is very simple and I fail to see the point in any debate about it.
Faith may mean a lot to believers, but it doesn't change what the word means semantically. Faith may bring comfort, joy, or rapture. Faith may ultimately be a wondrously good thing. But faith is a belief not based on empirical evidence. This is not necessarily a criticism against faith. It is the definition.
"There is no source because he is the source."
You are using special pleading. Everything must have a source but God doesn't? What is the justification of this special attribute? How do you know that the universe needs a source? What evidence do you have that supports this knowledge?
"To believe that everything came from nothing is an idea so far removed from reasoning and logical thinking."
How do you know this? Scientists already have models showing that "nothingness" is unstable and that to have something is inevitable. You really should watch the video I keep citing.
"If there is always something that precedes the existence o something, how then can nothing create something?"
It is your assertion that something always precedes the existence of something, not mine.
"At the end of every cause and source is the one who is not caused by anything but simply the existence itself that brought everything else in motion."
How do you know this?
"The definition of “nothing” in regards to your statement is not an absolute absence of everything."
You must have misunderstood.
I really meant nothing.
Besides, how do you know that there was nothing before the universe? How do you know that the universe wasn't just always there?
"There may not be a scientific support as we speak but that does not mean they don’t exist."
Exactly right. The possibility always remains. But that means that you don't have any data supporting your belief. It means I don't know if there is life after death. It means you don't know if there is life after death.
"To claim that there is none at this point in time is to throw out the scientific process and conclude without proper experimentation that there really is no life after death."
I never said there was no life after death. There is just no evidence supporting it. And yet, Christianity knows so many very specific things about it such as: there are persons who come to appear to us after their deaths; sinful but good people go to heaven by way of purgatory; evil people go to hell. What I am simply requesting is some honesty. No human being knows if souls exist or not, therefore no human being should enact legislation as if they know that souls exist.
"Second, science cannot explain everything for particular reasons, that of the appropriateness and limited field of applicability and level of technology/knowledge at the moment."
Absolutely true. But that doesn't mean you can invent anything you want to fill the gaps.
"On what scientific basis and or experimentation or empirical data can we gather in order to understand the purpose of our existence? Understanding the meaning of life, relationship, death, love?"
This is a false analogy. We are talking about the reality of an external agent: God. Meanings are subjective facts that reside only inside the brain. That is, unless you will concede that God is a subjective idea, with no realistic effects, and only inside people's heads.
"It cannot be the universe because the creator has to be the culmination of everything, the source of all being, of existence, of universe. That being has to be the epitomy of perfection, the ultimacy of everything that we know, feel, etc…it cannot be that the creator is the same as its creation. "
How do you know that? How do you know that the universe wasn't just always there? How do you know that another universe didn't give birth to ours, and that universe was born by another, and so on ad infinitum?
See, I don't know. Maybe there was a creator. Maybe the universe created itself. Maybe there wasn't a creator. But, I'm not going to fill in that gap with the stories of an Iron Age religion. And I'm not just saying that I don't know. You don't know either. No one knows.
"I have presented the difference between what you are saying we are and what we believe we are and still choose to compartmentalize our whole faith with in the very brief description of a dictionary that does not reflect the theology of Catholicism."
It is clear that you will not let dictionary definitions limit your use of the English language. So be it. But I am not compartmentalizing any tenet or belief. I am simply showing the English definition of religious faith — a belief not based on empirical proof. I don't understand your contention. It's not a criticism against faith.
"If I were to follow your reasoning, then I’d be able to use the dictionary as a proof of God. I can also simply tell you, it is the definition."
I'm not using the dictionary to prove that faith exists. I'm using it to define what faith is according to its use in the English language. You can use the dictionary to define what God is according to the English language and I, as a speaker of the English language, will agree to those definitions.
"All that you have given as examples are results of misunderstanding the Catholic teaching."
Please explain to me how Thomas Aquinas misunderstood Catholic teaching and that the entire Church was wrong in enacting the Inquisition. Please explain to me how homosexuals have basic human rights according to Catholic teaching. Please explain to me how burning witches is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
“You believe that God exists, right? What was the source of God then?” -Garrick
There is no source because he is the source. Science reveals to us the nature of things; our surroundings and being dictate us that something is always caused by another. It follows then, our reasoning tells us, that if that is to be the case then there has to be a primary source of being. We attribute that being that is to be the source of all that exists to be the Supreme being, the one who is not caused by any causes but simply the source of everything. To believe that everything came from nothing is an idea so far removed from reasoning and logical thinking. If there is always something that precedes the existence o something, how then can nothing create something? At the end of every cause and source is the one who is not caused by anything but simply the existence itself that brought everything else in motion.
***
“No, there are particles that are created from nothing…”-Garrick
The definition of “nothing” in regards to your statement is not an absolute absence of everything
***
“There is also nothing in science that supports belief in the efficacy of prayer, life after death, souls, the Genesis myth, geocentricism, demonic possession as the source for disease, the existence of witches, or miraculous apparitions.”-Garrick
There may not be a scientific support as we speak but that does not mean they don’t exist. For one, a negative statement like that, as if a concluded fact, has to be verified before we can rule out the possibility of their existence. E.g. one has to scientifically prove that there is no life after death in order to conclude that it doesn’t exist, until then, the possibility remains. To claim that there is none at this point in time is to throw out the scientific process and conclude without proper experimentation that there really is no life after death. Second, science cannot explain everything for particular reasons, that of the appropriateness and limited field of applicability and level of technology/knowledge at the moment. E.g. On what scientific basis and or experimentation or empirical data can we gather in order to understand the purpose of our existence? Understanding the meaning of life, relationship, death, love?
***
“If nothing created God, then there are some things that don’t need to be created. Why can’t it be the universe instead of a far more complex intelligent anthropomorphic being?” -Garrick
It cannot be the universe because the creator has to be the culmination of everything, the source of all being, of existence, of universe. That being has to be the epitomy of perfection, the ultimacy of everything that we know, feel, etc…it cannot be that the creator is the same as its creation.
***
“It’s simply not my opinion. See Merriam-Webster.” –Garrick
“I think I’ve already cited the dictionary more times than necessary.”-Garrick
“Faith may mean a lot to believers, but it doesn’t change what the word means semantically. Faith may bring comfort, joy, or rapture. Faith may ultimately be a wondrously good thing. But faith is a belief not based on empirical evidence. This is not necessarily a criticism against faith. It is the definition.” -Garrick
I have presented the difference between what you are saying we are and what we believe we are and still choose to compartmentalize our whole faith with in the very brief description of a dictionary that does not reflect the theology of Catholicism. Such reference provides us the common meaning of words in a very generic form. Yes, the dictionary is correct when it says that because the notion of faith and cultural usage is that but it doesn’t reflect the theological meaning of the term in the Catholic tradition. Like what I said before there is such a thing as a blind faith and well-founded faith that is based in reason. And what we go for is the latter.
If I were to follow your reasoning, then I’d be able to use the dictionary as a proof of God. I can also simply tell you, it is the definition.
God -1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind –Merriam Webster Dictionary
***
“Homosexuals are disparaged in society because of Christian beliefs. …These aren’t “misunderstandings”. These are direct tenets from Christian beliefs.” -Garrick
All that you have given as examples are results of misunderstanding the Catholic teaching.
“Everything must have a source but God doesn’t? What is the justification of this special attribute? How do you know that the universe needs a source? What evidence do you have that supports this knowledge? How do you know this? Scientists already have models showing that “nothingness” is unstable and that to have something is inevitable. You really should watch the video I keep citing. How do you know this? I really meant nothing. Besides, how do you know that there was nothing before the universe? How do you know that the universe wasn’t just always there?”-Garrick
In the same way that you automatically rationalized that there must be a source for that oil and the automatic ruling out of any chance that the oil might just came out of nowhere- out of nothing.
And asking the source of God is like asking what is the source of the source of oil…in the end at the beginning of the chain is that which has no source but source itself. That is the nature of things that we live in and that we see around us.
***
“Exactly right. The possibility always remains. But that means that you don’t have any data supporting your belief. It means I don’t know if there is life after death. It means you don’t know if there is life after death.” -Garrick
We have been discussing the possibility and its implications. In any case, life after death is something that can only be found out after life, in this case to look for an empirical data to support it is not an option. What I have been saying is that if there is no way to confirm it (particularly life after death) the most reasonable and logical thing to do is to live as if there is.
**
“I never said there was no life after death. There is just no evidence supporting it. And yet, Christianity knows so many very specific things about it such as: there are persons who come to appear to us after their deaths; sinful but good people go to heaven by way of purgatory; evil people go to hell. What I am simply requesting is some honesty. No human being knows if souls exist or not, therefore no human being should enact legislation as if they know that souls exist.” –Garrick
1. We are not saying there is, we are saying we believe it when Christ says so that there is. We believe in God, we believe in the son of God who revealed it for all of us. It is being revealed not only for the few but is being offered for all. The difference between the two of us is that we chose to believe and you did not. It would not be honesty but a lie for us who believe him to do what you want us to do.
2. A legislation? Whatever the Church proposes to the world is what the Church believes to be what Christ wanted to tell the world. It only follows that if I believe Christ to be the son of God then I will believe whatever he reveals to us is the truth. It is only “honesty” to do so. If you do not believe, no one will be putting you to jail, you are free to do so as you have always been free in claiming things about our faith.
If I say I believe in the lochness monster, I have all the freedom to do so and I will preach it as if it is the truth because it is the truth that I believe in. Who’s to say that I cannot do so because no one really knows it exist? Am I not only being “honest” to myself when I say that I believe in the lochness monster if I truly believe in it? Respect goes both ways.
**
“Absolutely true. But that doesn’t mean you can invent anything you want to fill the gaps.” –Garrick
Your opinion about our faith is that it is invented and you’re argument is that one “cannot invent anything [you] want to fill the gaps”. It wouldn’t be fair to claim that we believe such and tell us that we are wrong. We believe that it is a revelation not an invention so it would be better to take that point and tell us where we are wrong about that.
**
“This is a false analogy. …” –Garrick
The point is that you are expecting something to deal with things outside its own abilities and claiming that because it can’t therefore what it has been trying to deal with doesn’t exist.
**
“It is clear that you will not let dictionary definitions limit your use of the English language. So be it. But I am not compartmentalizing any tenet or belief. I am simply showing the English definition of religious faith — a belief not based on empirical proof. I don’t understand your contention. It’s not a criticism against faith.” -Garrick
The dictionary gives a definition of the common usage of the term and not the theological meaning of the word particularly in the Catholic religion.
**
"Please explain to me how Thomas Aquinas misunderstood Catholic teaching and that the entire Church was wrong in enacting the Inquisition. Please explain to me how homosexuals have basic human rights according to Catholic teaching. Please explain to me how burning witches is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching."-Garrick
The inquisition and the burning of witches resulted from the abuse by the people who are supposed to live faithfully by the Catholic faith. Suppose, one in your forum here killed a Catholic, it wouldnt be right to say that Filipino Freethinkers teaches its members to kill a Catholic, would it? The recognition of what is being taught and the act based on misunderstanding/abuse of what was taught are two different things.
The Church sees everyone in the image and likeness of God. We are all human being, male and female, irregardless of sexual orientation, we all have the same rights as the others.
Additional resource on homosexuality:
all quotes from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c…
"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."
"Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.
However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.
It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel."
"In the same way that you automatically rationalized that there must be a source for that oil and the automatic ruling out of any chance that the oil might just came out of nowhere- out of nothing."
It's absolutely possible that oil just came out of nowhere. It's called a thermodynamic miracle. It's possible, but the probability is astronomically low. It's just that according to our experience of oil, it's more likely that there was a source.
If I put a sandwich on a table then leave it. When I come back to find it on the ground, it is rational for me to conclude that some external agent moved it rather than to think that the sandwich grew legs and walked off the table. The former is still entirely possible, just incredibly unlikely.
This reasoning, however, does not apply to the universe because we have no experience of a universe being created. The physics during the big bang is highly complex and counter-intuitive to what we would expect in our everyday experience. Quantum physics allows for particles to exist at many places at one time. It allows for the duality of waves and particles. Our intuitive understanding of physics does not apply to the combining of the fundamental forces (gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and electromagnetic force) during the earliest moments of the big bang.
"And asking the source of God is like asking what is the source of the source of oil…in the end at the beginning of the chain is that which has no source but source itself. That is the nature of things that we live in and that we see around us."
How do you know that God had no source? How do you know that that is the nature of things? Have you seen the creation of a universe and that it required an intelligent external creator? Have you observed the structure of the universe and have you seen that the universe needs an external agent to exist?
"We have been discussing the possibility and its implications. In any case, life after death is something that can only be found out after life, in this case to look for an empirical data to support it is not an option. What I have been saying is that if there is no way to confirm it (particularly life after death) the most reasonable and logical thing to do is to live as if there is."
No. There is no empirical data to support the existence of fairies. The most logical thing to do is to live as if there are none. There is no empirical data to support my assertion that I can fly. The most logical thing to do is to live as if I can't fly.
"We are not saying there is, we are saying we believe it when Christ says so that there is."
So, it's an argument from authority. Someone said so, therefore it's true.
"The difference between the two of us is that we chose to believe and you did not."
I'm just waiting on the evidence and I'm not going to take hearsay from the Bible or priests as proof — especially since thousands of other religions have similar but contradictory claims regarding the afterlife and moral attitudes. For such an extraordinary claim such as the existence of a supernatural intelligent being, there needs to be an extraordinary piece of evidence greater than the personal testimony of people indoctrinated from birth.
If I see compelling evidence, then there would be no choice but to believe. Like seeing a tree cut down, you don't have the choice not to believe it was really cut down.
"If I say I believe in the lochness monster, I have all the freedom to do so and I will preach it as if it is the truth because it is the truth that I believe in."
You are absolutely right. And I also have the right to ask for empirical evidence before supporting the suppression of life-saving scientific research. I have the right to criticize the lack of any evidence supporting claims against stem cell research or condom use.
If it's respect that the Church wants, it should keep to its own and prevent only its own gays from getting married. It should prevent only its own members from using condoms. It should prevent only its own members from getting euthanized. It should leave other people of different or no creeds to do what they want with their own bodies. It is not barred, however, from making a case in general society against gay marriage or condom use, providing that it show empirical evidence supporting any argument.
"We believe that it is a revelation not an invention so it would be better to take that point and tell us where we are wrong about that."
I am only asking for empirical evidence to support any assertion that supposedly fills the gaps in scientific knowledge.
"The point is that you are expecting something to deal with things outside its own abilities and claiming that because it can’t therefore what it has been trying to deal with doesn’t exist."
No, you were trying to equate the internal subjective phenomena of love, to a realistic external agent that has physical effects (such as healing cancers and creating earthquakes) and I was pointing out that the analogy does not hold.
If all sentient beings die at this moment, love would cease to exist. If all sentient beings die at this moment, color would cease to exist (because it is entirely a subjective phenomenon inside the brain and not an intrinsic property of objects). If all sentient beings die at this moment, God should not follow suit.
There are many religious claims that are well within the reach of science. The only claim that appears to be out of reach is the claim that there is a God but he does not interfere with the universe. Any interference whatsoever will affect physical objects, which are subject to scientific observation.
The efficacy of prayer is a scientific claim: it has a falsifiable prediction. That is, prayers focused towards an intention will increase the odds of the intention to occur. The demonic possession hypothesis is a scientific claim that says that people who are showing signs of disease will not be cured if physical objects such as bacteria are eliminated because demons, the true source of disease, are incorporeal. Other examples of discredited religious claims are geocentricism and creationism.
"Suppose, one in your forum here killed a Catholic, it wouldnt be right to say that Filipino Freethinkers teaches its members to kill a Catholic, would it?"
Another false analogy. This group does not have a holy book that everyone must follow where it is clearly stated: "You shall not suffer a Catholic to live." This group does not have leaders that encourage murder, unlike with Thomas Aquinas who was very clear in saying that heretics must be "separated from the world by death". If this group were founded on homophobic principles and advocated the murder of gays, then it would be culpable for any hate crime enacted by its members.
"The Church sees everyone in the image and likeness of God. We are all human being, male and female, irregardless of sexual orientation, we all have the same rights as the others."
We all have the same rights yet the vicar of Christ is blocking legislation that would allow homosexuals to marry their partners all over the world.
"The difference between our opinions is the consideration of and expectation for nature to takes its natural course and using evidences and materials available to us in order to understand the things that are yet to be known."
I have presented clear physics concepts refuting any certainty regarding the origin of the universe requiring a creator (i.e. quantum mechanics and the lecture of Professor Laurence Krauss regarding the origin of the universe). It is plain in cosmological models that, while a creator is still entirely possible, one is not automatically necessary for the existence of the universe. We just don't know yet. You, on the other hand, have only baseless assertions regarding your confidence of what is the "natural course" and have no "evidences and materials" whatsoever to back up any of your claims. I only ask for justification for any argument.
"The effects and consequences of believing in fairies and ability to fly is not the same as believing in God."
They are exactly the same kind of belief — belief without evidence. If the only reason for believing in God or the afterlife is the fear of eternal torture, then that is a sad state of affairs. I thought that believing was contingent on the reality of a concept, and not on what their horrendous "consequences" are imagined to be. Your line of reasoning is an appeal to consequences, another logical fallacy.
If you have any evidence supporting the existence of God, I will retract my remark and would sure appreciate to see the evidence. Note that, your particular experiences of God cannot be taken on face value. Otherwise, you would have to also take on face value the transcendental, religious, and contradictory experiences of Scientologists, Hindus, and Buddhists. It is curious that all miraculous visions reported are always aligned with the belief of the reporter. That is, someone who has never heard of Jesus never speaks about seeing a crucified man claiming to be the Son of God. Likewise, you have probably never experienced the loving warmth of the four-armed hug of Ganesha.
In rational discussion, there are no privileged viewpoints and all observations must be confirmed to account for bias, error, and hallucination.
"The apostles are not indoctrinated from birth. There are already grown men when it was revealed to them what we continue to believe at the present."
How do you know the apostles even existed? Secular records of them are spurious, at best. Details of their lives in the Bible are sparse. That is, if you even take the Bible as a credible historical document, which it is evidently not. Your instructors in Catholic dogma are all probably indoctrinated from birth. Even if they weren't, they also rely on the hearsay of their teachers and of the hearsay of the Bible. They have little to no independently verifiable evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus or the apostles. They also have no independently verifiable evidence supporting their particular beliefs about Jesus (divinity, Trinity, virgin birth) over other beliefs about Jesus (adoptionism, lack of divinity, loss of virginity).
People even in our age have died for delusions they took up as adults and to allude to the myths regarding the faith of the apostles is no argument. Even if we allow the assertion that the apostles were faithful believers who died in persecution, remember that we know that 39 members of the Heaven's Gate religion killed themselves so they could be transported to a spaceship following Comet Hale-Bopp, while we don't know if the apostles even existed, let alone faithful. The faith of the followers of Heaven's Gate is clearly greater than even that of the apostles who had seen the miracle of resurrection for themselves. The followers of Heaven's Gate were absolutely willing and able to die for a lie. Does this prove that the beliefs of Heaven's Gate are correct? No. Buddhists have their martyrs too. Hindus have their martyrs too.
"Particularly in stem cell research, there is more than already overwhelming evidence against the embryonic type."
This is an outright lie and utterly shameful to contend in any rational conversation.
"You claimed it to be scientific and used it to refute the efficacy of prayer."
Yes. Prayer is a scientific assertion. It has a falsifiable prediction (which I have already explained), and one that has been falsified in virtually all studies. The same goes for demonic possession. While supernatural, it has falsifiable claims — claims that have been thoroughly repudiated.
"If that is your reason for saying that what i have said is a false analogy then it only verifies that what you have against is exactly what you are guilty of. The point is to differentiate between an unfaithful interpretation of our faith and what our faith means."
You put forward that a Catholic murderer in this group would be the responsibility of this group, when there is nothing in the discourse here remotely promoting such acts. When, in Catholic discourse, the vaunted Thomas Aquinas preached the murder of heretics. Thomas Aquinas is a canonized saint and, being one, has been vouchsafed his place in heaven. His views are condoned, nay, marketed by the Catholic Church. There is simply no comparison. If ever this group advocates any serious intention supporting fatal violence against innocent people, only then can your analogy stand. Until then, it is a false analogy.
"Yes, we all have the same rights. However, homosexual marriage as a right is an extraordinary "right", an additional right on top of the right to marry that we all already have."
Wow. Just… wow. And what is your basis for this? Even if your assertion made any sense, what is inherently wrong about an "additional right"? Upon legalization of gay marriage, since homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who they do not love, then you would also have the right to marry someone of the same sex who you do not love. Equal rights.
This is all beside the point. I only pointed to gay marriage as an example of the hateful policies of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church can bar its believers from any and all pleasure. That is well within their right to freedom of religion. But, when their homophobia goes outside church walls and into the halls of secular legislative bodies, that is another matter entirely.
"This reasoning, however, does not apply to the universe because we have no experience of a universe being created." "Our intuitive understanding of physics does not apply …" –Garrick
The difference between our opinions is the consideration of and expectation for nature to takes its natural course and using evidences and materials available to us in order to understand the things that are yet to be known. To say that such reasoning does not apply to certain things is a bold claim that needs the “empirical evidence” that you are always looking for in order to affirm that the natural course of things are only for selected natural things.
"There is no empirical data to support the existence of fairies. The most logical thing to do is to live as if there are none…There is no empirical data to support my assertion that I can fly. The most logical thing to do is to live as if I can’t fly." -Garrick
The effects and consequences of believing in fairies and ability to fly is not the same as believing in God.
"There needs to be an extraordinary piece of evidence greater than the personal testimony of people indoctrinated from birth."-Garrick
The apostles are not indoctrinated from birth. There are already grown men when it was revealed to them what we continue to believe at the present.
"You are absolutely right. And I also have the right to ask for empirical evidence before supporting the suppression of life-saving scientific research." -Garrick
The condom is a type of contraceptive…to prevent conception of a human life. stem cell research (embryonic) extinguishes the life of human embryos. The Church is not suppressing life-saving scientific research, the Church wishes to protect human life including those that are yet to be born. Particularly in stem cell research, there is more than already overwhelming evidence against the embryonic type. There is no need to kill human embryos.
"The efficacy of prayer is a scientific claim"- Garrick
You claimed it to be scientific and used it to refute the efficacy of prayer.
"Another false analogy. This group does not have a holy book that everyone must follow where it is clearly stated: “You shall not suffer a Catholic to live.” This group does not have leaders that encourage murder, unlike with Thomas Aquinas who was very clear in saying that heretics must be “separated from the world by death”. If this group were founded on homophobic principles and advocated the murder of gays, then it would be culpable for any hate crime enacted by its members." -Garrick
If that is your reason for saying that what i have said is a false analogy then it only verifies that what you have against is exactly what you are guilty of. The point is to differentiate between an unfaithful interpretation of our faith and what our faith means.
"We all have the same rights yet the vicar of Christ is blocking legislation that would allow homosexuals to marry their partners all over the world." -Garrick
Yes, we all have the same rights. However, homosexual marriage as a right is an extraordinary "right", an additional right on top of the right to marry that we all already have.
“I have presented clear physics concepts refuting any certainty regarding the origin of the universe requiring a creator (i.e. quantum mechanics and the lecture of Professor Laurence Krauss regarding the origin of the universe).” –Garrrick
Clear physics concepts refuting any certainty regarding the origin of the universe requiring a creator? Quantum mechanics and a lecture of a professor to back up your claims about the possibility and/or necessity of a creator? Have you tried listening to yourself lately? Lol, kidding aside, between what you said (that and believing that the universe may have created itself and created itself out of nothing) and believing that there has to be a creator based on the natural occurrence of things- the nature that we have right now in which we can observe and experience…I will remain believing on the latter. With pun intended, it takes a great amount of religious faith to believe that something can really come to existence out of nothing.
"They are exactly the same kind of belief — belief without evidence. If the only reason for believing in God or the afterlife is the fear of eternal torture, then that is a sad state of affairs. I thought that believing was contingent on the reality of a concept, and not on what their horrendous “consequences” are imagined to be. Your line of reasoning is an appeal to consequences, another logical fallacy." -Garrick
I wasnt referring to the afterlife. And until you can give me a Mother Theresa from the Most Venerable Fairy or a St Maximillian Kolbe from the League of People who believe they can fly, I remain in disagreement. They are not the same.
"If you have any evidence supporting the existence of God, I will retract my remark and would sure appreciate to see the evidence. Note that, your particular experiences of God cannot be taken on face value. Otherwise, you would have to also take on face value the transcendental, religious, and contradictory experiences of Scientologists, Hindus, and Buddhists. It is curious that all miraculous visions reported are always aligned with the belief of the reporter. That is, someone who has never heard of Jesus never speaks about seeing a crucified man claiming to be the Son of God. Likewise, you have probably never experienced the loving warmth of the four-armed hug of Ganesha.
In rational discussion, there are no privileged viewpoints and all observations must be confirmed to account for bias, error, and hallucination.
“The apostles are not indoctrinated from birth. There are already grown men when it was revealed to them what we continue to believe at the present.”
How do you know the apostles even existed? Secular records of them are spurious, at best. Details of their lives in the Bible are sparse. That is, if you even take the Bible as a credible historical document, which it is evidently not. Your instructors in Catholic dogma are all probably indoctrinated from birth. Even if they weren’t, they also rely on the hearsay of their teachers and of the hearsay of the Bible. They have little to no independently verifiable evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus or the apostles. They also have no independently verifiable evidence supporting their particular beliefs about Jesus (divinity, Trinity, virgin birth) over other beliefs about Jesus (adoptionism, lack of divinity, loss of virginity).
People even in our age have died for delusions they took up as adults and to allude to the myths regarding the faith of the apostles is no argument. Even if we allow the assertion that the apostles were faithful believers who died in persecution, remember that we know that 39 members of the Heaven’s Gate religion killed themselves so they could be transported to a spaceship following Comet Hale-Bopp, while we don’t know if the apostles even existed, let alone faithful. The faith of the followers of Heaven’s Gate is clearly greater than even that of the apostles who had seen the miracle of resurrection for themselves. The followers of Heaven’s Gate were absolutely willing and able to die for a lie. Does this prove that the beliefs of Heaven’s Gate are correct? No. Buddhists have their martyrs too. Hindus have their martyrs too." -Garrick
I have to give it to you for taking that skepticism …however not faithfully for being too selective.
“Particularly in stem cell research, there is more than already overwhelming evidence against the embryonic type.” -"This is an outright lie and utterly shameful to contend in any rational conversation." -Garrick
This is a 2007 article about adult stem cell research. http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?p…
“You put forward that a Catholic murderer in this group would be the responsibility of this group, when there is nothing in the discourse here remotely promoting such acts. When, in Catholic discourse, the vaunted Thomas Aquinas preached the murder of heretics. Thomas Aquinas is a canonized saint and, being one, has been vouchsafed his place in heaven. His views are condoned, nay, marketed by the Catholic Church. There is simply no comparison. If ever this group advocates any serious intention supporting fatal violence against innocent people, only then can your analogy stand. Until then, it is a false analogy." -Garrick
As much as I would like to take this discussion seriously I could not help but lose interest. I cannot help but doubt your sincerity . It is either you are not sincere or you are unable to comprehend. As much as i would like for it to be the former…even if that is the case it is still unfair and so uncalled for. There is no reason for anyone to not pick up on the analogy other than who wishes to remain antagonistic…beyond reason and senses.
“This is all beside the point. I only pointed to gay marriage as an example of the hateful policies of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church can bar its believers from any and all pleasure. That is well within their right to freedom of religion. But, when their homophobia goes outside church walls and into the halls of secular legislative bodies, that is another matter entirely.” -Garrick
It’s just too unfortunate that you to feel that way about the Church because clearly what you are against is not the Church but what you think the Church is. And those are different from each other.
"Clear physics concepts refuting any certainty regarding the origin of the universe requiring a creator?"
No. There was never any rational certainty regarding the origin of the universe requiring a creator to begin with. There has never been any evidence supporting the belief in a creator God. Only the gaps in human knowledge in the past centuries have shored up the belief in a creator because we just didn't know what to make of our universe. I showed clear physics concepts allowing for the self-creation of the universe.
We used to believe the world to be the center of the universe. But that doesn't mean there was any evidence supporting certainty in the centrality of the Earth, only a lack of knowledge regarding solar systems.
Can the idea of a noninterventionist creator, the deist God, ever be thoroughly refuted? I don't think so. In the same way, unicorns can never be said to be truly nonexistent. Does the fact that unicorns haven't been disproved bolster the case for their existence? No.
Even if we eventually find out that there is a requirement for a creator, based on the evidence of energy and entropy calculations, this does not automatically prove the existence of an interventionist God. It does not prove that this God cares about worship or belief. It does not prove that this God is all-good. It does not prove that there is a hell for non-believers. It does not prove that this God is the Christian God.
"With pun intended, it takes a great amount of religious faith to believe that something can really come to existence out of nothing."
I don't know if the universe came out of nothing. It is, however, possible. We have physics models describing how it could happen. And it is, to me, a lot more likely that a universe came from nothing than a complex being coming from nothing.
To account for the existence of one complex object such as the universe by presenting an even more complex being is useless. It explains nothing and presents an even bigger mystery. Where did the complex being come from? To say that it had no source and not justify it with evidence and observation is special pleading.
I am open to changing my mind and I have no religious certainty regarding the origin of the universe. My very scanty knowledge regarding the origin of the universe is contingent on the evidence, which is the antithesis of faith. If evidence appears explicitly requiring a creator, then I might become a deist. But even then, why should I worship the creator? The provably false historical and scientific claims of the three great monotheisms are too significant to simply turn a blind eye to.
It is entirely possible that a creator made the universe. But, from rigorous observations, he seems to be hiding really well. He doesn't answer prayers. He doesn't favor believers of any particular religion. For as long as an entity has no discernible effect on anything, it is practically non-existent. For as long as there is no evidence supporting the existence of God, alien visitors from outer space, or leprechauns, there is no rational basis for belief in them.
"And until you can give me a Mother Theresa from the Most Venerable Fairy or a St Maximillian Kolbe from the League of People who believe they can fly, I remain in disagreement. They are not the same."
So, the "goodness" (which I use very loosely for Mother Teresa, in particular) of the saints of the Church proves the truthfulness of its teachings? That is nonsense. If a man believing that he has psychic powers were to use his money to prop up schools in Africa, does that prove that he has psychic powers? No.
The charity of the Salvation Army does not disprove Catholicism. The wisdom of the Dalai Lama does not prove Buddhism. The magical claims of Sathya Sai Baba and the belief of his millions of adherents do not prove his divinity. The martyrs of Docetic Christianity do not disprove the beliefs of mainstream Christians. Without evidence supporting any of their claims, they are all to be looked at with suspicion.
"I have to give it to you for taking that skepticism …however not faithfully for being too selective."
Where I am I being selective?
"This is a 2007 article about adult stem cell research. http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?p…
Ethical arguments of the article aside, I was pointing out that embryonic stem cells are effective and that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting your claim that they are useless, especially in comparison to adult stem cells, which have a smaller range of cell types to develop into. You may have moral qualms against the research, and I can't fault you for that. What I can be against is your baseless assertion of "overwhelming evidence against the embryonic type".
"There is no reason for anyone to not pick up on the analogy other than who wishes to remain antagonistic…beyond reason and senses."
Where am I being unreasonably antagonistic? The Catholic Church has given its imprimatur for Summa Theologica, which advocates the murder of heretics. This means that it has undergone review by a bishop and has been allowed to be published with the consent of the Church. Summa Theologica is also a bulwark of Catholic doctrine and has been continually cited in Catholic discourse for over 700 years. Thomas Aquinas is a saint venerated by believers worldwide. If you can provide just one validly analogous or similar instance of the promotion of the murder of all believers here, I will happily retreat from my position.
"It’s just too unfortunate that you to feel that way about the Church because clearly what you are against is not the Church but what you think the Church is. And those are different from each other."
There is no ambiguity regarding the Catholic Church's stance against gay marriage. There can also be no argument against the fact that the Catholic Church actively campaigns against equal rights for homosexuals — rights the Vicar of Christ on Earth calls "insidious and dangerous" and a "threat to creation". Whatever you think the Church really is is not how it presents itself to the world.
I do not have any problems with the Church banning Catholics from condom use, abortion, divorce, or gay marriage. It is their Church. That is their business. What I am against is them trying to deny the rights of non-Catholics.
“Clear physics concepts refuting any certainty regarding the origin of the universe requiring a creator?”
“No. There was never any rational certainty regarding the origin of the universe requiring a creator to begin with. There has never been any evidence supporting the belief in a creator God. Only the gaps in human knowledge in the past centuries have shored up the belief in a creator because we just didn’t know what to make of our universe. I showed clear physics concepts allowing for the self-creation of the universe.
We used to believe the world to be the center of the universe. But that doesn’t mean there was any evidence supporting certainty in the centrality of the Earth, only a lack of knowledge regarding solar systems.
Can the idea of a noninterventionist creator, the deist God, ever be thoroughly refuted? I don’t think so. In the same way, unicorns can never be said to be truly nonexistent. Does the fact that unicorns haven’t been disproved bolster the case for their existence? No.
Even if we eventually find out that there is a requirement for a creator, based on the evidence of energy and entropy calculations, this does not automatically prove the existence of an interventionist God. It does not prove that this God cares about worship or belief. It does not prove that this God is all-good. It does not prove that there is a hell for non-believers. It does not prove that this God is the Christian God.” –Garrick
It was a direct quote.
***
“I don’t know if the universe came out of nothing. It is, however, possible. We have physics models describing how it could happen. And it is, to me, a lot more likely that a universe came from nothing than a complex being coming from nothing…where did the complex being come from? To say that it had no source and not justify it with evidence and observation is special pleading.”-Garrick
So what level of complexity would you consider as not complex enough to be able to have the possibility of itself creating itself out of nothing? Following your statement, universe then is not complex enough so the possibility of creating itself…it suggests that the more complex the being is the less likely that it can create itself.
If the nature around us that exhibits the same pattern and behavior in regards to causes does not justify the rationality that at the end of a long chain of causes is that which is an uncaused cause, a source, then I don’t know what will.
***
“I am open to changing my mind and I have no religious certainty regarding the origin of the universe. My very scanty knowledge regarding the origin of the universe is contingent on the evidence, which is the antithesis of faith. If evidence appears explicitly requiring a creator, then I might become a deist.” –Garrick
Of course you are and I do recognize your freedom to do so. I do understand your position because you are making a syllogism out of your belief that faith is against reason. That faith is only a blind faith. And it doesn’t matter if that is not true for us because you have accepted it as a truth to yourself…I have no problem with that, for as long you don’t keep on imposing that conviction of yours on us and insisting that what you believe about faith and what we believe is one and the same.
In any case, for all those who wait for evidence I always ask, when do you think you will conclude that such evidence is enough, did you start off with a notion that there is none and try to support it or is it the other way around?
***
“And until you can give me a Mother Theresa from the Most Venerable Fairy or a St Maximillian Kolbe from the League of People who believe they can fly, I remain in disagreement. They are not the same.”So, the “goodness” (which I use very loosely for Mother Teresa, in particular) of the saints of the Church proves the truthfulness of its teachings? That is nonsense. If a man believing that he has psychic powers were to use his money to prop up schools in Africa, does that prove that he has psychic powers? No. -Garrick
You are going off tangent. My statement that you are trying to argue against is “The effects and consequences of believing in fairies and ability to fly is not the same as believing in God.
***
“What I can be against is your baseless assertion of “overwhelming evidence against the embryonic type”. –Garrick
In 2001, a nine year old boy suffering from degeneration of the brain was injected with stem cells from two aborted babies. 2 more times in 2002 and 2004, by 2005 he was diagnosed with brain tumor directly caused by the embryonic stem cell. The tumor was removed but since then has been gradually growing back. This has always been the case and the problem of embryonic stem cell.
Let’s just say, for the sake of the argument, that it works, for a cure on diabetes: in 2005 it was reported that there’s about 17M diabetes patients in the US alone, using the results of a 2003 experiment done in animal subject, each cure they said would require 10-100 human eggs putting the cost at $100,000-200,000 per patient. 17M patients would need 170M – 1.7 B human eggs. In 2004, South Korean cloning required 242 eggs for one stem cell line. 17M patients equals 4,114,000,000eggs. Ethics aside, where will we get those? Add to this the fact that women have also died from egg harvesting…that makes it more difficult to get donors.
And to top it off, in almost 25 years, it has not yielded a single cure. Compare that to the successes and breakthroughs of adult stem cells, it is for me an overwhelming evidence against the embryonic type. if that is not overwhelming yet for you, we can always agree to disagree
***
“Where am I being unreasonably antagonistic? The Catholic Church has given its imprimatur for Summa Theologica, which advocates the murder of heretics. This means that it has undergone review by a bishop and has been allowed to be published with the consent of the Church. Summa Theologica is also a bulwark of Catholic doctrine and has been continually cited in Catholic discourse for over 700 years. Thomas Aquinas is a saint venerated by believers worldwide. If you can provide just one validly analogous or similar instance of the promotion of the murder of all believers here, I will happily retreat from my position.” –Garrick
That is exactly how a religious extremist or a fundamentalist would interpret it. A perfect example of faith without reason. This is why reason is very important, fides et ratio. Reading the Summa within reason illuminates the danger that anyone imposes to others should he refuse to recognize his own separation from the communion at the moment of his disagreement. A blind faith sees a call for murder.
***
“Whatever you think the Church really is is not how it presents itself to the world.” –Garrick
I can agree with you on this one, however not entirely true, because as many, or maybe even more, as those who misrepresent the Church are those who truly live and lived it and can be a testament for what the Church truly teaches.
“I do not have any problems with the Church banning Catholics from condom use, abortion, divorce, or gay marriage. It is their Church. That is their business. What I am against is them trying to deny the rights of non-Catholics.”-Garrick
We should be thankful that the Church have taken up the defensive fight for the sanctity of marriage and family, that it protects all including those who are not Catholics, that even if these are issues that apply regardless of their Catholicity, religion or beliefs, the Church chooses to defend us all.
"So what level of complexity would you consider as not complex enough to be able to have the possibility of itself creating itself out of nothing? Following your statement, universe then is not complex enough so the possibility of creating itself…it suggests that the more complex the being is the less likely that it can create itself. "
I don't know exactly how the universe created itself, or if it even did. Maybe it came from another universe, and that from another, ad infinitum. Maybe it just always existed. But I do know that a more complex being is not an explanation until its own existence is justified with evidence. We know how the universe, in all its complexity, had evolved from simplicity. And from this simplicity arose intelligent life. This simplicity can be explained to come to existence on its own based on some possible models. The universe 13.7 billion years ago was a very different place.
What level of complexity would I consider enough to prevent self-creation? An object's complexity must break the second law of thermodynamics in order to provide evidence for a supernatural origin — something that has a level of complexity such that its disorderliness (measured as entropy) was much higher at its beginning than its current state. This would imply that order was inserted by an external agent, possibly by a God. According to <a href="http://www.newton.ac.uk/webseminars/pg+ws/2005/gmr/gmrw04/1107/penrose/" rel="nofollow">cosmological measurements, our universe is more disorderly now than it was during its apparent beginning, thus satisfying the second law of thermodynamics. An external order-giver is not necessary.
"If the nature around us that exhibits the same pattern and behavior in regards to causes does not justify the rationality that at the end of a long chain of causes is that which is an uncaused cause, a source, then I don’t know what will."
Even if an uncaused cause is necessary, it does not mean that this cause cares about what humans do in bed.
"Of course you are and I do recognize your freedom to do so. I do understand your position because you are making a syllogism out of your belief that faith is against reason. "
Give me one piece of independently verifiable evidence supporting any Christian faith claim.
"In any case, for all those who wait for evidence I always ask, when do you think you will conclude that such evidence is enough, did you start off with a notion that there is none and try to support it or is it the other way around? "
I started with the notion that there is no God and looked for any evidence supporting the hypothesis that there is one. That is how logic works. The burden of proof is on positive claims. Does Vitamin C work against colds? Maybe. Let's test it on people with colds. If it works significantly better than placebos and pure chance, then Vitamin C does work against colds. You don't simply assume that it works and reconcile it with the data.
If I tell people that there is an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage that blows heatless flames, it is not the responsibility of onlookers to disprove my dragon. The amount of evidence needed to prove the existence of the dragon is proportional to the claims regarding it (fire breathing, flight, scaliness). Same goes for the Christian God (omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, having a child, sexual preference, political positions, national alliances, favorite sports teams).
"And to top it off, in almost 25 years, it has not yielded a single cure"
To repudiate your claim that "it has not yielded a single cure. I will give you just <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece" rel="nofollow">one example to show that you are lying.
Embryonic stem cell research has been stymied by religious groups since the beginning and then they shout "it doesn't even work!" Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy.
"In 2001, a nine year old boy suffering from degeneration of the brain was injected with stem cells from two aborted babies. 2 more times in 2002 and 2004, by 2005 he was diagnosed with brain tumor directly caused by the embryonic stem cell. The tumor was removed but since then has been gradually growing back"
Science doesn't work overnight and it doesn't work with certainties. Science thrives in error. It makes mistakes. Maybe the scientists were lazy or negligent. Maybe the science was incomplete and risks weren't properly confirmed. Sometimes, people die, and it is tragic. Science tries to correct those mistakes. It does not simply say, "stem cells work because we believe it does!" If it fails to bear fruit in the future, then the research is a failure. We move on.
I will not denigrate the usefulness of adult stem cells because they are obviously very important in science. But, the holy grail of adult stem cells has been always to somehow emulate embryonic potential.
"17M patients equals 4,114,000,000eggs. Ethics aside, where will we get those?"
I will simply assume that this as true to continue on. Do you honestly think that that will be the case forever? Obviously, the research will improve, if it is allowed to.
"Add to this the fact that women have also died from egg harvesting…that makes it more difficult to get donors. "
[citation needed]
I'm not denying that there is a risk. Any medical procedure has risks. It's not like donors are drugged in alleys to have their ovaries removed. They volunteered.
"You are going off tangent. My statement that you are trying to argue against is “The effects and consequences of believing in fairies and ability to fly is not the same as believing in God."
You were implying that the consequences of belief in God can result in a Mother Teresa or a Maximilian Kolbe. I showed that your statement has no implication in the question about the reality of God or the truthfulness of unpowered human flight.
"That is exactly how a religious extremist or a fundamentalist would interpret it. A perfect example of faith without reason. This is why reason is very important, fides et ratio. Reading the Summa within reason illuminates the danger that anyone imposes to others should he refuse to recognize his own separation from the communion at the moment of his disagreement. A blind faith sees a call for murder."
"I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death."
"Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general."
— Summa Theologica
What would a non-"extremist" reading of this look like? Why is fundamentalism or extremism wrong in the eyes of the orthodoxy?
"We should be thankful that the Church have taken up the defensive fight for the sanctity of marriage and family, that it protects all including those who are not Catholics, that even if these are issues that apply regardless of their Catholicity, religion or beliefs, the Church chooses to defend us all."
Should gays be thankful that they are denied hospital visitation rights by a self-declared supernatural entity? Should Parkinson's patients be thankful that their cures are decades from reality because of religious opposition? Should women who resort to back alley abortions be thankful for clinic picketers? Should AIDS babies in Africa be thankful that the Church spreads lies about condoms? If the answer is yes, why?
The "sanctity" that the Church chooses to defend is a concept based on its own dogma. There is nothing selfless or admirable about its decision to "defend us all".
I must repeat that none of the Church's atrocities repudiate their truth claims. It may very well be that Jesus Christ exists and guides the Church through the Holy Spirit to inspire his adherents to commit such acts.
"I am simply pointing out that Christians are not simply satisfied with a Creator as the origin of the universe. They must attribute specific properties to this ultimate origin so as to appear human-like — anthropomorphic — possessing sentience and capable of becoming jealous, wrathful, happy, and loving. This lovingness is integral to the Creator’s intent for creating man, and the entire universe. You could say that humans possess these God-like attributes of emotion and sentience (as opposed to God possessing human-like characters), but these are mere semantics irrelevant to the topic at hand. I can also imagine that he would be the authority on behavior (which he designed through the human brain, mental diseases and all), but as to what he believes this behavior should entail? How do Christians know this?"-Garrick
Clearly the starting point is already flawed. I can understand it though, since you are coming from the idea that the story/attributes about Christ are all made up by man, hence, "they must attribute specific properties…"; hence, "how do Christians know this?".
Our religion is based on what we believe is the revelation of whom we believe is God, from what Christ has revealed to man. That revelation, we believe, was and is being handed down from the apostles to the people of today, that's how Christians "know" what we say we know.
***
It could easily be Brahma or Allah. But, if you must know how I am able to dismiss Christianity as one more superstition, here is my reasoning. The track record of the Christian religion is abysmal. By this, I can surmise that this school of belief is fallacious. They asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe. You may plead that I am being unfair to religion by setting such a high standard, but I assure you that I am only conferring the respect due to a being such as God. If God were real and he were insecure enough to feel slighted by unbelief, I would think that the giver of human intellect would not be pleased by credulity and unreason. There is no claim greater than the claim that there is a God. The evidence for this claim must be in proportion to the glory and majesty of this supposed God. And when a certain group of people led by the Vicar of the Son of God that declares themselves to be so special as to be called the bride of the Son of God betrays a vast ignorance of the simple fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it seems enough for me to doubt their lofty assertions. -Garrick
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are free to do so as anyone else are free to choose to believe or not. In any case I must tell you, and this is with all humility and charity, that all the things you have mentioned are never considered to be questions/claims of serious nature, nor is there any merits at all, in the public square. I can only suggest to get yourself updated, bringing those up in a discussion automatically confirms, on your part, if not of ignorance, a malicious intent to discredit the Church by using tactics that are long considered to be based on misunderstanding and misconceptions; an attack that capitalizes on the mistakes of others who are supposed to live an exemplary life but have failed to do so…forgetting the simple fact that the consequences for failure to live the faith does not make the faith wrong. As much as i retreat in humble shame whenever I find myself discussing these particular topics in details and at length, for as long as there are people who still buy into this propaganda I simply cannot leave things unaddressed, everyone is deserving of the life and the truth that He offers…and if to be rejected, it has to be by His and Her true self.
***
"Results have been generally unfavorable for embryonic stem cell research, that is a fact. You may entirely be correct that embryonic stem cell research is a waste of time and money, but researches should fail on their own merit, not because of political opposition or arbitrary restrictions. Science should be allowed to make mistakes, that’s how we make progress. As for adult stem cells, its prospects are incredibly exciting and I look forward to further discoveries in this field." -Garrick
It did fail, has been failing for the last 25 years. it did on its own merit. it doesnt matter whether there is a political opposition or not, the fact that they have done the experiment, they been doing the research and experimenting on it for the last 25 years without success, it means they have done what they wanted to do and failed. the case is not as if they have some kind of restriction while experimenting on embryonic stem cells, the issue is to whether allow harvesting stem cells from embryos or not. what we are opposing to is the harvesting itself, it is not a case of what is allowable and not in embryonic stem cell research.
***
“Easily explained?”
Flaws and violence are integral to the concept of natural selection. Random mutations are mostly fatal, those that are not are mostly debilitating, those that are not may be advantageous. For the owners of the disadvantageous mutations, they are damned by blind chance to be unable to reproduce. As you can see, this is a very wasteful process. Successors must make do with their inheritance and they cannot start from scratch. They must work with whatever genes they’ve got whether it be for sickle-cell anemia or Huntington’s. This explains why the eye is inherently flawed with blood vessels covering its photosensitive cells. Any mistake that happens to survive is permanently embedded in the natural history of species on earth. How this wasteful suffering can be explained by an omnibenevolent God with unfathomable foresight is, I admit, beyond my meager human reasoning. -Garrick
May I ask, going back to my original question, how did that "easily" explained the origin of eyes, the intricacies of its design and use?
***
“In the end we still have to account for what/who was responsible for the chemicals, the proteins, the living condition on Jupiter, inside the Yellowstone Caldera, 10 meters under the Atlantic…”
"We could, and we would see that this origin is probably indifferent regarding the well-being of its products, which is evident in the violence experienced by life on Earth and the fragility of the ecological balance. Also, this origin was either very simple (non-sentient physical laws), or sentient but very lazy, given its non-intervention, letting chemicals to react on their own to give rise to humans by a fortunate sequence of chance mutation and natural selection."-Garrick
You have accounted the fragility of the ecological balance as against but dismissing the balance itself. How you arrive with "very simple origin" with the intricacy of the effect, I have to say I dont really know. Your claim of non-intervention is also questionable, how did you come up with that? Basing form your scientific requirement I would assume that you have done the deed, what scientific experimentation then have you done to arrive at such conclusion? What you are perceiving as laziness we see the natural laws at work. While you are implying as laziness could also be what He has intended so that the chemicals he "leaves" to react on their own will give rise to humans. It is clear how you are making your arguments from your unfounded conviction and trying to make everything fit rather than the other way around, with pun intended, that is not scientific at all. 🙂
Maybe what you are waiting for is an appearance of god in front of you showing you, like a magician, how instantly he can make a human appear right in front of your very eyes…of course, you are entitled to your own "requirement/standard" but to us Catholics, while we do believe that God created us we also believe that the how of it is what we count on science to discover. just as he created nature, it is only befitting that He continue to do so… through the nature that He created creating things and making things happen naturally and not "magically".
***
"And yet you cite no evidence repudiating my assumedly false accusation. Please check whether humans were created first (Genesis 1:25-27) or were animals created first (Genesis 2:4-25). Also, was man created before woman (Genesis 2:18-22) or were they created at the same time (Genesis 1:27)? It is undeniable that they are contradictory. Whether it is supposed to be literal or allegorical is another matter. Of course, in order to prevent the first story of the Bible from demolishing whatever historical claims there are after it, allegory is the only remaining recourse."-Garrick
First, it is actually inaccurate to say that there are 2 creation stories in the Bible. One fact that most people overlook is that that there were no chapter distinctions in the original book of Genesis, the numbers and chapters are modern addition for the convenience of referring and finding passages. There is only one, told twice in two different context and scope. one accounting for the creation of all (including man, both male and female as one among all the other creatures) and the other concentrating on the creation man, specifically male being first and then female.
Second, like what Pope Benedict XVI said, the account of creation in the Bible is meant to convey theological points (e.g. creation of man in the image of God; dominion of man over other creations; etc…)
Third, as i previously stated, the account of creation on Genesis 1 is presented in a way that it focuses on the creation of all creatures; Genesis 2 on the creation of man in the Garden of Eden. What Genesis 1 had narrated about the creation of all beings Genesis 2 is telling the story in detail- focusing on the creation of man specifically. Notice the change in the usage of the generic Elohim in Genesis 1 to the more personal YHWH when referring to God. Genesis 1, then, narrates the creation of man (male and female – in no specific order) and in detail from Genesis 2,which answers your question, male first and then female.
Fourth, The loss of accuracy in the translation from Hebrew to English (due to lack of english words that matches Hebrew perfectly) it looks as if the two accounts are two creation stories, thereby blurring, the difference of scope and context between the two. The Hebrew word used "toledot" has the connotation of a family history or succession that gives away the charateristic of the second account to be a "family history" of the first men in creation.
***
***
You can gather your moral fiber from the Bible’s teachings (just skip the parts about slaves, capital punishment, and ethnic cleansing) but you can do the same for Brave New World or A Midsummer Night’s Dream without worshiping Aldous Huxley or William Shakespeare.
Of course you can do so as everyone has their own intellect and freewill. Not because we can do the same to any other resources does not automatically mean we would, that it would be wise, that we would yield the same results, and that the Bible is wrong.
***
***
“If you are referring to appearances of immortal beings, you need not go far, within Catholicism, we believe in the existence of the devil and they are capable of such.”
Does this mean to say that you think that the devil appears as Krishna or Thor or Ahura Mazda to fool their followers? Forgive my presumption.
I dont know, it could be, could be not, or it could also be that they are also "delusional", who's to say with complete knowledge what they have really seen? for all we know it could be the Christian God, who knows. The point is that you implying that the manifestations that they experience, in comparison to us, cancels out the verity of our belief, is simply wrong. What they are seeing has nothing to do with the verity of our beliefs.
***
“I don’t know exactly how the universe created itself, or if it even did. Maybe it came from another universe, and that from another, ad infinitum. Maybe it just always existed. But I do know that a more complex being is not an explanation until its own existence is justified with evidence…..”- Garrick
I have yet to find the validity of “relying” on science/empirical evidence while at the same time believing that something can create itself out of nothing.
“I started with the notion that there is no God and looked for any evidence supporting the hypothesis that there is one. That is how logic works. The burden of proof is on positive claims. Does Vitamin C work against colds? Maybe. Let’s test it on people with colds. If it works significantly better than placebos and pure chance, then Vitamin C does work against colds. You don’t simply assume that it works and reconcile it with the data.” -Garrick
Your example contradicts your “logic”. The possibility of efficacy is recognized prior to the experiment, hence the reason to proceed, to do testing and then after confirm. They did not start with the notion that the vitamin does not work…not in the same way that you started with the notion that there is no God.
To proceed, spend time and effort to experiment on something that we already have a notion that will not work is not only unhealthy but dangerous and wasteful. The time and resources could have been well used/saved by giving priority to what might work than what we think will not work.
By using that as an example to support your logic, you are implying then that the scientists had a notion that vitamin c does not work …so they tested it to look for evidence that it works.
“To repudiate your claim that “it has not yielded a single cure. I will give you just one example to show that you are lying.” -Garrick
Paragraph 2 of the article you cited: “In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.”
“You were implying that the consequences of belief in God can result in a Mother Teresa or a Maximilian Kolbe. I showed that your statement has no implication in the question about the reality of God or the truthfulness of unpowered human flight.” –Garrick
I am saying that belief in God prompted from both the charitable act/s that they did. Unless there are people who have done the same out of their belief in fairies then it remains that you equating belief in God to that of fairies is wrong
“What would a non-”extremist” reading of this look like? –Garrick
Like what I previously said, it “illuminates the danger that anyone imposes to others should he refuse to recognize his own separation from the communion at the moment of his disagreement.”
Why is fundamentalism or extremism wrong in the eyes of the orthodoxy?-Garrick
Because fundamentalism and extremism disregards human reason.
“Should gays be thankful that they are denied hospital visitation rights by a self-declared supernatural entity? Should Parkinson’s patients be thankful that their cures are decades from reality because of religious opposition? Should women who resort to back alley abortions be thankful for clinic picketers? Should AIDS babies in Africa be thankful that the Church spreads lies about condoms? If the answer is yes, why?” –Garrick
My last strand of hope for an intellectual discussion within human reason has now disappeared.
"I have yet to find the validity of “relying” on science/empirical evidence while at the same time believing that something can create itself out of nothing. "
Then you have not read any of the cosmological models put forward by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Penrose, and the other physicists that I have explicitly cited.
"Your example contradicts your “logic”. The possibility of efficacy is recognized prior to the experiment, hence the reason to proceed, to do testing and then after confirm. They did not start with the notion that the vitamin does not work…not in the same way that you started with the notion that there is no God. "
The null hypothesis is the default position. That's how science works. The alternative hypothesis is either rejected or failed to be rejected based on specific observations.
Example 1
Null hypothesis: Vitamin C does not work colds
Alternative hypothesis: Vitamin C does work against colds.
Observation: Vitamin C does not work better than placebos or chance.
Conclusion: Alternative hypothesis rejected.
Example 2
Null hypothesis: there are no unicorns.
Alternative hypothesis: there are unicorns.
Observation: There is no evidence supporting the existence of unicorns.
Conclusion: The alternative hypothesis is rejected.
Replace unicorns with God and you get the idea.
Bad Example
Null hypothesis: there are no leprechauns
Alternative hypothesis: there are leprechauns
Observation: There is no evidence that absolutely disproves the existence of leprechauns.
Conclusion: Alternative hypothesis is failed to be rejected.
"To proceed, spend time and effort to experiment on something that we already have a notion that will not work is not only unhealthy but dangerous and wasteful. The time and resources could have been well used/saved by giving priority to what might work than what we think will not work."
Any conviction is never well-placed without further evidence — evidence we gather from experiment. We were once convinced that the Earth was the center of the universe and that to prove it otherwise would be both madness (i.e. unhealthy) and heresy (i.e. dangerous).
"Paragraph 2 of the article you cited: “In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.”"
I apologize that, in my hastiness and stupidity, I had linked to another article. This was what I was supposed to cite.
"I am saying that belief in God prompted from both the charitable act/s that they did. Unless there are people who have done the same out of their belief in fairies then it remains that you equating belief in God to that of fairies is wrong"
Maybe belief in fairies hasn't brought about charity (I am entirely open to the possibility that it has), but belief in aliens sure has. Does this mean that Scientology is correct? No. The actions done in the name of a belief is independent of the truthfulness of the belief. Else, you would have to concede that Buddhism is also as valid as the religion of your upbringing. You would have to concede that the martyrdom of the followers of Heaven's Gate were privy to some cosmic truth that convinced them to kill themselves. Or, you can dismiss them all as equally invalid. It is clear that charity is not evidence for truth. You would have to free all the imprisoned organized criminals who invariably donate to charity and support communities, following your non sequitur reasoning.
Religions are contradictory and only one or none of them can be true. I personally think it's more likely that none of them are true. That is, unless we find that one specific set of beliefs (e.g. those espoused by Jehova's Witnesses) appears to be distinctly favored, in terms of health or effectiveness of prayer.
I will even concede to the possibility of the truthfulness of one religion if people who are disconnected from each other were to reach exactly the same conclusions regarding the supernatural. For example, if people all around the world, having never met or heard from each other, were to independently reveal that God created the world by shattering an egg with a whisk forged from the mighty crucible of Proxima Centauri and that his favorite number is 73. That's not independently verifiable or even useful, but, it at least suggests a singular source of knowledge, which could possibly be supernatural. This situation describes none of the religions of the human species, which are either evangelical or strictly regional.
"Like what I previously said, it “illuminates the danger that anyone imposes to others should he refuse to recognize his own separation from the communion at the moment of his disagreement.”"
And this danger that is present for someone who would refuse to recognize his own separation from the communion at the moment of his disagreement is his severance from the world by death upon his surrender to secular authorities by the will of the Church.
I'm amazed by the mental gymnastics you are capable of in order to apologize for the barbarism of Thomas Aquinas. I can understand an argument that would call Aquinas' views as mistaken and deserving of repudiation from the Church (something that the Church is capable of, if we recall their forgiveness of Galileo in 1992), but to obfuscate his views to be a mild proscription against heresy is abject fraud.
"Because fundamentalism and extremism disregards human reason."
I agree with this but I will extend it to all claims devoid of evidence.
"My last strand of hope for an intellectual discussion within human reason has now disappeared."
Well, I would like to thank you for humoring my humble and misinformed reasoning, for justifying none of your claims, and for actively avoiding my direct requests for evidence.
Then you have not read any of the cosmological models put forward by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Penrose, and the other physicists that I have explicitly cited.
I have read a bit about Stephen hawking but not L.Krauss, R. Penrose, and those that you have explicitly cited. Are you implying that whatever it is that they are suggesting is valid?
I just find it hard to reconcile a strong reliance on empirical evidence and believing at the same time that something can create itself out of nothing…there is one in my childhood that i can recall resembling that ability of "creating out of nothing", it was called magic but as it turns out…well it was scientific indeed, in its ways of making it appear like so. at least in magic, there is a magician who causes the creation.
***
“The null hypothesis is the default position. That’s how science works. The alternative hypothesis is either rejected or failed to be rejected based on specific observations.” -Garrick
The null hypothesis is the default position, yes, but it is there in order to test the possibility/potential treatment/positive effect of Vitamin C. The possibility of efficacy is still recognized prior to the experiment, prior to null hypothesis.
***
“Any conviction is never well-placed without further evidence — evidence we gather from experiment. We were once convinced that the Earth was the center of the universe and that to prove it otherwise would be both madness (i.e. unhealthy) and heresy (i.e. dangerous).” –Garrick
It wouldn’t be because it was a theory that was yet to be proven.
***
“I apologize that, in my hastiness and stupidity, I had linked to another article. This was what I was supposed to cite.” –Garrick
Source of excerpts below: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080908/full/news….
The results may appear to improve the chances of restoring vision in sufferers of RP and AMD — the most common causes of blindness in developed countries, affecting millions of people. But it is far from clear just how much hope this research really offers.
"I think this approach will never work as a standard clinical therapy," says Marco Zarbin director of the Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at New Jersey Medical School, in Newark. One reason is the fact that the transplanted tissue is obtained from aborted fetuses, he says. "Even if it proves to work wonderfully, the number of patients that would need to be treated worldwide or even in the United States alone would be in the millions."
Another concern is the efficacy of the procedure. Despite 20 years of research on animals by co-authors Robert Aramant at research firm Ocular Transplantation, also in Louisville, and Magdalene Seiler at the University of California, Irvine, there is still no clear evidence that the improved vision in humans is directly due to the transplanted photoreceptor cells replacing the function of host cells within the retina.
…And despite rigorous post-operative testing, there is no evidence of this, he says, nor of any blood vessels growing to keep the graft alive.
"An alternative explanation is that the graft is releasing growth factors that are aiding the recovery of dying host photoreceptors," says MacLaren. If true, it may be simpler to introduce these growth factors instead.
Fleeting vision
In animals, there is evidence for synaptic connections forming, says Aramant, but this is difficult to establish in humans. "For now, nobody can say to what extent we have a rescue effect in humans," he says.
And there is another major issue. The improved visual acuity seems to only last for a couple of years. Six years on after her transplant, Bryant's visual acuity has now dropped down to 20/320. "There may be a time limit on how effective this might be," says Radtke. "That is a legitimate concern."
***
“Maybe belief in fairies hasn’t brought about charity (I am entirely open to the possibility that it has), but belief in aliens sure has. Does this mean that Scientology is correct? No. The actions done in the name of a belief is independent of the truthfulness of the belief. Else, you would have to concede that Buddhism is also as valid as the religion of your upbringing. You would have to concede that the martyrdom of the followers of Heaven’s Gate were privy to some cosmic truth that convinced them to kill themselves. Or, you can dismiss them all as equally invalid. It is clear that charity is not evidence for truth. You would have to free all the imprisoned organized criminals who invariably donate to charity and support communities, following your non sequitur reasoning.” -Garrick
Topic is about your claim that belief in god is the same as belief in fairies.
***
“Like what I previously said, it “illuminates the danger that anyone imposes to others should he refuse to recognize his own separation from the communion at the moment of his disagreement.”
“And this danger that is present for someone who would refuse to recognize his own separation from the communion at the moment of his disagreement is his severance from the world by death upon his surrender to secular authorities by the will of the Church.” -Garrick
The same attitude makes fundamentalists and extremists really difficult to deal with, as they will only see what they want to see.
“I’m amazed by the mental gymnastics you are capable of in order to apologize for the barbarism of Thomas Aquinas. I can understand an argument that would call Aquinas’ views as mistaken and deserving of repudiation from the Church (something that the Church is capable of, if we recall their forgiveness of Galileo in 1992), but to obfuscate his views to be a mild proscription against heresy is abject fraud.” –Garrick
Scientific that you are, you must have knowledge of evidences for such barbarism. It would be charitable to share your knowledge of such as it would be greatly considered. Were they Thomists or was it St. Thomas himself?
***
“Because fundamentalism and extremism disregards human reason.”
“I agree with this but I will extend it to all claims devoid of evidence.”-Garrick
By all means, you are free to do so but just don’t claim that you’re opinion is what we believe; or claim that we are wrong based on what you opined we believe..
"I just find it hard to reconcile a strong reliance on empirical evidence and believing at the same time that something can create itself out of nothing…there is one in my childhood that i can recall resembling that ability of "creating out of nothing", it was called magic but as it turns out…well it was scientific indeed, in its ways of making it appear like so. at least in magic, there is a magician who causes the creation."
And your magician came out of nothing. Special pleading.
I'm not saying that Hawking is absolutely correct. He might be. He might not be. I don't know. We know of particles and antiparticles in a vacuum that come into existence and annihilate themselves, all without a source. This instability of creation and destruction is built in to the fabric of space-time. And this instability could give birth to other universes. We also know that the total energy of the universe is zero, negating any need for a second law of thermodynamics violation for its origin. We're all just looking for answers and we gather evidence before we reach our conclusions.
There are so many fascinating possibilities regarding the origin of the universe. But Christians seem to be so certain about the specific details regarding the origins of the universe. Not content with the idea of a creator, this origin has to be anthropomorphic and listen to prayers. This origin has to value blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement. This origin also needs to be terribly insecure about what people think of him.
"The possibility of efficacy is still recognized prior to the experiment, prior to null hypothesis. "
Yes. And I do recognize that some people believe in God and claim religious experiences. So, with that, we can test the hypothesis, starting with the null hypothesis that there is no Christian God and the alternative hypothesis that there is one. We can test this by checking the claims regarding the Christian God such as answering prayers and the reality of demonic possession. We then apply the same reasoning to the Hindu gods and then to other gods.
"It wouldn’t be because it was a theory that was yet to be proven."
No theories are ever proven. They're only failed to be rejected. It's entirely possible that in the future, general relativity — one of the strongest theories in science — can be disproven by one observation that goes against predictions. That is, however, unlikely. But, scientists continue on observing the cosmos for any flaws in Einstein's 100 year old idea.
"And there is another major issue. The improved visual acuity seems to only last for a couple of years. Six years on after her transplant, Bryant's visual acuity has now dropped down to 20/320. "There may be a time limit on how effective this might be," says Radtke. "That is a legitimate concern." "
Stem cell research is woefully lacking in human efficacy at this stage in development exactly because of religious opposition. It has had its successes, of course, in spite of this. I can admit that embryonic stem cell research has its downsides but the worst part is that conservative Christians don't even allow the science to fail on its own merit. Let us find out that it's useless and a waste of time, then we can concede that you are right.
"Topic is about your claim that belief in god is the same as belief in fairies. "
No, it's about the equal validity of all claims without evidence. The fairy hypothesis has no evidence supporting it. You hijacked it by reasserting the non sequitur of the usefulness of religion through Mother Teresa. Then I admitted that there are no saints and martyrs in the name of fairies but there are for aliens, a belief that also has no evidence supporting it.
"The same attitude makes fundamentalists and extremists really difficult to deal with, as they will only see what they want to see. "
Well, that's what the text says. I don't support it or care for it, but it's pretty clear to me. It was also pretty clear to the inquisitors who used it as the basis for their mass murder of heretics.
"Scientific that you are, you must have knowledge of evidences for such barbarism. It would be charitable to share your knowledge of such as it would be greatly considered. Were they Thomists or was it St. Thomas himself?"
See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
Note that: "But before the end of the century, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theol., II-II:11:3 and II-II:11:4) already advocated capital punishment for heresy though it cannot be said that his arguments altogether compel conviction."
"By all means, you are free to do so but just don’t claim that you’re opinion is what we believe; or claim that we are wrong based on what you opined we believe.."
All I'm really asking for is one piece of independently verifiable evidence supporting Catholic beliefs in the afterlife, efficacy of prayer, or something else that would be incontrovertibly supernatural. Then, the Church will get 1 million more dollars in its coffers, care of James Randi.
“And your magician came out of nothing. Special pleading.” -Garrick
It is reasonable to believe in the existence of an uncaused cause rather than being creating itself out of nothing.
***
“There are so many fascinating possibilities regarding the origin of the universe. But Christians seem to be so certain about the specific details regarding the origins of the universe…” -Garrick
The detail that we have is that we believe there is a God and God is the creator of everything. The specific details, which to us would mean a question of how He created the universe, is what we believe science is for.
***
“Stem cell research is woefully lacking in human efficacy at this stage in development exactly because of religious opposition. It has had its successes, of course, in spite of this. I can admit that embryonic stem cell research has its downsides but the worst part is that conservative Christians don’t even allow the science to fail on its own merit. Let us find out that it’s useless and a waste of time, then we can concede that you are right.” –Garrick
If the failure rate and the track record of embryonic stem cell research applications in comparison to adult stem cells are not overwhelming for you, with your scientific mind based on empirical data, I can only conclude that it must be that it is not that embryonic stem cell does not work…it is because the Church is against it that is why you are for it.
***
“The same attitude makes fundamentalists and extremists really difficult to deal with, as they will only see what they want to see. ”
Well, that’s what the text says. –Garrick
Exactly.
***
Note that: “But before the end of the century, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theol., II-II:11:3 and II-II:11:4) already advocated capital punishment for heresy though it cannot be said that his arguments altogether compel conviction.” -Garrick
Context is always important. Further reading, down few paragraphs, “In forming an estimate of the Inquisition, it is necessary to distinguish clearly between principles and historical fact on the one hand, and on the other those exaggerations or rhetorical descriptions which reveal bias and an obvious determination to injure Catholicism, rather than to encourage the spirit of tolerance and further its exercise. It is also essential to note that the Inquisition, in its establishment and procedure, pertained not to the sphere of belief, but to that of discipline. The dogmatic teaching of the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice. The Church established by Christ, as a perfect society, is empowered to make laws and inflict penalties for their violation. Heresy not only violates her law but strikes at her very life, unity of belief; and from the beginning the heretic had incurred all the penalties of the ecclesiastical courts. When Christianity became the religion of the Empire, and still more when the peoples of Northern Europe became Christian nations, the close alliance of Church and State made unity of faith essential not only to the ecclesiastical organization, but also to civil society. Heresy, in consequence, was a crime which secular rulers were bound in duty to punish. It was regarded as worse than any other crime, even that of high treason; it was for society in those times what we call anarchy. Hence the severity with which heretics were treated by the secular power long before the Inquisition was established.”
***
“All I’m really asking for is one piece of independently verifiable evidence supporting Catholic beliefs in the afterlife, efficacy of prayer, or something else that would be incontrovertibly supernatural. Then, the Church will get 1 million more dollars in its coffers, care of James Randi.”-Garrick
When I look at another person, there is enough evidence, a verifiable evidence, for me to believe. The intricacy of the human brain, the human heart, muscles, eyes…the awareness that a person possesses, his thought process, even the Krebs cycle, etc are all overwhelming evidences of an intelligent designer. The same goes for the solar system, the planets, stars, galaxies, and universe. The tenets of my faith, our beliefs, the apostles, their venerated relics, the incorruptible, the life of the saints, the survival of the Church, the revelation, the person of Christ, his teachings, his wisdom, his personality, my life experiences, my own struggles, etc…I can go on and on…and they are more than enough for me but, I am sure, not to you. And that is fine because you are entitled to your own opinion. What is not acceptable and cannot go unchallenged is whenever you claim something about our faith and the Church that is not true.
"It is reasonable to believe in the existence of an uncaused cause rather than being creating itself out of nothing."
Your uncaused cause is a being that came out of nothing.
"The detail that we have is that we believe there is a God and God is the creator of everything. The specific details, which to us would mean a question of how He created the universe, is what we believe science is for."
The specific details that I referred to were things such as answering prayers and judgements against homosexuals. These are specific details ascribed to God and things Christians have convictions about.
"If the failure rate and the track record of embryonic stem cell research applications in comparison to adult stem cells are not overwhelming for you, with your scientific mind based on empirical data, I can only conclude that it must be that it is not that embryonic stem cell does not work…it is because the Church is against it that is why you are for it."
Look, allow stem cell research to proceed unimpeded. Then when we ultimately fall flat on our faces, then you can say you told us so.
"The dogmatic teaching of the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice."
I completely agree with this as I always say that the acts done in the name of a belief are independent from the truthfulness of the belief. The Inquisition does not in any way point to the falsity of Catholicism.
"Heresy, in consequence, was a crime which secular rulers were bound in duty to punish. It was regarded as worse than any other crime, even that of high treason; it was for society in those times what we call anarchy. Hence the severity with which heretics were treated by the secular power long before the Inquisition was established."
Since the Church defines the doctrine through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then they define who the heretics are, and in so doing, condemning heretics to death. They could have also defined the punishment for heresy as intense therapy or something more humane but still in line with their belief regarding the gravity of the crime. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the words of Thomas Aquinas regarding the treatment of heretics was instrumental in the widespread auto-da-fé culture of the dark ages, which was entirely my point.
"When I look at another person, there is enough evidence, a verifiable evidence, for me to believe. The intricacy of the human brain, the human heart, muscles, eyes…the awareness that a person possesses, his thought process, even the Krebs cycle, etc are all overwhelming evidences of an intelligent designer. "
Evolution by means of natural selection beautifully explains how the heart, muscles, the eyes, and even consciousness can arise from very simple chemical reactions. You can believe that God decided to create complexity through this process, but it sure makes him look like a weakling. He could have created the heart with a snap. Instead, he had to go through protozoa to create Mozart. If he had left hydrogen atoms to their own devices, it would have happened anyway. Also, the eye is a perfect example of bad design.
Cut a pinhole through a piece of card. Look at your bright computer screen through this hole and pass the hole back and forth. You will see the blood vessels covering your retina. Your brain has to constantly correct for this grievous engineering flaw.
Since evolution is a blind and experimental process of killing off creatures that are unable to adapt, genetic errors abound. A child with down syndrome is born with an extra chromosome 21. Because of this tiny error, the child is certain to face extraordinary adversity beyond what other people have to go through. We are also beginning to understand the genetic underpinnings that cause schizophrenia, alcoholism, depression, and other mental disorders. A single base mutation in human DNA such as that in sickle-cell disease diminishes life expectancy to around 40 years of age.
There are parasites that exist only to slowly eat away at the internal organs of its host. A parasitic wasp lays its eggs in a caterpillar. These eggs will hatch and eat the caterpillar from the inside as its first meal. Let us not forget the diseases that plague humanity — all products of evolution: malaria, dengue, ebola, measles, staph, tapeworms, common cold, etc.
This is awful design from a supposedly perfect creator. Or brilliant design from a wildly malevolent one.
Your line of argument also implies nothing about the character of the creator and whether he impregnated a 14 year old in Bronze Age Palestine.
"The tenets of my faith, our beliefs, the apostles, their venerated relics, the incorruptible, the person of Christ, his teachings, his wisdom, his personality, my life experiences, my own struggles"
What makes these things validate your religion but the fact that the Dalai Lama is chosen when a child recognizes toys he has never seen before not validate Buddhism? What about the martyrs of Islam? What about the piety of pilgrims going all the way to Mecca? Your beliefs are also the same ones Mormons point to when they claim that the LDS Church is the true Church. Yet Catholics and Mormons come to wildly different conclusions regarding "the person of Christ". What makes them wrong if I am to take your claims on face value? What about the people who claim to have transcended their mortal existence through Buddhist meditation? What about the persevered mummies of supposed Buddhas? What about Sathya Sai Baba, who is said to have raised the dead in our own time? What about the people who will die first before they deny the reality of their alien abductions?
It is obvious that inner conviction in subjective experience is never proof of anything. Claimants to the position of "the second coming of Jesus Christ" attest to this.
The fact that no hard evidence ever supports any particular religion is damning of their claims of being special keepers of a supernatural truth.
“Your uncaused cause is a being that came out of nothing.” -Garrick
The statement is self-contradicting. The uncaused cause for it to be that which is uncaused has to be that which is always existing, the origin of all origins. From that uncaused cause came the existence of others out of the nothingness (nothingness in the context of the caused) where only the uncaused cause exists. The uncaused cause has to be an uncaused cause.
***
“The specific details that I referred to were things such as answering prayers and judgements against homosexuals. These are specific details ascribed to God and things Christians have convictions about.”-Garrick
This is exactly what you stated: ““There are so many fascinating possibilities regarding the origin of the universe. But Christians seem to be so certain about the specific details regarding the origins of the universe…”
***
Look, allow stem cell research to proceed unimpeded. Then when we ultimately fall flat on our faces, then you can say you told us so.-Garrick
It is not about being able to tell you so, it is about the many years of its (embryonic stem cell research) failures, the thousands of embryos destroyed, the false hopes…resources and effort that could have been put to good use exploring the much-promising adult stem cell research…as empirical evidence is already pointing us towards to.
***
Evolution by means of natural selection beautifully explains how the heart, muscles, the eyes, and even consciousness can arise from very simple chemical reactions. You can believe that God decided to create complexity through this process, but it sure makes him look like a weakling. He could have created the heart with a snap. Instead, he had to go through protozoa to create Mozart. If he had left hydrogen atoms to their own devices, it would have happened anyway.-Garrick
To say "beautifully explains" is a hyperbole. In the end we still have to account for what/who was responsible for the catalyst, the materials, the condition, and the purpose upon which it could take place. That goes with the hydrogen atoms. I guess blind faith is not "only and always" a sin of the religious.
***
“Also, the eye is a perfect example of bad design. Cut a pinhole through a piece of card. Look at your bright computer screen through this hole and pass the hole back and forth. You will see the blood vessels covering your retina. Your brain has to constantly correct for this grievous engineering flaw.” -Garrick
We don’t walk around looking through a hole at a bright computer screen. You are negating the intelligent design for the “grievous engineering flaw” of an eye while dismissing the brain’s ability to correct it.
***
What makes these things validate your religion but the fact that the Dalai Lama is chosen when a child recognizes toys he has never seen before not validate Buddhism? What about the martyrs of Islam? What about the piety of pilgrims going all the way to Mecca? Your beliefs are also the same ones Mormons point to when they claim that the LDS Church is the true Church. Yet Catholics and Mormons come to wildly different conclusions regarding “the person of Christ”. What makes them wrong if I am to take your claims on face value? What about the people who claim to have transcended their mortal existence through Buddhist meditation? What about the persevered mummies of supposed Buddhas? What about Sathya Sai Baba, who is said to have raised the dead in our own time? What about the people who will die first before they deny the reality of their alien abductions?-Garrick
The personality of Christ, His claims, the things that He did, the prophesies made thousands of years before him all fulfilled in His coming, His death, resurrection, His teachings…I can go on and on. Until I can find one that contradicts what I am experiencing and learning about life and all that surrounds me I will remain a Catholic and a follower/student of the Catholic Church. The beauty of His personality, the teaching of the Church is one that is simply cannot be a product of imagination…because simply the extremity of its cohesiveness and reasonableness is that of which has to be revealed by a perfect being, no less. Not one soul that walked upon this earth, and of we know about, has come up with such other than the common people (fishermen, tax collector, etc) who have passed on what they have personally witnessed, what was revealed to them by Christ himself.
***
“It is obvious that inner conviction in subjective experience is never proof of anything.” –Garrick
It is never enough to be a proof of anything to other people, hence subjective and inner conviction. However, that doesn’t mean that what was experienced can never be real/true.
"The statement is self-contradicting. The uncaused cause for it to be that which is uncaused has to be that which is always existing, the origin of all origins. From that uncaused cause came the existence of others out of the nothingness (nothingness in the context of the caused) where only the uncaused cause exists. The uncaused cause has to be an uncaused cause.
This is exactly what you stated: ““There are so many fascinating possibilities regarding the origin of the universe. But Christians seem to be so certain about the specific details regarding the origins of the universe…”"
Let's suppose that this is true. What about this uncaused cause implies that it is anthropomorphic (i.e. man is made in the image of God)? What about this uncaused cause implies moral judgements? What about this uncaused cause makes it require worship from its creation? That is what I meant about specific details about the origins of the universe.
It's not yet known whether maybe our universe is simply the product of one other universe. Or maybe, just maybe, there was always something — something entirely natural and non-sentient that gave rise to the big bang of our universe. I honestly do not know. But what I do know is that there is nothing about the mystery of the origin of the universe that implies that it was caused by the Christian God, even if we do need an uncaused cause.
"It is not about being able to tell you so, it is about the many years of its (embryonic stem cell research) failures, the thousands of embryos destroyed, the false hopes…resources and effort that could have been put to good use exploring the much-promising adult stem cell research…as empirical evidence is already pointing us towards to."
It's also about years and years of highly controlled embryonic stem cell lines that impede proper research. Adult stem cell research is very promising research, but that is only because scientists are very resourceful in making do with what they've got. If this is what we can do with a less potent cell type, what could we do with the progenitor of all cells, embryonic stem cells? There could be so many things we might find out if embryonic stem cell research is allowed to push through without demagogues blocking research. Adult stem cells are fantastic, but what we're really doing about them is making an extra step and make them behave like embryonic stem cells. Even the so-called liberal Obama only freed up a few more embryonic stem cell lines. Maybe we'll finally discover that the Church is right once again about embryonic stem cells, if only it lets us.
"To say "beautifully explains" is a hyperbole. In the end we still have to account for what/who was responsible for the catalyst, the materials, the condition, and the purpose upon which it could take place. That goes with the hydrogen atoms. I guess blind faith is not "only and always" a sin of the religious."
You were specifically talking about the eyes and other body parts, which we know are easily explained by the flawed and violent process of evolution.
Catalyst? They're just chemicals doing their thing during 4.5 billion years of reproducible reactions (genes and their vehicles [i.e. organisms]) killing off other reproducible reactions (organisms possessing undesirable genes). There's nothing magical about this violent and unfair process. The genes that people have are products of random shuffling. From two unaffected sickle cell carrier parents, there is a 1/4 chance that they'll have a child with this fatal disease. Random and tiny genetic mutations can result in severe combined immunodeficiency. People are cursed to die through lottery all the time. Some design.
The catalysts of life are proteins, which are entirely natural. The entire concept of evolution by means of natural selection depends on the independence of life's complexity from supernatural intervention. If we find just one structure whose complexity cannot be explained through the slow and mistake-riddled process of evolution, then all of biology is plainly wrong.
Condition? Try living on Jupiter, inside the Yellowstone Caldera, or 10 meters under the Atlantic. The conditions surrounding us are largely inhospitable. Our own wonderful Earth is malevolently conspiring to wipe us all out with earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions. Our own Sun will eventually eat our planet whole. The conditions where life as we know it arose are the only places where our kind of life can arise. If it were a tad different, a different kind of life would arise, without any humans. The only reason we can ask 'Why are we here?' is because we already are here. If there were another kind of intelligent life, they would be asking the same question and they may make the same narcissistic assumption humans do that everything was made for the purpose of creating them.
Purpose? Who says there's a purpose for all these things? Is there a purpose for flesh-eating bacteria? Is there a purpose for down syndrome or malaria? It seems to me that the only real purpose of life and its complexity is to beget more life and mutate to maximize whatever food source there is. There are many many errors in genes resulting in all sorts of diseases from schizophrenia to fatal birth defects. With these, it seems to me that the creator is completely indifferent to the human condition.
Through science we see that God created the world as if he didn't exist. On their own, hydrogen atoms form from the cooling of quantum particles, allowing the strong nuclear force to overcome repulsion. On their own, stars accrete from the dust expelled by the deaths of other stars. On its own, life as we know it exists on top of the graves of all the unfit — 98% of all life ever on Earth. It is entirely possible that God may have chosen this bizarre, callous, and wasteful path. Being God, he is entirely entitled to do so. The God that used to keep the planetary orbits stable by his own hand and rain manna from heaven has been diminished to an uncaused cause.
"We don’t walk around looking through a hole at a bright computer screen. You are negating the intelligent design for the “grievous engineering flaw” of an eye while dismissing the brain’s ability to correct it. "
You may be right and God chose this to be so. But why did he do it? It seems so wasteful for such a perfect being capable of untold power. Animals whose brains were unable to properly ignore the permanent blood vessels blocking their view had to suffer because of this wonderful design. God could have easily made the eye perfect the first time, like he did in either of the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis.
"The personality of Christ, His claims, the things that He did, the prophesies made thousands of years before him all fulfilled in His coming, His death, resurrection, His teachings…I can go on and on."
What is the source of your knowledge of his personality? Your description of him is exactly how a follower of Sathya Sai Baba would describe him. What prophecies? Nostradamus made those too. How do you know he died and resurrected? We have self-described messiahs fully capable of healing the sick and raising the dead.
Without independent confirmation, there is nothing special about the beliefs of Christianity that sets it apart from those of Buddhists. If you were born in Hyderabad, you would say the same things about lord Brahma.
"Until I can find one that contradicts what I am experiencing and learning about life and all that surrounds me I will remain a Catholic and a follower/student of the Catholic Church. The beauty of His personality, the teaching of the Church is one that is simply cannot be a product of imagination…because simply the extremity of its cohesiveness and reasonableness is that of which has to be revealed by a perfect being, no less."
This forgets that a product of the Church, a supposedly divinely-inspired book is thoroughly erroneous in its historical and scientific declarations (not even touching on its moral idiosyncrasies regarding slavery and capital punishment). The traditions of the one true holy catholic and apostolic Church also step in line with this book. Are we to simply sweep these under the rug and call these mistakes "allegorical" (7-day Creation [consequently, Adam and Eve, the first sinners], flat Earth, geocentrism, Noah's Ark and the flood that killed off much of life, the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt, the existence of demons and witches, the details of the census of Quirinius as it corresponds to the birth of Jesus, etc.). It seems to me that whenever a direct dogma of the Church is fully repudiated by simple observations of nature, they either persecute the observer or backpedal from its position (or both). In so doing, they can declare themselves as "cohesive and reasonable", in retrospect. What is now left for the Church to declare authority over is whatever that cannot be observed, such as the afterlife, the existence of souls, and possible moral opinions of the creator of all.
How do we know that these revelations reflect any sort of truth? Never has our planet run out of men declaring that they possess some privileged supernatural truth. We have witnesses and followers of these men as well who have passed on their own supposed accurate accounts of the miracles they've done and still been doing.
It seems curious to me that you avoid directly addressing the beliefs of not only non-Christian religions, but non-Catholic Christian sects as well. Were they not privy to the same revealed truth as you are? How did they come to such wildly different conclusions? Why is the miraculous phenomenon of epiphany not exclusive to Catholicism? Why is it that people are healed in the names of other Gods? Why is it that people so effectively turn their lives around in the names of other Gods? Why is it that people claim to possess an unnatural warmth in the presence of their Gods?
"It is never enough to be a proof of anything to other people, hence subjective and inner conviction. However, that doesn’t mean that what was experienced can never be real/true."
It also doesn't mean that what is experienced is anything more than a psychotic episode. God exists and he likes to stay confined inside people's heads, apparently.
For such an amazing and earth-shattering truth, the existence of God seems to be entirely inconspicuous and lacking in any evidence proportional to his glory and majesty.
This is exactly what you stated: ““There are so many fascinating possibilities regarding the origin of the universe. But Christians seem to be so certain about the specific details regarding the origins of the universe…””
“Let’s suppose that this is true. What about this uncaused cause implies that it is anthropomorphic (i.e. man is made in the image of God)? What about this uncaused cause implies moral judgements? What about this uncaused cause makes it require worship from its creation? That is what I meant about specific details about the origins of the universe.”-Garrick
I dont think the term anthropomorphic is applicable. And your questions are really stretching it too far just to validate what you have previously said. In any case, suppose that you really are asking about moral judgment and worship in relation to the origin of the universe…shouldn’t the question be “if there exists a God who is the creator of everything, the designer of all, from the universe to the minute sub-atomic particles, shouldn’t he be the authority in every possible behavior/laws of his own (regardless of size) creations/design?”
***
“It’s not yet known whether maybe our universe is simply the product of one other universe. Or maybe, just maybe, there was always something — something entirely natural and non-sentient that gave rise to the big bang of our universe. I honestly do not know. But what I do know is that there is nothing about the mystery of the origin of the universe that implies that it was caused by the Christian God, even if we do need an uncaused cause.” -Garrick
You honestly do not know but sure that it is not caused by the Christian God. If i may ask, on what standard, basis, and/or knowledge of the Christian God did you have and did you use, what kind of experimentation, which particular mysteries of the origin of the universe; and what reasoning have you done and used to arrive with such conclusion that it cannot be the Christian God?
**
“It’s also about years and years of highly controlled embryonic stem cell lines that impede proper research. Adult stem cell research is very promising research, but that is only because scientists are very resourceful in making do with what they’ve got. If this is what we can do with a less potent cell type, what could we do with the progenitor of all cells, embryonic stem cells? There could be so many things we might find out if embryonic stem cell research is allowed to push through without demagogues blocking research. Adult stem cells are fantastic, but what we’re really doing about them is making an extra step and make them behave like embryonic stem cells. Even the so-called liberal Obama only freed up a few more embryonic stem cell lines. Maybe we’ll finally discover that the Church is right once again about embryonic stem cells, if only it lets us.” -Garrick
The 25 years of research was enough for me to say that it is overwhelmingly a failure.
Highly controlled, without demagogues blocking research? The issue about embryonic stem cell research is whether to allow it or not, it is not what is allowable within embryonic stem cell research.
***
“You were specifically talking about the eyes and other body parts, which we know are easily explained by the flawed and violent process of evolution.” –Garrick
Easily explained?
***
“Catalyst? They’re just chemicals doing their thing during 4.5 billion years of reproducible reactions (genes and their vehicles [i.e. organisms]) killing off other reproducible reactions (organisms possessing undesirable genes). There’s nothing magical about this violent and unfair process. The genes that people have are products of random shuffling. From two unaffected sickle cell carrier parents, there is a 1/4 chance that they’ll have a child with this fatal disease. Random and tiny genetic mutations can result in severe combined immunodeficiency. People are cursed to die through lottery all the time. Some design.
The catalysts of life are proteins, which are entirely natural. The entire concept of evolution by means of natural selection depends on the independence of life’s complexity from supernatural intervention. If we find just one structure whose complexity cannot be explained through the slow and mistake-riddled process of evolution, then all of biology is plainly wrong.
Condition? Try living on Jupiter, inside the Yellowstone Caldera, or 10 meters under the Atlantic. The conditions surrounding us are largely inhospitable. Our own wonderful Earth is malevolently conspiring to wipe us all out with earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions. Our own Sun will eventually eat our planet whole. The conditions where life as we know it arose are the only places where our kind of life can arise. If it were a tad different, a different kind of life would arise, without any humans. The only reason we can ask ‘Why are we here?’ is because we already are here. If there were another kind of intelligent life, they would be asking the same question and they may make the same narcissistic assumption humans do that everything was made for the purpose of creating them.”
Purpose? Who says there’s a purpose for all these things? Is there a purpose for flesh-eating bacteria? Is there a purpose for down syndrome or malaria? It seems to me that the only real purpose of life and its complexity is to beget more life and mutate to maximize whatever food source there is. There are many many errors in genes resulting in all sorts of diseases from schizophrenia to fatal birth defects.”-Garrick
In the end we still have to account for what/who was responsible for the chemicals, the proteins, the living condition on Jupiter, inside the Yellowstone Caldera, 10 meters under the Atlantic…
***
With these, it seems to me that the creator is completely indifferent to the human condition.” –Garrick
You have considered the negatives again to claim indifference without considering treatments.
***
“Through science we see that God created the world as if he didn’t exist.”-Garrick
Please expound.
***
“On their own, hydrogen atoms form from the cooling of quantum particles, allowing the strong nuclear force to overcome repulsion. On their own, stars accrete from the dust expelled by the deaths of other stars. On its own, life as we know it exists on top of the graves of all the unfit — 98% of all life ever on Earth. It is entirely possible that God may have chosen this bizarre, callous, and wasteful path. Being God, he is entirely entitled to do so. The God that used to keep the planetary orbits stable by his own hand and rain manna from heaven has been diminished to an uncaused cause.”-Garrick
I seriously could not tell whether you are joking or not. Where did that “diminished to an uncaused cause” come from? How does being an uncaused cause make him not responsible for the planetary orbits and the raining of manna from heaven? should it not be that the uncaused cause who caused the existence of every being responsible for all its behavior- his own design of how all his creation will behave?
***
“You may be right and God chose this to be so. But why did he do it? It seems so wasteful for such a perfect being capable of untold power. Animals whose brains were unable to properly ignore the permanent blood vessels blocking their view had to suffer because of this wonderful design. God could have easily made the eye perfect the first time, like he did in either of the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis.”-Garrick
1. two creation stories are not contradictory.
2. He created things in a way the He seemed fit for the purpose that He had in mind. It may appear as an imperfection to us now but considering the level of knowledge that we have and the technology available, who’s to say that it will remain to be as it is if it is in fact really an imperfection. The point is that while you have used that to make your claim you are dismissing what compensates for that “imperfection”.
***
What is the source of your knowledge of his personality?
The personality that anyone can know of by reading the Bible. I am quite sure that you will respond inquiring about the validity but my point has nothing to do with validity but the idea of that kind/type of personhood. Whether it is fabricated or not, the point is that there is no one who could ever thought about that kind of personality unless it was truly a witness account. In the words of Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School originally set out to disprove biblical testimonies: “the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good. It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth. The mind of man has never conceived the idea of such a character, even for his gods; nor has history or poetry shadowed it forth. The doctrines and precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God, agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either from reason or from revelation. They are strikingly adapted to the capacity of mankind, and yet are delivered with a simplicity and majesty wholly divine. He spake as never man spake. He spake with authority; yet addressed himself to the reason and the understanding of men; and he spake with wisdom, which men could neither gainsay nor resist. In his private life, he exhibits a character not merely of strict justice, but of flowing benignity. He is temperate, without austerity; his meekness and humility are signal; his patience is invincible; truth and sincerity illustrate his whole conduct; every one of his virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both wins the love of his friends, and extorts the wonder and admiration of his enemies. He is represented in very variety of situation in life, from the height of worldly grandeur, amid the acclamations of an admiring multitude, to the deepest abyss of human degradation and woe, apparently deserted of God and man. Yet everywhere he is the same; displaying a character of unearthly perfection, symmetrical in all its proportions, and encircled with splendor more than human. Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard.”
***
"Your description of him is exactly how a follower of Sathya Sai Baba would describe him." -Garrick
The prophesy of his coming and his personality is unique to him alone.
***
“What prophecies? Nostradamus made those too.”-Garrick
The prophecies about his coming, the foretelling of his birth and what he will do. Prophecies from the Jewish religion, pagans, the three magi from the east, etc…..
***
"How do you know he died and resurrected? We have self-described messiahs fully capable of healing the sick and raising the dead."-Garrick
Witness accounts.
***
“Without independent confirmation, there is nothing special about the beliefs of Christianity that sets it apart from those of Buddhists. If you were born in Hyderabad, you would say the same things about lord Brahma.”-Garrick
It is unique, its effect on people, its influence, its sound theology, its universality, the western civilization, the revelations, its survival, the person of Christ, the splitting of human history (BC and AD), etc…
It is only in Christianity that the core of everything (we) believe in is not a mere set of beliefs but a person, Jesus Christ.
***
“This forgets that a product of the Church, a supposedly divinely-inspired book is thoroughly erroneous in its historical and scientific declarations (not even touching on its moral idiosyncrasies regarding slavery and capital punishment). -Garrick
The Bible is not meant to be a history book or a science book.
***
How do we know that these revelations reflect any sort of truth? Never has our planet run out of men declaring that they possess some privileged supernatural truth. We have witnesses and followers of these men as well who have passed on their own supposed accurate accounts of the miracles they’ve done and still been doing. -Garrick
No other has the same witnesses/followers…starting with the apostles.
**
It seems curious to me that you avoid directly addressing the beliefs of not only non-Christian religions, but non-Catholic Christian sects as well. Were they not privy to the same revealed truth as you are? -Garrick
Because I am a Catholic and has been addressing what you have been claiming against the Catholic Church. If you would like to discuss the other religions we may do so but will take a lot more time for a simple reason that I am not one of them. I can speak (and we may discuss) but only within the bounds of my short affiliation and limited knowledge I gained from when I was affiliated to some of them.
***
“How did they come to such wildly different conclusions? -Garrick
In the same way that you have arrived with yours and I have with mine, we have intellect and freewill. We can will it upon ourselves to believe what we choose to believe. Whatever we Catholics believe is what we consider the truth that Christ proclaims, they have as much freedom as you and I have to reject or accept them at will.
***
“Why is the miraculous phenomenon of epiphany not exclusive to Catholicism?
If you are referring to appearances of immortal beings, you need not go far, within Catholicism, we believe in the existence of the devil and they are capable of such.
If it is about realization, the question of validity and verity comes into play.
***
“Why is it that people are healed in the names of other Gods?” -Garrick
It is rather surprising how quickly you can that, taking it as an authentic healing and use it when you are making a case against what we believe. Shouldn’t you be asking for empirical proof before claiming that people are actually healed in the names of other gods?
***
“Why is it that people so effectively turn their lives around in the names of other Gods?”-Garrick
Because they do have what we all have, intellect and freewill.
***
“Why is it that people claim to possess unnatural warmth in the presence of their Gods?”-Garrick
I don’t know. There is not enough information (what religion, who is claiming that, is the person claiming that credible enough, is the experience real, etc…) for me to answer that.
***
“For such an amazing and earth-shattering truth, the existence of God seems to be entirely inconspicuous and lacking in any evidence proportional to his glory and majesty.”-Garrick
Only if all that we have come to know about the whole universe is not evidence enough.
couldnt be more providential, here is a quote from the Holy Fathers's last Catechesis:
"To those who object that faith is nonsense, because it makes one believe something that does not fall under the experience of the senses, St. Thomas gives a very articulated answer, and recalls that this is an inconsistent doubt, because human intelligence is limited and cannot know everything. Only in the case that we could know perfectly all visible and invisible things, would it then be genuine nonsense to accept truths purely on faith. However, it is impossible to live, St. Thomas observes, without trusting the experience of others, where personal knowledge does not reach. Hence it is reasonable to have faith in God who reveals himself and in the testimony of the Apostles: they were few, simple and poor, dismayed by the Crucifixion of their Teacher; and yet many wise, noble and rich persons were converted in a short time upon listening to their preaching. It is, in fact, a historically striking phenomenon, to which with difficulty one can give any other reasonable answer, other than that of the Apostles' encounter with the Risen Lord."
"I dont think the term anthropomorphic is applicable. And your questions are really stretching it too far just to validate what you have previously said. In any case, suppose that you really are asking about moral judgment and worship in relation to the origin of the universe…shouldn’t the question be “if there exists a God who is the creator of everything, the designer of all, from the universe to the minute sub-atomic particles, shouldn’t he be the authority in every possible behavior/laws of his own (regardless of size) creations/design?”
I am simply pointing out that Christians are not simply satisfied with a Creator as the origin of the universe. They must attribute specific properties to this ultimate origin so as to appear human-like — anthropomorphic — possessing sentience and capable of becoming jealous, wrathful, happy, and loving. This lovingness is integral to the Creator's intent for creating man, and the entire universe. You could say that humans possess these God-like attributes of emotion and sentience (as opposed to God possessing human-like characters), but these are mere semantics irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I can also imagine that he would be the authority on behavior (which he designed through the human brain, mental diseases and all), but as to what he believes this behavior should entail? How do Christians know this?
"You honestly do not know but sure that it is not caused by the Christian God. If i may ask, on what standard, basis, and/or knowledge of the Christian God did you have and did you use, what kind of experimentation, which particular mysteries of the origin of the universe; and what reasoning have you done and used to arrive with such conclusion that it cannot be the Christian God? "
I was simply stating that there was no immediate implication that the Christian God is the Creator, which you could have divined with my statement ,"But what I do know is that there is nothing about the mystery of the origin of the universe that implies that it was caused by the Christian God, even if we do need an uncaused cause". It could easily be Brahma or Allah. But, if you must know how I am able to dismiss Christianity as one more superstition, here is my reasoning. The track record of the Christian religion is abysmal. By this, I can surmise that this school of belief is fallacious. They asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe. This on its own shows that Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, has no privileged contact with the Creator. Or, they are in contact with him but he is a mischievous prankster who told them that the Earth was the center of the universe. Christianity as a whole asserts the reality of demonic possession, something that has yet to be proven. Were we to have seen the cases depicted in the Bible and Tradition today, we could have easily diagnosed them as psychotic breakdowns and other mental diseases. Add to this the women burned at the stake for being accused as witches, when we full well know that today that witches are not real. Also, whatever value attributed to petitionary prayer by people is not exclusive to the Christian religion, which brings the belief into suspect.
You may plead that I am being unfair to religion by setting such a high standard, but I assure you that I am only conferring the respect due to a being such as God. If God were real and he were insecure enough to feel slighted by unbelief, I would think that the giver of human intellect would not be pleased by credulity and unreason. There is no claim greater than the claim that there is a God. The evidence for this claim must be in proportion to the glory and majesty of this supposed God. And when a certain group of people led by the Vicar of the Son of God that declares themselves to be so special as to be called the bride of the Son of God betrays a vast ignorance of the simple fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it seems enough for me to doubt their lofty assertions.
"The 25 years of research was enough for me to say that it is overwhelmingly a failure."
It is interesting to me that the low output in 25 years of a highly restricted form of research is enough to damn it, but the 2000 years of non-appearance of Jesus since he promised to return before his followers died are not enough to damn his divinity. But, I digress.
"Highly controlled, without demagogues blocking research? The issue about embryonic stem cell research is whether to allow it or not, it is not what is allowable within embryonic stem cell research."
Given their tenuous claim of souls existing at the point of conception, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to ever support embryonic stem cell research. So, I have no delusions as to believing that any argument will convince you or your Church.
Results have been generally unfavorable for embryonic stem cell research, that is a fact. You may entirely be correct that embryonic stem cell research is a waste of time and money, but researches should fail on their own merit, not because of political opposition or arbitrary restrictions. Science should be allowed to make mistakes, that's how we make progress. As for adult stem cells, its prospects are incredibly exciting and I look forward to further discoveries in this field.
"Easily explained?"
Flaws and violence are integral to the concept of natural selection. Random mutations are mostly fatal, those that are not are mostly debilitating, those that are not may be advantageous. For the owners of the disadvantageous mutations, they are damned by blind chance to be unable to reproduce. As you can see, this is a very wasteful process. Successors must make do with their inheritance and they cannot start from scratch. They must work with whatever genes they've got whether it be for sickle-cell anemia or Huntington's. This explains why the eye is inherently flawed with blood vessels covering its photosensitive cells. Any mistake that happens to survive is permanently embedded in the natural history of species on earth. How this wasteful suffering can be explained by an omnibenevolent God with unfathomable foresight is, I admit, beyond my meager human reasoning.
"In the end we still have to account for what/who was responsible for the chemicals, the proteins, the living condition on Jupiter, inside the Yellowstone Caldera, 10 meters under the Atlantic…"
We could, and we would see that this origin is probably indifferent regarding the well-being of its products, which is evident in the violence experienced by life on Earth and the fragility of the ecological balance. Also, this origin was either very simple (non-sentient physical laws), or sentient but very lazy, given its non-intervention, letting chemicals to react on their own to give rise to humans by a fortunate sequence of chance mutation and natural selection.
"You have considered the negatives again to claim indifference without considering treatments."
Whatever alleviation of suffering the divine Creator bestows upon his lowly creatures seems insufficient to my unworthy eyes. I also do not understand the point of any suffering to begin with anyway. Why does he have to allow suffering only to relieve it? And why so inadequately? God seems to love people who lose car keys but not those who are starving to death. God seems to love people who have curable diseases (even those as terrible as cancer, which are known to spontaneously heal through blind chance) and hate those who have amputated limbs.
"Please expound."
Einstein once said that the only miracle is that there are no miracles. The laws of physics appear to us, so far, never suspended. Which is to say, wherever humans have looked, there seems to be no evidence for divine intervention. So, it's either that God intervenes but perfectly in line with the laws of physics (which catastrophically emasculates the God who burned Sodom and Gomorrah down) or he doesn't intervene at all. This is what I meant by 'through science we see that God created the world as if he didn't exist.' This is all under the assumption that you do not call the laws of physics your God, because this belief entails disbelief in any and all miracles such as resurrection and virgin birth.
"I seriously could not tell whether you are joking or not. Where did that “diminished to an uncaused cause” come from? How does being an uncaused cause make him not responsible for the planetary orbits and the raining of manna from heaven? should it not be that the uncaused cause who caused the existence of every being responsible for all its behavior- his own design of how all his creation will behave?"
The uncaused cause starts off the universe. Of course we may choose to attribute the events to the first cause, but only indirectly since the Big Bang. This is not at all like the God of the Bible who was undeniable visible to the faithful as he led the Israelites to slaughter other tribes. The first cause may have produced the starting conditions that allowed for a universe such as ours (a hypothesis yet to be proven) but he doesn't seem to interfere anymore, here in our scientific age of 2010.
The current order of the universe was produced by early chaos resulting in the deaths of countless stars and destruction of countless planets, which may or may not have harbored life. That's just outside Earth. Here at home, nature is red in tooth and claw with the senseless and bloody violence of animals. This wastefulness is compatible with a malevolent God, an inept God, or a non-interventionist God, but not an all-good God with the desire to minimize suffering.
"1. two creation stories are not contradictory."
And yet you cite no evidence repudiating my assumedly false accusation.
Please check whether humans were created first (Genesis 1:25-27) or were animals created first (Genesis 2:4-25). Also, was man created before woman (Genesis 2:18-22) or were they created at the same time (Genesis 1:27)?
It is undeniable that they are contradictory. Whether it is supposed to be literal or allegorical is another matter. Of course, in order to prevent the first story of the Bible from demolishing whatever historical claims there are after it, allegory is the only remaining recourse.
"2. He created things in a way the He seemed fit for the purpose that He had in mind. It may appear as an imperfection to us now but considering the level of knowledge that we have and the technology available, who’s to say that it will remain to be as it is if it is in fact really an imperfection. The point is that while you have used that to make your claim you are dismissing what compensates for that “imperfection”."
To imply that we cannot judge genetic defects and natural disasters as imperfections necessitates that humans must also be unable to judge the perfection of God. All the while, my miserably limited intellect finds it difficult to infer any higher purpose for dengue, one of nature's most versatile creations.
"I am quite sure that you will respond inquiring about the validity but my point has nothing to do with validity but the idea of that kind/type of personhood"
This statement appears nonsensical to me because however perfect or admirable Jay Gatsby or Leopold Bloom is, there is nothing about them that compels me to organize my life around theirs and to believe that they actually existed.
"Whether it is fabricated or not, the point is that there is no one who could ever thought about that kind of personality unless it was truly a witness account."
So, you're telling me that whether they are fabricated or not, they are too perfect to be fabricated. Therefore, they must have not been fabricated.
"Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard."
False dichotomy. It is possible that they were deluded. They truly believed in their fiction and were willing to die for their delusion. This is not beyond anything people have done in our own time, as I have shown in the example of Heaven's Gate.
The saccharine ode of Greenleaf that you cited could very well apply to the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or The Fountainhead and it would not make those stories any more true. That, and his hyperbole makes him difficult to take seriously.
"The prophesy of his coming and his personality is unique to him alone."
Countless gods have been prophesied and countless men have waxed poetic about the majesty of their deities. Sathya Sai Baba himself has his own canon of tales regarding him.
Assuming that the prophecies that you failed to cite were specific (which never seems to be the case), how do you know that the story of Jesus wasn't simply rectified to follow the prophecies regarding messianic beliefs of his day? Ask any Bible scholar and he will concede that the Bible is not as perfect as people like to think. There are more discrepancies between manuscripts of Biblical texts than there are words in the New Testament. Even generously allowing the premise that the Bible is inerrant, we have a word for stories that are consistent with previously released works. They're called 'sequels.'
"The prophecies about his coming, the foretelling of his birth and what he will do. Prophecies from the Jewish religion, pagans, the three magi from the east, etc….."
He wasn't even named Emmanuel, as the famous story went. His birth story is questionable as well because the details of the census story that forced Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem are problematic. The Jews who methodically study the scriptures didn't even believe in Jesus. I suppose they just read it wrong. I will leave you to research on this on your own since I have already discussed these (regarding Quirinius).
"Witness accounts."
This is the value of accounts regarding miracles today. How much less seriously should we take hearsay from 2000 years ago?
This problem is compounded by the fact that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence. People are notoriously unreliable, earnestly believing things that never occurred. This is why science requires replicability.
"It is unique, its effect on people, its influence, its sound theology, its universality, the western civilization, the revelations, its survival, the person of Christ, the splitting of human history (BC and AD), etc…"
Christianity is definitely not unique. There are countless messianic cults throughout human history about men who were born of virgins only to die and resurrect. Christianity's effects on people are not exclusive to this religion as Hindus have been reported to levitate, Buddhists have been reported to heal cancers, and Islamic culture once flourished with such unparalleled wonder that most stars have Arabic names. It is undeniable that Western Civilization has been greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian thought. (It helps that the structure of the Church hierarchy is conducive to abuse of power.) But it is also indisputable that Greco-Roman culture is similarly ubiquitous even today. Does this mean that the Aristotelian god is the true deity? No. The pervasiveness of one belief is not proof of its validity. Every single person used to think that the Earth was flat.
"It is only in Christianity that the core of everything (we) believe in is not a mere set of beliefs but a person, Jesus Christ."
Why should this be any better than other beliefs?
"The Bible is not meant to be a history book or a science book."
And yet you believe that the Son of God actually dwelt among humans as said in the Bible. And you believe in his character as dictated in the Bible. That is simply not consistent, kind sir. It is either these events occurred in history or they did not.
As for it not being a science book, if we cannot trust the Bible to teach us anything about science, it would have been better for it to have stayed silent on the matter. Yet, it makes such outlandish claims regarding nature that are provably false. This strongly implies that the Bible is unreliable as a source of facts. If we cannot trust the Bible to tell us how we got here, why should we trust it to tell us where we will go?
You can gather your moral fiber from the Bible's teachings (just skip the parts about slaves, capital punishment, and ethnic cleansing) but you can do the same for Brave New World or A Midsummer Night's Dream without worshiping Aldous Huxley or William Shakespeare.
"No other has the same witnesses/followers…starting with the apostles."
Can you justify this statement with anything factual? Sathya Sai Baba has millions of people believing in his miracles. Why is he any more of a mountebank or lunatic than your good Jesus, if he even did exist?
"Because I am a Catholic and has been addressing what you have been claiming against the Catholic Church. If you would like to discuss the other religions we may do so but will take a lot more time for a simple reason that I am not one of them. I can speak (and we may discuss) but only within the bounds of my short affiliation and limited knowledge I gained from when I was affiliated to some of them."
I hope that it's not imprudent of me to assume that you dismiss these other religions as false as you, probably, dismiss non-belief, since only one religion can be right or none at all. Also, you said during our previous correspondence that you had considered the beliefs of other religions and had found Catholicism to be the correct one. If you cannot address the fallacy of other religions, how can you say that you are in the right one? Statistically speaking, it is incredibly unlikely that the religion of your birth and upbringing is the correct one. If you were born in Iran, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you were born in the American south, you'd be a Baptist. If you were born in the Philippines, you'd be a Catholic.
"In the same way that you have arrived with yours and I have with mine, we have intellect and freewill. We can will it upon ourselves to believe what we choose to believe. Whatever we Catholics believe is what we consider the truth that Christ proclaims, they have as much freedom as you and I have to reject or accept them at will."
How wonderful is it that Catholics happen to believe the right things about Jesus (the truth that Christ proclaims) while Quakers and Unitarians are simply mistaken?
"If you are referring to appearances of immortal beings, you need not go far, within Catholicism, we believe in the existence of the devil and they are capable of such."
Does this mean to say that you think that the devil appears as Krishna or Thor or Ahura Mazda to fool their followers? Forgive my presumption.
"It is rather surprising how quickly you can that, taking it as an authentic healing and use it when you are making a case against what we believe. Shouldn’t you be asking for empirical proof before claiming that people are actually healed in the names of other gods?"
"Because they do have what we all have, intellect and freewill."
"I don’t know. There is not enough information (what religion, who is claiming that, is the person claiming that credible enough, is the experience real, etc…) for me to answer that. "
It is fascinating to see your caution and skepticism appear with regards to the religious experiences of people of other faiths. I am simply pointing out that supposed miracles that happen to Catholics happen to people of other religions too. I am presenting that the credulity required to take Catholic claims on face value demands credulity for other religions as well.
"Only if all that we have come to know about the whole universe is not evidence enough."
Can you present any independently verifiable evidence that explicitly supports the belief in a God that actively intervenes in human affairs? Any evidence at all that is not better explained by more parsimonious theories would be appreciated. Something like: More Catholic cancer patients recover than Episcopalian cancer patients in a controlled study. Now that would be fascinating.
"However, it is impossible to live, St. Thomas observes, without trusting the experience of others, where personal knowledge does not reach. Hence it is reasonable to have faith in God who reveals himself and in the testimony of the Apostles…"
This would have been greatly agreeable had its conclusion not been so tremendously absurd.
Science is the first to admit that real objective truth can only be approximated, never reached. But this does not at all mean that you are given carte blanche to put faith in whatever you want. It only entails that one must always be skeptical and one must always be open to changing one's mind. Who knows? E might not be equal to mc^2 in 50 years.
The shape of the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Does this mean that the belief in the spherical Earth is ignorant? No. It is clear that this understanding is a better approximation of truth than the belief that the Earth is flat. The evidence clearly supports a spherical Earth more than a flat one and an oblate spheroid one more than a spherical one. The validity of claims are proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting them. To that end, just because objective truth is unattainable doesn't mean that even claims based entirely on faith are valid.
Even though human intelligence is limited, our earnest attempt to verify our knowledge based on evidence is clearly a more honest admission of weakness than haughty assertions about communication between the Risen Lord and the Vicar of Christ on Earth. The testimony of the Apostles is wildly unconvincing and I cannot understand why the pope hinges his argument on them. Insane asylums are filled to the brim by men with their own sincere faith claims. It just so happened that their claims aren't very mainstream. As I have shown before, witnesses are terribly unreliable even if they genuinely want to tell the truth. Show us some studies, pope! Surely God will grant you that!
“I am simply pointing out that Christians are not simply satisfied with a Creator as the origin of the universe. They must attribute specific properties to this ultimate origin so as to appear human-like — anthropomorphic — possessing sentience and capable of becoming jealous, wrathful, happy, and loving. This lovingness is integral to the Creator’s intent for creating man, and the entire universe. You could say that humans possess these God-like attributes of emotion and sentience (as opposed to God possessing human-like characters), but these are mere semantics irrelevant to the topic at hand. I can also imagine that he would be the authority on behavior (which he designed through the human brain, mental diseases and all), but as to what he believes this behavior should entail? How do Christians know this?”-Garrick
Clearly the starting point is already flawed. I can understand it though, since you are coming from the idea that the story/attributes about Christ are all made up by man, hence, “they must attribute specific properties…”; hence, “how do Christians know this?”.
Our religion is based on what we believe is the revelation of whom we believe is God, from what Christ has revealed to man. That revelation, we believe, was and is being handed down from the apostles to the people of today, that’s how Christians “know” what we say we know.
***
It could easily be Brahma or Allah. But, if you must know how I am able to dismiss Christianity as one more superstition, here is my reasoning. The track record of the Christian religion is abysmal. By this, I can surmise that this school of belief is fallacious. They asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe. You may plead that I am being unfair to religion by setting such a high standard, but I assure you that I am only conferring the respect due to a being such as God. If God were real and he were insecure enough to feel slighted by unbelief, I would think that the giver of human intellect would not be pleased by credulity and unreason. There is no claim greater than the claim that there is a God. The evidence for this claim must be in proportion to the glory and majesty of this supposed God. And when a certain group of people led by the Vicar of the Son of God that declares themselves to be so special as to be called the bride of the Son of God betrays a vast ignorance of the simple fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it seems enough for me to doubt their lofty assertions. -Garrick
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are free to do so as anyone else are free to choose to believe or not. In any case I must tell you, and this is with all humility and charity, that all the things you have mentioned are never considered to be questions/claims of serious nature, nor is there any merits at all, in the public square. I can only suggest to get yourself updated, bringing those up in a discussion automatically confirms, on your part, if not of ignorance, a malicious intent to discredit the Church by using tactics that are long considered to be based on misunderstanding and misconceptions; an attack that capitalizes on the mistakes of others who are supposed to live an exemplary life but have failed to do so…forgetting the simple fact that the consequences for failure to live the faith does not make the faith wrong. As much as i retreat in humble shame whenever I find myself discussing these particular topics in details and at length, for as long as there are people who still buy into this propaganda I simply cannot leave things unaddressed, everyone is deserving of the life and the truth that He offers…and if to be rejected, it has to be by His and Her true self.
***
“Results have been generally unfavorable for embryonic stem cell research, that is a fact. You may entirely be correct that embryonic stem cell research is a waste of time and money, but researches should fail on their own merit, not because of political opposition or arbitrary restrictions. Science should be allowed to make mistakes, that’s how we make progress. As for adult stem cells, its prospects are incredibly exciting and I look forward to further discoveries in this field.” -Garrick
It did fail, has been failing for the last 25 years. it did on its own merit. it doesnt matter whether there is a political opposition or not, the fact that they have done the experiment, they been doing the research and experimenting on it for the last 25 years without success, it means they have done what they wanted to do and failed. the case is not as if they have some kind of restriction while experimenting on embryonic stem cells, the issue is to whether allow harvesting stem cells from embryos or not. what we are opposing to is the harvesting itself, it is not a case of what is allowable and not in embryonic stem cell research.
***
“Easily explained?”
Flaws and violence are integral to the concept of natural selection. Random mutations are mostly fatal, those that are not are mostly debilitating, those that are not may be advantageous. For the owners of the disadvantageous mutations, they are damned by blind chance to be unable to reproduce. As you can see, this is a very wasteful process. Successors must make do with their inheritance and they cannot start from scratch. They must work with whatever genes they’ve got whether it be for sickle-cell anemia or Huntington’s. This explains why the eye is inherently flawed with blood vessels covering its photosensitive cells. Any mistake that happens to survive is permanently embedded in the natural history of species on earth. How this wasteful suffering can be explained by an omnibenevolent God with unfathomable foresight is, I admit, beyond my meager human reasoning. -Garrick
May I ask, going back to my original question, how did that “easily” explained the origin of eyes, the intricacies of its design and use?
***
“In the end we still have to account for what/who was responsible for the chemicals, the proteins, the living condition on Jupiter, inside the Yellowstone Caldera, 10 meters under the Atlantic…”
“We could, and we would see that this origin is probably indifferent regarding the well-being of its products, which is evident in the violence experienced by life on Earth and the fragility of the ecological balance. Also, this origin was either very simple (non-sentient physical laws), or sentient but very lazy, given its non-intervention, letting chemicals to react on their own to give rise to humans by a fortunate sequence of chance mutation and natural selection.”-Garrick
You have accounted the fragility of the ecological balance as against but dismissing the balance itself. How you arrive with “very simple origin” with the intricacy of the effect, I have to say I dont really know. Your claim of non-intervention is also questionable, how did you come up with that? Basing form your scientific requirement I would assume that you have done the deed, what scientific experimentation then have you done to arrive at such conclusion? What you are perceiving as laziness we see the natural laws at work. While you are implying as laziness could also be what He has intended so that the chemicals he “leaves” to react on their own will give rise to humans. It is clear how you are making your arguments from your unfounded conviction and trying to make everything fit rather than the other way around, with pun intended, that is not scientific at all. 🙂
Maybe what you are waiting for is an appearance of god in front of you showing you, like a magician, how instantly he can make a human appear right in front of your very eyes…of course, you are entitled to your own “requirement/standard” but to us Catholics, while we do believe that God created us we also believe that the how of it is what we count on science to discover. just as he created nature, it is only befitting that He continue to do so… through the nature that He created creating things and making things happen naturally and not “magically”.
***
“And yet you cite no evidence repudiating my assumedly false accusation. Please check whether humans were created first (Genesis 1:25-27) or were animals created first (Genesis 2:4-25). Also, was man created before woman (Genesis 2:18-22) or were they created at the same time (Genesis 1:27)? It is undeniable that they are contradictory. Whether it is supposed to be literal or allegorical is another matter. Of course, in order to prevent the first story of the Bible from demolishing whatever historical claims there are after it, allegory is the only remaining recourse.”-Garrick
First, it is actually inaccurate to say that there are 2 creation stories in the Bible. One fact that most people overlook is that that there were no chapter distinctions in the original book of Genesis, the numbers and chapters are modern addition for the convenience of referring and finding passages. There is only one, told twice in two different context and scope. one accounting for the creation of all (including man, both male and female as one among all the other creatures) and the other concentrating on the creation man, specifically male being first and then female.
Second, like what Pope Benedict XVI said, the account of creation in the Bible is meant to convey theological points (e.g. creation of man in the image of God; dominion of man over other creations; etc…)
Third, as i previously stated, the account of creation on Genesis 1 is presented in a way that it focuses on the creation of all creatures; Genesis 2 on the creation of man in the Garden of Eden. What Genesis 1 had narrated about the creation of all beings Genesis 2 is telling the story in detail- focusing on the creation of man specifically. Notice the change in the usage of the generic Elohim in Genesis 1 to the more personal YHWH when referring to God. Genesis 1, then, narrates the creation of man (male and female – in no specific order) and in detail from Genesis 2,which answers your question, male first and then female.
Fourth, The loss of accuracy in the translation from Hebrew to English (due to lack of english words that matches Hebrew perfectly) it looks as if the two accounts are two creation stories, thereby blurring, the difference of scope and context between the two. The Hebrew word used “toledot” has the connotation of a family history or succession that gives away the charateristic of the second account to be a “family history” of the first men in creation.
***
***
You can gather your moral fiber from the Bible’s teachings (just skip the parts about slaves, capital punishment, and ethnic cleansing) but you can do the same for Brave New World or A Midsummer Night’s Dream without worshiping Aldous Huxley or William Shakespeare.
Of course you can do so as everyone has their own intellect and freewill. Not because we can do the same to any other resources does not automatically mean we would, that it would be wise, that we would yield the same results, and that the Bible is wrong.
***
***
“If you are referring to appearances of immortal beings, you need not go far, within Catholicism, we believe in the existence of the devil and they are capable of such.”
Does this mean to say that you think that the devil appears as Krishna or Thor or Ahura Mazda to fool their followers? Forgive my presumption.
I dont know, it could be, could be not, or it could also be that they are also “delusional”, who’s to say with complete knowledge what they have really seen? for all we know it could be the Christian God, who knows. The point is that you implying that the manifestations that they experience, in comparison to us, cancels out the verity of our belief, is simply wrong. What they are seeing has nothing to do with the verity of our beliefs.
***
"Our religion is based on what we believe is the revelation of whom we believe is God, from what Christ has revealed to man. That revelation, we believe, was and is being handed down from the apostles to the people of today, that’s how Christians “know” what we say we know."
And how do you know that this "revelation" is not a fabrication?
"I can only suggest to get yourself updated, bringing those up in a discussion automatically confirms, on your part, if not of ignorance, a malicious intent to discredit the Church by using tactics that are long considered to be based on misunderstanding and misconceptions; an attack that capitalizes on the mistakes of others who are supposed to live an exemplary life but have failed to do so…forgetting the simple fact that the consequences for failure to live the faith does not make the faith wrong."
Because I am so ignorant and retrograde in my arguments, would you kindly enlighten me as to why I am wrong by citing specific flaws in my statements? I am simply too unlettered to be aware of the glaring misconceptions and misunderstandings in my questioning of the validity of Christianity and how it is any more correct than Hinduism or Islam? I am also befuddled why my accurate citation of the condemnation of Galileo where Cardinals called his views as "absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture" is so easily refuted as propaganda.
"they have done what they wanted to do and failed."
I guess I missed the article on Nature telling all the scientists to stop embryonic stem cell research and declaring it all a massive failure.
"May I ask, going back to my original question, how did that “easily” explained the origin of eyes, the intricacies of its design and use?"
Its errors in placement of blood vessels are easily explained by the principle of decent with modification. That is, organisms can only make do with what they have (dogs can't grow wheels if legs work well enough to lead to reproduction). The human eye evolved as a structure similar to the pit organ of snakes, which detects radiation in the form of heat. This sensitivity to heat was co-adapted into photosensitivity. This pit organ had the vasculature of what we have in our eyes now. It wasn't such a hindrance back then since they were only feeling. Resolving particular objects wasn't so important. Natural selection favored organisms with a more pronounced invagination because this allows for the sense of directionality. Those that were unlucky enough not to have this adaptation died off. Now we're getting something looking like the orbit of the vertebrate head. As this structure further developed, certain fortunate mutations occurred and were preserved in the organisms that survived. An example of such mutations is the lens, which focused radiation into the sensitive cells. This provided a much higher resolution for the animal to make out its environment. A similar occurrence applies for the vitreous humor. This process went on an impossibly slow pace for millions of years producing the human eye, with millions of dead myopic and blind organisms in its wake. All the while, the error of blood vessels covering sensitive cells was preserved in the natural history of our species. This back to front evolution of the eye explains why it is such an engineering mistake. Natural selection can only work with the parts given to it by the previous generation. It works well enough for us to be able to find food and to find each other to mate.
Trying to explain the eye as a product of design by an intelligent being is much harder. One would have to apologize or dismiss problems such as blind spots, myopia, and retinal tearing.
Now, of course God could choose to create the eye in the wasteful process of natural selection. He is God after all. But I question his foresight. Or, perhaps he simply likes optometrists and wants them to be able to feed their families with the money they get for prescribing glasses for God's most perfect creation.
"You have accounted the fragility of the ecological balance as against but dismissing the balance itself."
I did not dismiss the balance, but highlight how unfavorable it is for humans. The balance is so tenuous that to say that it was kept in check for the wellbeing of humans betrays a vast egocentrism. It is clear that we are simply making do with what we have. If the universe was made for us, how come we can only live in such a tiny part of it? Why is it that it conspires to kill us at every turn with tsunamis, earthquakes, solar flares, and floods? There is too much unnecessary suffering to suppose that a well-meaning Big Brother is looking out for our safety.
"Your claim of non-intervention is also questionable, how did you come up with that? Basing form your scientific requirement I would assume that you have done the deed, what scientific experimentation then have you done to arrive at such conclusion?"
Give me one piece of independently verifiable evidence supporting any supernatural event. The burden of proof is not on me. I assume the null state unless proven otherwise. I may be entirely wrong, of course. But, I would be dishonest to assert the truthfulness of one thing without presenting any evidence.
"What you are perceiving as laziness we see the natural laws at work. While you are implying as laziness could also be what He has intended so that the chemicals he “leaves” to react on their own will give rise to humans. It is clear how you are making your arguments from your unfounded conviction and trying to make everything fit rather than the other way around, with pun intended, that is not scientific at all. :)"
Oh, now that we have science, the God that brought down the non-existent walls of Jericho now works as the laws of physics. Gotcha. Of course, your assertion that God works through the laws of physics necessarily entails disbelief in miracles and prayer. Your statements are inconsistent.
"we also believe that the how of it is what we count on science to discover. just as he created nature, it is only befitting that He continue to do so… through the nature that He created creating things and making things happen naturally and not “magically”."
And what part of science has it been shown that spirits exist? What part of science proves that God exists and intervenes in every day life? You propound your adherence to science yet reject the skepticism it requires.
"First, it is actually inaccurate to say that there are 2 creation stories in the Bible."
Oh. Pardon me. That the fact that there were two conflicting timelines confused me into thinking that they were to be taken as separate accounts.
"Second, like what Pope Benedict XVI said, the account of creation in the Bible is meant to convey theological points (e.g. creation of man in the image of God; dominion of man over other creations; etc…)"
Oh, sweet sweet allegory. Don't forget original sin, which was supposed to have been made by Adam and Eve — the first humans, who never existed, if we are to understand evolutionary history.
"Fourth, The loss of accuracy in the translation from Hebrew to English (due to lack of english words that matches Hebrew perfectly) it looks as if the two accounts are two creation stories, thereby blurring, the difference of scope and context between the two. The Hebrew word used “toledot” has the connotation of a family history or succession that gives away the charateristic of the second account to be a “family history” of the first men in creation."
Wait, I thought that there was no problem in accuracy and I was simply mistaken in my understanding. As these apologies hide behind the vagueness of the Bible, I don't suppose there is one there addressing whether animals were created first or not?
"Of course you can do so as everyone has their own intellect and freewill. Not because we can do the same to any other resources does not automatically mean we would, that it would be wise, that we would yield the same results, and that the Bible is wrong."
Oh yes, of course. I was simply highlighting that you would have to look the other way when Lot offers his daughters to be gang-raped when you're browsing the Holy Book for moral instruction.
And, as I reject the abject immorality of the Bible's championing of genocide and keeping slaves with my God-given intellect and freewill, I am damning my immortal soul to be tortured forever. Thanks God! 😉
"I dont know, it could be, could be not, or it could also be that they are also “delusional”, who’s to say with complete knowledge what they have really seen? for all we know it could be the Christian God, who knows"
Of course it would be the Christian God. It couldn't possibly be that you are the one mistaken and worshipping a false idol — following the wrong rules, and eating the wrong kinds of food.
"The point is that you implying that the manifestations that they experience, in comparison to us, cancels out the verity of our belief, is simply wrong. What they are seeing has nothing to do with the verity of our beliefs."
I think I have echoed similar sentiments before. I am simply criticizing your disbelief of their miracles, which so perfectly mirror the ones of your own faith. The fact that similar phenomena such as miraculous apparitions appear in other religions, appearing in the person of wildly different gods who can't possibly be condensed into the Yahweh of Christians, brings to the fold the possibility that all religions are mistaken. If only one particular set of beliefs (e.g. Mormonism) appeared to be vindicated since time began, that would be such a strong piece of evidence for the truthfulness of that religion that it would be near impossible to deny its veracity. We find, however, that that is not the case. All religions appear to experience the same things.
I am again astonished by the glaring omission of your addressing of the beliefs of other religions with respect to your own. I am particularly curious as to your reaction to the provable falsehood of the divinity of Sathya Sai Baba, so unflinchingly asserted by his millions of adherents.
@mark: i'm trying to understand where you're coming from. the effort you took to try to explain is commendable but other readers like me are still struggling trying to understand how you could believe in something that can't and will not be allowed to be tested. all religions throughout the world only have faith to sustain belief, how then can you determine which version, if any, of the hundred of "untestable gods" out there do actually exist?
I know you may disagree, but there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with God allowing those people to be killed. Yes life is very important, God knows that – it is Him who created life, but you are forgetting that it is He who appointed death to men as well (Genesis 3:19; Hebrews 9:27). You haven't thanked Him enough for giving you life, an intelligent mind, and a beautiful world to live in, yet you complain why He took the lives of those people whom He created, where in fact, He has the very right to do so? He owns us, can't He not do what He thinks is right for us? You may think that's harsh and unjust, but let me remind you, God never sleeps, He is Omniscient and Omnipresent. Why? Were you even there in Sodom and Gomorrah for you to judge why should they be spared or not? But God? He was everywhere, He was here, since the beginning and will be forevermore.
Funny it is, when you said that I do not belong in the true Church when you do not know me personally? I am a member of the one and only true Church, the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
What right do you have to judge God's comdemnation as unjust? Do you have any idea of the whole picture here? Didn't you know that God wants all men to be saved and know the knowledge of the truth?(I Tim.2:3-4). That it is men because of their disobedience and iniquities were the one who should be blamed for this curse? Actually, God gave the people of this world a lot of chances to leave their wicked ways and return to Him. One of which is by making a law – or His Righteousness concerning sinners, that is, to join the true Church for them to be saved.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" -John 3:16
But men are hardhearted and arrogant. They refused to submit to the Righteousness of God.
I do not protest that prayer cannot be tested. What I frown upon is the WAY they test its effectiveness. I repeat, no one outside the true church should be able to test is effectiveness because God does not listen to their prayers (Isa. 59:2). And "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority" does not apply to God. You cannot apply a fallacy to someone infallible.
I trust God. I believe that He is Omnipotent and Omnipresent. If you would just be asking me, I wouldn't bother praying too. But because I trust God and He commands us to pray, I pray and at the same time follow His will.
False Analogy? I'm comparing love and prayer and not God and love. And I'm merely stating that love and prayer are both immeasurable. What you said that "love is just a chemical reaction" is not the totality of love. Instead, you just stated one of its effects. For that matter, God Himself is love (I John 4:8).
I'm sorry to say that you are waiting in vain. But I appreciate the fact you are looking for one, which means you do care, you are just one of the people blinded by the devil and is searching for light. You need an evidence? Actually it's been with us all this time.The Bible is enough of an evidence.(John 20:30-31 and 21:25; II Timothy 3:15-17). You cannot expect this evidence to pop out of a scientist, rather, what you need to look for is a true messenger, for the words of God are revealed to them and to those who listened to them and were able to understand.
**Correction** 2nd to last paragraph. (False Analogy…..)
"I'm merely stating that *the totality* of love and prayer are both immeasurable *through science*.
that's whats wrong with the pinoy mindset, a cultural dependence on supernatural providence. whatever happened to "nasa tao ang gawa, nasa diyos ang awa"? what's actually being practiced is actually the reverse: "naawa tayo sa sarili natin at iniintay natin na may gawin ang diyos"
In short, it's the pinoy dole-out mentality disguised as religious fervor?
One of the reasons I like the elections is it proves prayers do not work, even when large groups pray for the same thing. Except the INC 😉
that particular way of thinking evidently shows a misunderstanding of what prayer really is.
And what is prayer in reality, sir?
an unfavorable answer to a prayer does not prove that prayers do not work, it is simply a case of an answered prayer that is unfavorable.
for us believers, the will of God is synonymous to all that is good for our life. although we pray for things that at the moment seemed to be good, because of our inability to know all things, we pray that His will be done. the good that we pray for may not be what we needed at the moment. in the end, even the answer for our prayer is unfavorable…it is not that our prayers do not work, it is just that we are praying for something we ought not to pray for.
@Mark
So, in order for prayer to work, you must shut down your curiosity and skepticism? You just have to believe that it works for it to work? When do I clap my hands?
The blind faith that you are recommending is just not a respectable proposition. It's no different from belief in astrology or psychic readings. If God does exist, I would think that he would respect honest inquiry and the desire to hold judgment to wait for evidence as opposed to believing whatever a distorted, violent, and hateful book spews out, in blind obedience.
Prayers are how our requests made known to God (Philip. 4:6)
Many people do not know the true value of praying.
Before prayers are heard, one must not doubt (James 1:6-8) but have true faith (Mark 11:24). In order to receive, one should keep God's commandment (I Juan 3:22).
One also should not ask amiss or bad things (Sant. 4:3) which I think the reason behind politicians' prayers are not heard, because we know A LOT of them are corrupt. And most of all, they do not practice the right way of praying. Prayer must come from the heart, and not by memorizing "Hail Mary" and "The Lord's Prayer." These are just vain repetitions and not true prayers ( Matthew 6:7).
Seems like a valid enough point. We pray, but God doesn't always say yes. Let's test this hypothesis.
If prayer affects events at a statistically significant rate, then atheists must concede that prayer works. This means that focusing your intentions on an event makes it happen more than what would be inevitable due to chance. It's like flipping a coin and praying that heads turn up 80% of the time instead of 50%. This is not the case, however. What always occurs is that heads turn up 50% of the time every time and the believer justifies this as being God's will. Apparently, God's will fits perfectly within chance, which is a superficially valid point, though it betrays a humorously impotent God.
Praying over someone has been shown time and time again in study after study (by the religious Templeton Foundation) that it simply does not work and there is no evidence that praying changes anything.
Prayer is a perfect example of confirmation bias. If you pray for your loved one to have their cancer be healed and your prayer doesn't work, you will justify this as "it's just their time". If the person gets healed, you will say, "it's a miracle!", all the while ignoring the progress mankind has achieved through godless science. Your bias prevents you from reaching an honest answer. It's like flinging a barrage of arrows toward a target from 100 yards and if just one of them, among twenty million, hits the bullseye, you present this as proof that you are an expert marksman.
You seem not even open to the idea that maybe, just maybe, prayer doesn't work. Instead, you had already assumed that the answer is true and other people are just plain wrong and "misunderstand" what the concept is.
Why pray at all when God's will is obviously infallible as he is both omnipotent and omniscient? He already knows what's going to happen to you and to think that your night time meditations are going to influence to Lord of all creation seems to me entirely arrogant. If his will is going to be done anyway, then all petitionary prayer is nothing but a conceited and disingenuous public display of piety.
@ Garrick Bercero
First of all, you are wrong of accusing the Bible as a distorted, violent and hateful book when you have not understand fully the words written on it.
Secondly, you have come to the conclusion that "Prayers do not work, because the Religious Templeton Foundation through a gazillion study said it." You have never realized or do not know that these people, first of all, cannot test the effectiveness of prayer simply because THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRAY TO GOD because they do not belong to the true church/religion. Of course their prayers won't work. Prayer works because GOD and JESUS say so and they command it, for they have the authority to do so.(Luke 18:1; Matthew 21:22).
It does not mean that we question God's infallibility when we pray, actually, it's the other way around. You question God's infallibility and Omnipotence when you don't pray. Let's take your example of praying for your loved one ailing of cancer. Let's face the truth, either you pray or not, there is a chance that he/she will live and also die. But if you pray for your loved one to live, you respect God's Omnipotence and His everlasting mercy. He's omnipotent right? Don't you think He can answer your prayer? He's infallible right? Don't you think that Him, answering your prayer is wrong? But let's say he/she died. Does it mean that your prayer didn't work? Let me review to you the true essence of prayer as taught by Jesus Himself before He died on the cross in "Matthew 26:39" : "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, NOT AS I WILL, BUT AS YOU WILL." Clearly, Jesus prayed to God to spare Him from that "cup" (cup of suffering or the death on the cross)- He wants to live, just as like you want your loved one to be spared of the death from cancer – but take notice, "NOT AS I WILL, BUT AS YOU WILL." Therefore, no one has the right to say if prayers do work or not unless he has known the true essence of prayer.
Many people just cannot accept the fact that they cannot understand everything. Curiosity and skepticism isn't bad per say, but a lot of people use them in the wrong context. It is one of the limitations of science: "It cannot measure all things especially those outside the empirical." Measuring prayer through study is like measuring how much you love your sweetheart with a measuring tape. God made the whole universe immeasurable to make known to people that not everything in the world can be comprehended by man's knowledge.
The Bible preaches genocide, misogyny, and slavery. You know the Bible and you know the verses I am talking about. There's just isn't any debate about this. Moses ordered the slaughter of women and the slavery of virgins at Midian. Paul proscribed the talking of women in church and reinforced the belief that women are inferior to men as men are inferior to Jesus. Elisha cursed 42 children to be mauled to death by two bears. God killed all the innocent children of Sodom and Gomorra.
How sad is it that so many people don't see the truth as you do and don't belong to the one true church like you do? Your loving Father has condemned all of us to burn in hell and all because we were born in India and we became Hindu, or we were born in Iran and we became Muslim, or we were born in Persia and we became Zoroastrian. God is good all the time, indeed.
Prayer can be tested. That is a fact. This is because prayer has predictions. Its prediction is that the intentions of a prayer will be fulfilled if meditated upon. So, if you observe that the intentions of prayers are fulfilled, you have shown empirically that it prayer does work. The opposite case is true, however. And if the studies I cited showed that prayer worked, scientists would start praying. There just wouldn't be any rational position against prayer, if it actually worked.
If you trusted in God, you wouldn't pray and you would just accept things as they are because God is the ultimate puppet master and nothing you can say will change his mind. If you had to pray to save your loved one, then you believe that you can change God's mind in killing her with cancer — the body-corrupting disease that he invented and gave her.
Science is indeed limited but your example of measuring love is a false analogy. By putting God on the same level as love, you are demoting your own belief in a supreme being as a feeling and a chemical reaction that exists entirely in the mind, readily measurable by science.
I completely agree that not everything can be comprehended by man, but you seem to know so much about the specifics of the will of the creator of the universe. You seem to know mechanisms in the fabric of the universe, such as prayer, that no scientist has ever observed to actually happen. I am simply reserving judgment until some evidence appears in favor of God. If it appears in the Hindu religion, I will become a Hindu. But, as it stands, no evidence has been found in the 200,000 year history of humans on Earth that supports belief in God. I think a truly just and fair God will respect my caution.
If you have any arguments aside from fallacious appeals to authority and special pleading, please let me know.
PS. Is that guy in yellow actually wearing a Belmonte-Belmonte watch? they're giving away watches now???