Ask a Catholic

Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Ask a Catholic

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}



This thread is for anyone here to ask me any question about the Catholic Faith they wish to ask. Questions about the Catholic faith can be about anything from Catholic history, teachings, and/or the Bible.  I only have a few rules/guidelines.

1.     Serious questions please. Please refrain from odd or insulting questions.

2.     Questions about the Church sex scandal are fine but please see guideline 3.

3.     Please keep it civil and polite, i.e. please do not refer to the Pope as the fuhrer, a pedophile, kiddy fiddler, and etc. This also applies to the clergy in general.

4.     Stay on topic. Obviously I’ll do this myself too.

5.     Please refrain from insulting me, i.e. “Why don’t you jump off a cliff” or “do yourself a favor and kill yourself”, and etc. The screen name refers to Cliffjumper the heroic Autobot from the Transformers series and toy line. Great show, movies, and toys by the way Laughing out loud

I will try my best to be prompt and as detailed as possible. I am working on my thesis. So I may be busy sometimes.  Also I will try to answer each person’s question in the order in which I see them.

Thank you.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
We have rules/guidelines

We have rules/guidelines too.

Like, finish what you started, before you start again : http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/21013?page=4

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
"Why your god?"That is,

"Why your god?"

That is, "Why is your god the one and only god?"

"What are all other gods false?"

"Why do you believe in your god and not another god?"

If you plan on quoting the bible or some other book.. then don't bother answering.

 

 


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
I apologize. I know some

I apologize. I know some forums have rules against "zombie" threads. I also thought since this was a different topic all together I would not conflate the two issues. If a moderator wants to merge the two threads that would be good too.

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Response to

Response to digitalbeachbum:

Before I can answer the first question and the following questions. I need an answer from you. What do you understand the Catholic God to be? 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Response

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to digitalbeachbum:

Before I can answer the first question and the following questions. I need an answer from you. What do you understand the Catholic God to be? 

My opinon or view on this shouldn't matter in creating your reply.

Why is your god the one and only god? 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Cliff

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to digitalbeachbum:

Before I can answer the first question and the following questions. I need an answer from you. What do you understand the Catholic God to be? 

My opinon or view on this shouldn't matter in creating your reply.

Why is your god the one and only god? 




yes, i concur with digital. you should be able to answer regardless. if you go down the tired road of "oh, you just misunderstand our god, he's this and this and this," then the discussion quickly degenerates into arguments about god's attributes or whether or not x god lives up to the hype and the original query gets buried. i'll reiterate the question: why, objectively speaking, should we accept the claims of the catholic god, regardless of what those claims might be?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There's almost no censorship

There's almost no censorship and certainly no rules against reviving an old topic here. The topic: "It works for me!" was started September 7, 2008 - 4:51pm, and the last post was about 12 hours ago. Just don't break the law or harass anyone and you'll be fine.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Response to digitalbeachbum

Response to digitalbeachbum and iwbiek: I ask this question because God requires certain characteristics or traits (best terms I can think of at the moment) in order to be God. I have encountered many atheists who see God merely as Superman or a super-duper human, which He is not. Thus, I like to know where you are coming from when you ask for proof of God. If I ask for proof of evolution, and I think evolution means I evolved from monkeys in a billion trillion years then I doubt scientific evidence or any evidence would be helpful. We are not even on the same "footing" so diving right in creates confusion. God must be supernatural, infinite, immaterial, and omnipotent. There are other qualities/traits to God but these are the main ones. God must have these traits for several reasons. Number one, is that if God is just material and temporal he/she is just a finite being with no ability to create finity or the universe (universe here is defined in general as space, time, and the whole natural universe). I think we can all at least agree that this is a basic concept of God. Second, God must be infinite, omnipotent, and etc because something greater cannot come from something lesser. In other words you cannot have finity creating finity. Finite things can certainly bring forth more finite things with aid, but it cannot bring forth infinity or finity. Third, if this God is infinite, he/she cannot be material, because something material is by definition confined, limited, or finite. Obviously there are more reasons. These are just a few to demonstrate that only Yahw-h has these traits. Thus, only the "catholic" God, or just God is the one true God. The other gods like, Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Ganesh, etc are all finite "super heroes" not God. Polytheism itself does not permit anything like God just meta-humans to use a Marvel term.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Respsonse to Vastet:Again

Respsonse to Vastet:

Again I apologize. I am more then willing to merge the discussion to that thread.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There's no reason to

There's no reason to apologise and no significant reason to merge the threads in my view. I'll look into it if you want but it'd be a slight hassle due to my procrastinatic nature.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
 To follow up to your

 To follow up to your response to Digitalbeachbum's post, how does that response rule out the Muslim god, the non-Catholic Christian god, or the Judaic god? One might call them all the same god, however to go deeper into digitalbeachbum's question, how is it that you have concluded that your interpretation of that god's nature is correct where the others are not?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote: blah

Cliff Jumper wrote:

blah blah blah...

Troll.

Bandwidth is valuable and you are wasting it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What makes you think "all

What makes you think "all this" needs a super cognition to cause it? Do you know what infinite regress is? Why do you feel the need to incert any god at all, much less yours?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Careful! At one point or another all traditions fail us all,

 



  re :: Careful!! At one point or another all traditions fail us all

   > Cliff Jumper (and especially lurkers, too)
 

 



WhiteHeart (band) "Jerusalem"

♪ Jerusalem, you set the world on fire

 Jerusalem, city of desire

 We’re watching you

 

 What will you do

 Oh Jerusalem

 Jerusalem, the prophets call your name

 Jerusalem, but THEY CALL OUT IN VAIN

 ‘cause you don’t hear

 How many tears must fall, Jerusalem

 

♪ Jerusalem, you are the wailing wall

 Jerusalem, you break the hearts

 Of all who dreams for you

What can we do

Oh Jerusalem

 Jerusalem, the prophets call your name

 Jerusalem, but THEY CALL OUT IN VAIN

 ‘cause you don’t hear

 How many tears must fall, Jerusalem

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:


 . . only the "catholic" God . . . 


   In the 'Battle for the Bible' John Hus and maybe John Wycliffe were "burned at the stake". Do think it was the will of "God", the Catholic god, as you put it  to burn these men at the stake, given the Magisterium of the church along w/ Roman Catholic papal Infallibility ?    John Wycliffe they succeeded at sentencing him to the stake, I know.  And for what ? 

 Joshua Ch 5 --

 13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked , and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our foes, the adversary? 14a And he said , No! Neither; but as the captain of the host of the LORD

  p.s.  -- Unpredictable (well, almost) :~

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
To-the limited presumptuous NOT understanding symbolic language

 To-the limited presumptuous NOT understanding symbolic language

   Regarding::  Images choices on this site

  Addendum  --  Supplemental addendum

 When unexpected tragedy strikes, SUPPORT and TRUST are all the more important. "Children" have to grow up sometimes way too fast these days, and shoulder responsibilities generations back they may have not had to have but enought generations and it was another story.
 One sad thought I had while doing this is that we often say children grow up too fast, but maybe they never get the chance to grow up at all — to take the necessary interim steps in order to feel independent, in order to manage risk, in order to manage sadness. I love the close relationship I had with a couple of friends back when we were children. This is going to be a fine line we all try to walk without having a suffocating or stifling relationship with others we hold close,.

 

===============================================================================================

 Reminder  ..  As in a general reminder to the most small minded / narcissistic  on and off the site

Dis·re·spect·ful ˌdisriˈspektfəl/
  adjective 
 adjective:  disrespectful
 showing a lack of respect or courtesy; impolite.

 



 -----

  Still,  I will be there . . Still  I have come to give you a future and a hope

 

  F i n


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1516
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well.OK

First of all to understand your territory/Habitat, Define Christianity.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Who is this addressed to, always the question of the hour

  Re::  Who is this addressed to, always the question of the hour

  Well Ok!  Old-Seer   Hi  Smiling  (smile)

 

  Please address this to someone the OP for example

 

  p.s. --

  p.s.  -- Cliff-Jumper is a  Roman  Catholic, you may have heard of them (lol).
 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1516
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: 

danatemporary wrote:

  Re::  Who is this addressed to, always the question of the hour

  Well Ok!  Old-Seer   Hi  Smiling  (smile)

 

  Please address this to someone the OP for example

 

  p.s. --

  p.s.  -- Cliff-Jumper is a  Roman  Catholic, you may have heard of them (lol).
 

To the OP, and without ill intent. I understand him/her/etc very well.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: To-the

danatemporary wrote:

 To-the limited presumptuous NOT understanding symbolic language

   Regarding::  Images choices on this site

  Addendum  --  Supplemental addendum

 When unexpected tragedy strikes, SUPPORT and TRUST are all the more important. "Children" have to grow up sometimes way too fast these days, and shoulder responsibilities generations back they may have not had to have but enought generations and it was another story.
 One sad thought I had while doing this is that we often say children grow up too fast, but maybe they never get the chance to grow up at all — to take the necessary interim steps in order to feel independent, in order to manage risk, in order to manage sadness. I love the close relationship I had with a couple of friends back when we were children. This is going to be a fine line we all try to walk without having a suffocating or stifling relationship with others we hold close,.

 

===============================================================================================

 Reminder  ..  As in a general reminder to the most small minded / narcissistic  on and off the site

Dis·re·spect·ful ˌdisriˈspektfəl/
  adjective 
 adjective:  disrespectful
 showing a lack of respect or courtesy; impolite.

 



 -----

  Still,  I will be there . . Still  I have come to give you a future and a hope

 

  F i n

 

You represent the last shred of entertainment this site has to offer.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You haven't been reading

You haven't been reading brians posts lately have you?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
An essential ingredient in therapy .. SHOWING UP !!

 Re :: We're all headed to therapy

   Yeah,  We're all headed to therapy

 

  View Image ::

 

 ---


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Response to

Response to Jabberwocky:

First we'll deal with Allah, the Muslim God. The short and sweet of it is that if Allah is God (infinite, omnipotent, immaterial...) then he must meet all these criteria. Allah does not. Let's look at just one example. Allah accrording to the Koran and all Islamic theology and tradition states that Allah is not absolute on his actions and teachings. Allah, according to these same beliefs is perfect. So we have a logical and philosophical inconsistency here. Allah is perfect and everything he says and does is perfect. Yet, nothing he says and does is absolute, it can be changed either by Allah or by Satan. This is not perfection, omnipotence, and etc it is evidence of a imperfect and limited being. 

I am not sure what you mean by " the non-Catholic Christian god." Are you saying that Catholicism is not Christian? Or are you asking about the Protestant Christian denominations? There is no conflict in the Christian understanding and belief in God. Disputes arise in what something means in the Bible. There are several reasons for this.

Judaism and Christianity both believe in Yahw-h. There is no difference here. The main difference (there are others) between Judaism and Christianity is the acceptance/non-acceptance of the divinty of Jesus Christ. Judaism and Protestants share in the Faith of the One True God but they lack the fullness of the Truth of God. For Jews this generally means the disbelief of Christ's divinity and the fullfillment of His Covenant through the Catholic Church. For Protestants its the disagreement on the Catholic Church being the only Church established by Jesus Christ.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Response to Brian37:Simply

Response to Brian37:

Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is.  I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Response to

Response to danatemporary:

And the point of your posts are what exactly? Can you clearly state your point(s), please? No offense but with all the other posts around it is jumbled and disjointed.

 

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:First of all

Old Seer wrote:

First of all to understand your territory/Habitat, Define Christianity.

Response to Old Seer

Christianity is Catholicism. In other words the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I beg to differ

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to danatemporary:

And the point of your posts are what exactly? Can you clearly state your point(s), please? No offense but with all the other posts around it is jumbled and disjointed.

   I beg to differ,  Just a moment junior,   if one compared each of the diverse and various ''messages'' I've sent, as if to  run a human algorithm through them; it makes for a  meaningful relationships between each which are gradually established across from thread to thread.  What you dont understand and are the 'victim' of is your types come and go,  we all live here  (lol).  It can’t happen without it, sorry for the bad impression it leaves to some. However,  the Joshua passage is self-explicit (both on-and-off site)

 




 Unrelated to this thread (wow that's like a first for me, Lol)

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Judaism

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Judaism and Christianity both believe in Yahw-h. There is no difference here.

 

   Wrong.  There is no concept of a trinitarian God in Judaism.   Same for Islam.    Only Christianity makes that claim.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The main difference (there are others) between Judaism and Christianity is the acceptance/non-acceptance of the divinty of Jesus Christ.

 

   The Jewish concept of the Messiah is that he will be a mortal man, not God incarnate.   Of course Jews don't accept Jesus as the divine "Son" of God.  In Judaism God has no son  ...nor is their a "Holy Spirit".  Remember, no Trinity in Judaism ?

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Judaism and Protestants share in the Faith of the One True God but they lack the fullness of the Truth of God.

 

    No, Jews reject Christianity because the doctrines of both Catholics and Protestants is in complete disagreement with the claims of Judaism.

 

   A )  God is a singular god who does not exist in three persons

   B )  The messiah of Judaism, when he comes, will not be God incarnate.   He will be a mortal.  

   C )  He will not be a sacrifice but will reign on Earth as God's emissary and bring peace upon the Earth

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
For Jews this generally means the disbelief of Christ's divinity and the fullfillment of His Covenant through the Catholic Church.

 

      "For Jews" this used to mean any Catholics they met were wearing chain mail and were likely pursuing them with swords drawn.  To Catholics the Jews were "Christ Killers."

 

 

  

Cliff Jumper wrote:
For Protestants its the disagreement on the Catholic Church being the only Church established by Jesus Christ.

 

         They frequently debated these differences on the battlefield....

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Simply

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started.

The one doesn't necessarily imply the other. And we don't actually know that all existence is finite anyway.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
because nothing greater comes from something lesser.

Evolution has proved that to be false. As has astronomy. A star and planets come from a ball of gas. The eye which can see so much originally was nothing more than light detecting cells. There are a great many examples of something greater coming from something lesser.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The only thing greater than finity is infinity.

There are two problems with this. First being that we don't actually know that infinity even exists. Second being that a greater finity would be sufficient, infinity is a leap of logic. If an infinite being can exist then infinite regression is equally plausible. Once you start using infinity in an argument, anything goes.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser.

Here you assume intelligence is greater than non-intelligence. You also assume intelligence is necessary for 'creation'. Neither of these concepts are proven.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h.

And here the ultimate conundrum occurs. If god is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresesent, and god created the universe, then god is the epitome of evil. That god is personally, willfully, responsible for everything that ever happened or ever will happen. For every creature that ever lived and died, and every action that every creature took. For life and death itself, for suffering and pain as well as the pleasure and comfort that most theists focus on. It knew it all before it ever did anything, and it did it all anyway.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
all these arguments go out

all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Response

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to Brian37:

Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is.  I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h. 

Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to cause it? Does lightening need Thor to cause it?

I know it may make you feel good to want a god, but no. There never has been or ever will be such a thing. God/s are products of human immagination, yours included.

BTW you really want to claim a god that allows 50 million deaths per year worldwide?

 

Oh and I am sure you are aware that El, Elohim and Yahweh are all names plucked from the divine family of the Canaanite pantheon, right?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Response

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to Jabberwocky:

First we'll deal with Allah, the Muslim God. The short and sweet of it is that if Allah is God (infinite, omnipotent, immaterial...) then he must meet all these criteria. Allah does not. Let's look at just one example. Allah accrording to the Koran and all Islamic theology and tradition states that Allah is not absolute on his actions and teachings. Allah, according to these same beliefs is perfect. So we have a logical and philosophical inconsistency here. Allah is perfect and everything he says and does is perfect. Yet, nothing he says and does is absolute, it can be changed either by Allah or by Satan. This is not perfection, omnipotence, and etc it is evidence of a imperfect and limited being. 

Your god, Yahweh, is also not omnipotent. Judges 1:19:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Of course Judges 4:13-16 shows god taking out 900 iron chariots. However that simply shows that the bible is incoherent. Also, the very beginning of your book has god creating a perfect world and perfect humans. 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by " the non-Catholic Christian god." Are you saying that Catholicism is not Christian? Or are you asking about the Protestant Christian denominations? There is no conflict in the Christian understanding and belief in God. Disputes arise in what something means in the Bible. There are several reasons for this.

Judaism and Christianity both believe in Yahw-h. There is no difference here. The main difference (there are others) between Judaism and Christianity is the acceptance/non-acceptance of the divinty of Jesus Christ. Judaism and Protestants share in the Faith of the One True God but they lack the fullness of the Truth of God. For Jews this generally means the disbelief of Christ's divinity and the fullfillment of His Covenant through the Catholic Church. For Protestants its the disagreement on the Catholic Church being the only Church established by Jesus Christ.

I know the theological differences between these religions. What you stated was that all of the other gods (Thor, Zeus, etc.) are wrong because they're more like superheroes that live in the sky and are talked about as if they were material, rather than your immaterial god. In that sense, how do you know that you're right as a Catholic, and the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and the Mormons are wrong? You failed to answer the question. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Cliff

danatemporary wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to danatemporary:

And the point of your posts are what exactly? Can you clearly state your point(s), please? No offense but with all the other posts around it is jumbled and disjointed.

   I beg to differ,  Just a moment junior,   if one compared each of the diverse and various ''messages'' I've sent, as if to  run a human algorithm through them; it makes for a  meaningful relationships between each which are gradually established across from thread to thread.  What you dont understand and are the 'victim' of is your types come and go,  we all live here  (lol).  It can’t happen without it, sorry for the bad impression it leaves to some. However,  the Joshua passage is self-explicit (both on-and-off site)

 




 Unrelated to this thread (wow that's like a first for me, Lol)

 

 

 

Okay... So if I'm understanding your out of context bilbical quotation and cut and paste response you are saying the following: This is your holy ground (so to speak) and I'm a little temporary nuisance that should go away or be pushed off? Correct me if I'm wrong. It is difficult to understand what your point(s) is/are when you just cut and paste song lyrics and out of context biblical verses.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Cliff

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Judaism and Christianity both believe in Yahw-h. There is no difference here.

 

   Wrong.  There is no concept of a trinitarian God in Judaism.   Same for Islam.    Only Christianity makes that claim.

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The main difference (there are others) between Judaism and Christianity is the acceptance/non-acceptance of the divinty of Jesus Christ.

 

   The Jewish concept of the Messiah is that he will be a mortal man, not God incarnate.   Of course Jews don't accept Jesus as the divine "Son" of God.  In Judaism God has no son  ...nor is their a "Holy Spirit".  Remember, no Trinity in Judaism ?

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Judaism and Protestants share in the Faith of the One True God but they lack the fullness of the Truth of God.

 

    No, Jews reject Christianity because the doctrines of both Catholics and Protestants is in complete disagreement with the claims of Judaism.

 

   A )  God is a singular god who does not exist in three persons

   B )  The messiah of Judaism, when he comes, will not be God incarnate.   He will be a mortal.  

   C )  He will not be a sacrifice but will reign on Earth as God's emissary and bring peace upon the Earth

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
For Jews this generally means the disbelief of Christ's divinity and the fullfillment of His Covenant through the Catholic Church.

 

      "For Jews" this used to mean any Catholics they met were wearing chain mail and were likely pursuing them with swords drawn.  To Catholics the Jews were "Christ Killers."

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
For Protestants its the disagreement on the Catholic Church being the only Church established by Jesus Christ.

 

         They frequently debated these differences on the battlefield....

 

 

 

Notice I said Yaw-h, God the Father, the first person of the Holy Trinity. I never said the Hebrews believed in the Holy Trinity. I also said, "Judaism and Protestants share in the Faith of the One True God but they lack the fullness of the Truth of God." This fullness of Truth pertains to numerous things the Holy Trinity being one of them. However, both Judaism and Protestantism accept that God, Yahw-h, is omnipotent, omnipresent, immaterial, and infinte God.

 

Okay so we agree that the Jews do not believe Jesus is the Christ or the Holy Trinity. I never made that claim. I said they believed in God the Father, Yahw-h, and the characteristics I listed about Him. Again as I said they do not share in the fullness of the Truth of God.

 

Again we agree that the Jews differ on the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinty of Christ. I never said they agreed with this.

 

The Catholic Church never did this. Please cite one sepcific example of this.

 

Again the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, never warred with Protestants. Nations did generally in response to a Protestant attack, but not the Magisterium. Also again we agree Protastantism differs from Catholicism in some ways.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Ex Cathedra
  1. Do you believe in papal infallibility?  If so...
    • Why did god not advise better the last two popes (Wojtyła and Ratzinger) in regard to priestly sex abuse?  By any standard, their handling of those crimes was quite fallible.
  2. Do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation? If so...
    • Why would clergy with the magical ability to convert pieces of bread into the body of christ need to collect money from their parishoners?
  3. If Mary was assumed directly into heaven, does that mean she still has her earthly body, while everyone else in heaven does not?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Cliff Jumper

Vastet wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started.
The one doesn't necessarily imply the other. And we don't actually know that all existence is finite anyway.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
because nothing greater comes from something lesser.
Evolution has proved that to be false. As has astronomy. A star and planets come from a ball of gas. The eye which can see so much originally was nothing more than light detecting cells. There are a great many examples of something greater coming from something lesser.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
The only thing greater than finity is infinity.
There are two problems with this. First being that we don't actually know that infinity even exists. Second being that a greater finity would be sufficient, infinity is a leap of logic. If an infinite being can exist then infinite regression is equally plausible. Once you start using infinity in an argument, anything goes.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser.
Here you assume intelligence is greater than non-intelligence. You also assume intelligence is necessary for 'creation'. Neither of these concepts are proven.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h.
And here the ultimate conundrum occurs. If god is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresesent, and god created the universe, then god is the epitome of evil. That god is personally, willfully, responsible for everything that ever happened or ever will happen. For every creature that ever lived and died, and every action that every creature took. For life and death itself, for suffering and pain as well as the pleasure and comfort that most theists focus on. It knew it all before it ever did anything, and it did it all anyway.

 

Are you saying that something finite does not require a beginning when you say, "The one doesn't necessarily imply the other"?  All of this universe is finite. There is an eternal existence, Heaven and Hell but they are not part of this finite universe. 

 

Evolution and astronomy have proved no such thing. They have proven that a material thing or things can become another material thing or things. Evolution and astronomy have never shown a material thing creating infinity or finity.

 

We know infinity exists from logic and mathematics. To quote Carl Sagan, "There's no largest number. If anybody gives you a candidate largest number you can always just add the number one to it." What is greater finity? There is no such thing. Even if there was then it is still finite. So where did it come from? A greater finity? Infinite regression again. Infinite regression is not a plausible explanation as it explains nothing, hence it is a fallacy. Using infinity in an argument illogically may allow anything to go. In this case it does not. It is a logical and sound conclusion to make in the matter of the creation of finity. It is simply a fact that a finite thing has a beginning. So something without a beginning, infinite, had to bring about finity. Infinity has no beginning as it is infinite, always is.

 

Is there a case where non-intelligence is greate than intelligence. I have never seen, read, or heard one. I doubt it exists as it violates natural law. There is no case where something non-intelligent created something intelligent.

Intelligence is necessary when the creation contains intelligence as I said. Are you saying science has now disproven that there are intelligent beings on this planet? Again I have not read, heard, or seen this. I have read, heard, and seen numerous peer-reviewed articles about the existence of intelligence though.

 

So if I'm in a hot air balloon floating over a city, town, what have you, and I see two cars about to collide and then collide I made them crash into each other? I knew it was going to happen before it happened. So by your logic I caused the accident. I did not design that situation, nor did I want it. In fact an entire system exists to keep that from happening. The same goes for God. He created everything perfect. We sinned, brought death into the world. In short we messed up God's perfect creation. In turn God at the start set up a perfect system to offer salvation to all of us. You cannot blame God for the actions of man simply because He knew what would happen. Just as you cannot blame me in the hot air balloon for the car accident.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:all these

iwbiek wrote:
all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.

No empirical reason. Okay. I was not aware science and reason had disproven these things. Can you name a specific empirical example that disproves theses "axioms"? I'd love to see it, because if it existed science sure would cease to function as it kinda relies on the cause and effect thing.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote: Notice

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

Notice I said Yaw-h, God the Father, the first person of the Holy Trinity. I never said the Hebrews believed in the Holy Trinity.

 

  Actually when referring to the gods of Christanity and Judaism you stated " There is no difference here " when in reality the differences are so profound that Jews reject the Christian God outright.  Similar attributes between gods do not make gods identical.  You and and I are both human beings and therefore share similar attributes but we are not the same person nor do we share a combined identity. We are not interchangeable based upon a few shared traits, neither are gods.

 

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The Catholic Church never did this. Please cite one sepcific example of this.

 

   Referring to Catholic persecution of Jews which you inexplicably deny.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Age_of_Crusade

 "Encouraged by the Church, the People's Crusade prompted Rhineland massacres and the murder of thousands of Jews.  In the late 19'th Century this episode was used by Jewish historians to support Zionism."

 

"The First Crusade ignited a long tradition of organized violence against Jews in European culture."

 

"When the French Crusaders crossed into Germany in 1096, units of Crusaders massacred hundreds of thousands of Jews in the cities of Speyer, Worms, Mainz and Cologne, despite the efforts by Catholics bishops to protect the Jews.  Major leaders included Emicho and Peter the Hermit.  Chazan says "the range of anti-Jewish activity was broad, extending from limited, spontaneous violence to full-scale military attacks on the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne."  This was the first major outbreak of anti-Jewish violence in Christian Europe..."

 

 

 "Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem from the invading Franks. On 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city.  They proceeded to massacre the remaing Jewish and Muslim civilains and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself.  As a result of the First Crusade, the four main Crusader states were created: the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

 On a popular level, the preaching of the First Crusade unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacre of the Jews that accompanied and preceded the movement of the crusaders through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of the "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east."

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek

Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.

No empirical reason. Okay. I was not aware science and reason had disproven these things. Can you name a specific empirical example that disproves theses "axioms"? I'd love to see it, because if it existed science sure would cease to function as it kinda relies on the cause and effect thing.




no, no, no. basic logic tells us that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. it's not up to me to disprove your axioms. it's up to you to prove them. if you can't, just be a good lad and say, "i can't." no shame in your game. as for cause and effect, no, science does not depend on cause and effect. science depends on empirical observation: this and nothing more. one of the pillars of science is the idea that, yes, the universe can at any time just say, "fuck it," and start behaving differently. but until that happens, we rely on the best (i.e. most predictive) information we have. "cause and effect" are terms relative to our perception and inference.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
It's hard not to feel under siege . . .

Quote:
I'm a little temporary nuisance that should go away or be pushed off?

  Single minded determination can be a blessing and a curse (I know).   For you, It's hard not to feel under siege

  Try real hard to check the attitude at the door. Again, I understand it's hard not to feel under siege. Here's an axiom (kidding) If it isn't personal, then refuse to take it personally, K? I am not seeing the necessary signs that indicate to me  you are any different from any of the others who proceeded you (hence the word 'type'),. Btw, That is reading into and twisting into my words meanings that were never meant.  I was informing you, this site has a vibrant community, with our cast of players. If you are new, you are still feeling your way.  Most people who come to this site make all the same errors, I can infer from your comments you are here to do one thing and one thing only. You have yet to show interest in anything other than watching your own thread, for instance. In this cast, This is why any actions you take or decisions you make during the retrograde PHRASE often fail or seem sabotaged BECAUSE of you being unaware of this all too common  'wrong approach'. Look! Until I see otherwise, I will work off the same assumptions with you as with dozens of others before you.  Sorry  if you feel that is unfair of me. I generally deeply dislike it when people try to pigeonhole me, personally. Sorry, If I am doing that very thing with you, unfairly.

 

  p.s. -- I am a little under the weather, so am off to my Natural Food Co-Op to get some herbs. No one is rejecting you nor is has anyone ever been trying to make you feel unwelcome.

 

 ---

        A man who has friends must he himself be friendly

  Prov. 18 24a --  .. A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Are you

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Are you saying that something finite does not require a beginning when you say, "The one doesn't necessarily imply the other"?  All of this universe is finite. There is an eternal existence, Heaven and Hell but they are not part of this finite universe.

And on what grounds do you claim it must have been created? Do you have a few examples of universes that you created in your pocket?
Noone knows anything about what happened or didn't happen before the big bang. Noone can ever know. The best anyone can do is recreate the beginning, but even that would only prove that it could have happened that way. It wouldn't prove it did.
Also, there is no conclusive evidence that the universe is finite. The event of the big bang overshadowed anything that was before, if there was anything. Just because we can't see beyond the results of the big bang event doesn't mean there isn't anything beyond.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Evolution and astronomy have proved no such thing. They have proven that a material thing or things can become another material thing or things. Evolution and astronomy have never shown a material thing creating infinity or finity.

Now you're completely redefining your terminology. Are you saying that a star is neither finite nor infinite? What is it then?
And a material becoming a different material is a prerequisite for something becoming greater. Or lesser for that matter.
Evolution and astronomy have in fact proven that something can become something greater.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
We know infinity exists from logic and mathematics.

No. Logic and mathematics only prove the concept of infinity, not its actual existence.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
"There's no largest number. If anybody gives you a candidate largest number you can always just add the number one to it." What is greater finity? There is no such thing. Even if there was then it is still finite.

Numbers are concepts. You can show me four of something, but you can't show me four itself. So the fact that there is no largest number is irrelevant to whether or not infinity exists.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Infinite regression is not a plausible explanation as it explains nothing, hence it is a fallacy.

An infinite being explains nothing either. Using infinity at all, in any context, is a fallacy. Infinite regression is just as plausible as an infinite being.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
It is simply a fact that a finite thing has a beginning.

No it isn't. That's nothing more than theistic philosophical claptrap. Nothing that describes things inside the observable universe necessarily applies to the universe itself. Everything inside the universe 'began' with the big bang. Just because a car must be assembled doesn't mean the universe must also be. You've fallen prey to multiple fallacies.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
So something without a beginning, infinite, had to bring about finity. Infinity has no beginning as it is infinite, always is.

Prove it.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Is there a case where non-intelligence is greate than intelligence.

Prove intelligence is greater than non-intelligence.
You can't, but it'll be interesting to see you try. Unfortunately your attempt will be completely subjective.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
There is no case where something non-intelligent created something intelligent.

Evolution and astronomy have proven you wrong yet again. Unless you think a few random elements floating through space have intelligence. That would be interesting.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Intelligence is necessary when the creation contains intelligence as I said.

No evidence to support that claim, while there's lots of evidence supporting the opposite.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Are you saying science has now disproven that there are intelligent beings on this planet?

Technically, we still don't understand intelligence sufficiently to create a test for it, so we only assume we are intelligent. There's really no proof either way.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
So if I'm in a hot air balloon floating over a city, town, what have you, and I see two cars about to collide and then collide I made them crash into each other?

If you created the cars and the people driving them with full knowledge that they would collide, then yes you made them crash into each other. You had the ability to give the drivers sufficient capability in driving skills so they wouldn't collide. You could have made the people who built the cars or designed the traffic system smart enough to devise a system so the cars couldn't collide. You're omnipotent. You chose to make all the people involved sufficiently stupid or lazy or whatever so that the cars could crash, knowing far in advance exactly what was going to happen. The crash is 100% your fault.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The same goes for God. He created everything perfect. We sinned, brought death into the world.

Impossible. If an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal god created everything absolutely perfectly, then no stupid mortal could possibly have screwed anything up. Your argument defeats itself. You cannot blame a entity for doing something wrong when you created the entity. If I write a computer programme for a video game, and all the enemies in the game constantly suicide themselves instead of attacking the player, it isn't the games fault, nor the enemies in the game; it's my fault. Either I screwed up the code, or I wanted the enemies to suicide themselves instead of attacking the player.
Either your god is flawed, or your god is evil, or your god doesn't exist. Either way, it isn't worthy of anyone's worship.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to Brian37:

Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is.  I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h. 

Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to cause it? Does lightening need Thor to cause it?

I know it may make you feel good to want a god, but no. There never has been or ever will be such a thing. God/s are products of human immagination, yours included.

BTW you really want to claim a god that allows 50 million deaths per year worldwide?

 

Oh and I am sure you are aware that El, Elohim and Yahweh are all names plucked from the divine family of the Canaanite pantheon, right?

 

I believe you are misunderstanding my point. I am not some how doing away with natural laws like gravity, motion, thermodynamics, climatic laws, and etc. I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite. Again I am not saying God directly causes hurricanes, the tides, the rotation of the moon, and etc.  However, God created the laws that govern the universe and the finite universe itself.

As to the 50 million deaths a year worldwide. Where does this number come from? What does it entail? Secondly,what's your point? Are you trying to say God is responsible for all those deaths? I'm guessing you are? God has allowed death to enter the world through our choosing, free will. God did not create death. 

The last comment is off topic too much. Getting into cultural translertations of words and cultural writing styles is a different conversation entirely. I am happy to have it but only after we can move on from this topic. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote: I am

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.



these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.


the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Cliff

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to Jabberwocky:

First we'll deal with Allah, the Muslim God. The short and sweet of it is that if Allah is God (infinite, omnipotent, immaterial...) then he must meet all these criteria. Allah does not. Let's look at just one example. Allah accrording to the Koran and all Islamic theology and tradition states that Allah is not absolute on his actions and teachings. Allah, according to these same beliefs is perfect. So we have a logical and philosophical inconsistency here. Allah is perfect and everything he says and does is perfect. Yet, nothing he says and does is absolute, it can be changed either by Allah or by Satan. This is not perfection, omnipotence, and etc it is evidence of a imperfect and limited being. 

Your god, Yahweh, is also not omnipotent. Judges 1:19:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Of course Judges 4:13-16 shows god taking out 900 iron chariots. However that simply shows that the bible is incoherent. Also, the very beginning of your book has god creating a perfect world and perfect humans. 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by " the non-Catholic Christian god." Are you saying that Catholicism is not Christian? Or are you asking about the Protestant Christian denominations? There is no conflict in the Christian understanding and belief in God. Disputes arise in what something means in the Bible. There are several reasons for this.

Judaism and Christianity both believe in Yahw-h. There is no difference here. The main difference (there are others) between Judaism and Christianity is the acceptance/non-acceptance of the divinty of Jesus Christ. Judaism and Protestants share in the Faith of the One True God but they lack the fullness of the Truth of God. For Jews this generally means the disbelief of Christ's divinity and the fullfillment of His Covenant through the Catholic Church. For Protestants its the disagreement on the Catholic Church being the only Church established by Jesus Christ.

I know the theological differences between these religions. What you stated was that all of the other gods (Thor, Zeus, etc.) are wrong because they're more like superheroes that live in the sky and are talked about as if they were material, rather than your immaterial god. In that sense, how do you know that you're right as a Catholic, and the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and the Mormons are wrong? You failed to answer the question. 

 

The first verse in Judges you are citing is not saying God failed to destory the iron chairots. It says that Judah falied to do it. The he in "...but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." is referimg to Judah not God. The Hebrew used here is refering to a third person singular not God. Also if you read a little more after that you will find that the reason Judah could not do it was not because of a lack of power of God but a lack of faith on Judah's part which led to a lack of courage and fortitude. Your next quotation from Judges proves this point. If you read these quotations in context you will see that the Hebrews under Judah do not obey the covenantal laws, God's law, and were punished by the oppression of Jabin.  In Judges 4:1-16 you will see that the Hebrews after 20 years of rule under Jabin plead to the Lord for mercy, delieverence and forgiveness. Deborah was then commanded by God to have Barak lead an army against Jabin and his general Sisera. Barak will only go if Deborah goes thus fullfilling the Lord's word that he would not receive full glory for the battle as Sisera will fall at the hands of a woman. They win against the chariots. because they had faith in the Lord God honoring the covenantal laws.
 

What you have here are two common themes in Hebrew scriptural literature. One is that God, Yahw-h, is the cause for all things, in a literary or figurative sense, i.e. a way for humans to kind of describe omnipotence. Thus, rather than writing every intermediatry cause between God and man they ascribe it to the will of God.  This is similar to us ascribing the freeing of the slaves to Abraham Lincoln.  Obviously, Lincoln himself did not free the slaves. This is simply a concise way of saying that because of his ideas and the following through of his ideas slavery was abolished. The second theme is the covenantal theme which runs through out the whole Bible. The Hebrews are under a covenant from Yahw-h, if they follow the covenant they are rewarded by God, because of their faith and righteous actions. If they do not follow the covenant they are punished by God, because  of their lack of faith and evil/unrighteous actions. So when they disobeyed as Judah did in Judges 1:19 they suffer the consequences from God. Again their are intermediary reasons but overall God is omnipotent, in charge, thus in a literary sense He did it.

Okay so do you now want me to deal with the other truths (divinity of Christ, dcotrine of the Trinity, transubstantiation, and etc) which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith over the other the faiths? Or do I need to continuing proving why God is omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, and etc? The other Protestant denomenations and Judaism agree that Yaw-h, the Father, is all those things.
 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
History, early on, not his strong suit (Origins)

 Re:: History, early on, not his strong suit

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.

these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.
the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...

      Capricious our Cliff Jumper.   This presents a problem for Cliff Jumper.  He will hardly even read this let alone take a necessary moment to  get your point.  

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith over the other

     Perhaps because I am not feeling well and am so under the weather but my initial response to this guy would be to remind him of his history.   Roman Catholism starts with Helena,  Whether for good or for ill, for she was the consort of the Roman emperor Constantius Chlorus,  it was she who gave birth to the future emperor Constantine the Great,  it was with emperor Constantine  and his mother so history buffs look to Emperor Constantine the Great who has received much attention throughout history.  Fore it was with his conversion to Christianity and the sweeping changes it brought to the church and the empire instituted a new era in history, one that would change ''the church'' within Christendom  forever. There was a period before though, THAT EARLY ON Period SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED!!

 ===================================================================================================================

 

the Op wrote:
..the Church sex scandal

  Let you Yes  be  Yes  and your  No  be No, For whatever is more than these is from evil

 

  No time, therefore no real comment on this. I acknowledge The Roman Catholic Church does not and never forbids marriage – married Catholics far outnumber non-married ones. Fine! Be they bishops, priests, monks, nuns or laity.   The candidates for priesthood are fully aware of celibacy discipline before and during their seminary times – they have ample time to consider whether this vocation is for them or not. Granted! But,  perhaps these traditions should no longer exist  if they're  producing  such extremely tragic  RESULTS  to take up such vows in the first place.


 

         There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:

    a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,

    a time to weep and a time to laugh,
    a time to mourn and a time to be heartbroken
    a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
    a time to search and a time to give up,
    a time to keep and a time to throw away,
    a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and A TIME TO SPEAK,
    a time to love and a time to hate,
    a time for war and a time for peace.

 



0 f f  s i t e  --

  Crossing 't's and dotting 'i's  Off Site ... (Wink) www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34414#comment-409691 http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34414 Nu 3



 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4103
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Okay so

Cliff Jumper wrote:


Okay so do you now want me to deal with the other truths...which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith over the other the faiths?

 

     I know the Catholic Church places special emphasis on maintaining religious tradition.     I hope that doesn't mean you'll be employing  some of the "tradional" methods to help persuade us that we are wrong about the "ONE TRUE FAITH™"

 

                                                 

 

                                              

 

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Or do I need to continuing proving why God is omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, and etc? The other Protestant denomenations and Judaism agree that Yaw-h, the Father, is all those things.
 

 

   Do you see the laughable irony of an allegegly omipotent, omnipresent, infinite, God who relies upon someone like you to prove how omnipotent, omnipresent and infinite he is ?     Let him prove it himself if he is all these things.  If he doesn't then perhaps he is just too busy ?

 

   Your  OMNI God wasn't bashful about strutting his stuff to prove himself in 1 Kings 18: 30-38.  In fact, at Elijah's request, he put on quite a show.  www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18&vrsion=NIV

  Care to place a bet that your all-powerful god will bother to demonstrate even a tiny fraction of his awesome OMNI powers like he did before...or will he be like the pagan god Baal in 1 Kings 18 and fail to show up ?

 

  ( Should I anticipate the typical equivocation ?...  ie, Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, etc )

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
No Subject

 No Subject

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Tremendous faith required and shown by Mary

re:: Tremendous faith required and shown by Mary (according to the Canonical Gospel accounts) ::

 

zarathustra wrote:

  1. If Mary was assumed directly into heaven, does that mean she still has her earthly body, while everyone else in heaven does not?

 

  TO :: OP (mainly the OP)

    **The document tells of  Mary's virginity before giving birth,  but traditions  arose  that  suggest  a perpetual virginity of Mary, correct ?  Jesus  had brothers and sisters  so shouldn't that worry you a bit ?!?

 

 The Gospel of Saint Matthew Ch.1 / Gospel According to Saint Luke Ch.2  -- New King James Version (NKJV)

  ''Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child'' ''..before they came together,  she was found with child.  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man not trying to get out of it and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things,  behold,  an angel of the Lord appeared to him  in a dream,  saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit'' .. ''So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered.  And she was to bring forth her firstborn Son .. Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And behold,  an angel of God stood before them, and  the glory of the LORD shone around them,  and they were greatly afraid.  Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.  For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord''.

========================================================================

 ----

 

     But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.

 =======================================================================================

 "Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these''





   Note ::  ** I cannot help but be reminded of Draupadi, in a sacred Hindu text Draupadi was the wife of the five pandavas, wife to each of the five, .. her's was another expectedly eventful life.  The god Shiva promised that she would regain her virginity each morning when she took her bath, thus allowing her to be the wife of all five of the pandavas. (Comparisons actually pretty unintentional, was simply reminded so do not obsess!)!

  p.s. -- No explicit statement  about what is  believable in mentioning this, no significance beyond the question it poses.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4858
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I'm still waiting for a

 I'm still waiting for a response to my question.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15580
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Brian37

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to Brian37:

Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is.  I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h. 

 

Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to cause it? Does lightening need Thor to cause it?

I know it may make you feel good to want a god, but no. There never has been or ever will be such a thing. God/s are products of human immagination, yours included.

BTW you really want to claim a god that allows 50 million deaths per year worldwide?

 

Oh and I am sure you are aware that El, Elohim and Yahweh are all names plucked from the divine family of the Canaanite pantheon, right?

 

I believe you are misunderstanding my point. I am not some how doing away with natural laws like gravity, motion, thermodynamics, climatic laws, and etc. I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite. Again I am not saying God directly causes hurricanes, the tides, the rotation of the moon, and etc.  However, God created the laws that govern the universe and the finite universe itself.

As to the 50 million deaths a year worldwide. Where does this number come from? What does it entail? Secondly,what's your point? Are you trying to say God is responsible for all those deaths? I'm guessing you are? God has allowed death to enter the world through our choosing, free will. God did not create death. 

The last comment is off topic too much. Getting into cultural translertations of words and cultural writing styles is a different conversation entirely. I am happy to have it but only after we can move on from this topic. 

No I am not missunderstanding your point. One has to let their brains fall out to justify fantastic claims in all holy books and myths, then when called on those fantastic claims they move the goal posts and cop out to metaphore when science doesn't match their book. Take heart though, you are not the only one and not even the only religion who makes this error in logic. You simply like the god you swallowed so mentally you work backwards to justify it in your head anyway you can.

Men do not magically pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. The sun and moon are not the same source of light. Donkeys and bushes do not talk. It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.

How is stating the fact of 50 million deaths worldwide off topic? Pointing this fact of natural reality is in direct conflict with the concept(as an idea, as a claim) of "omni" in "all powerful" and "all loving". How could such a claimed being be deemed "all powerful" if this is the spotty record? Would you hire someone to run a factory with such lousy output? And if you were a god yourself would you allow all that death? In no way am I saying that to be mean to you. It is attacking the idea as being a broken concept that does not work logically speaking.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
I am sorry for the lateness

I am sorry for the lateness of my replies. My hard drive crashed and as a result I have not been able to use my computer. Hopefully that won't happen again for a while anyway Laughing out loud

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor