To Deny God is to deny life

Rational Faith
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
To Deny God is to deny life

Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Mikey If I were to develop

Mikey

If I were to develop technology to create a sentient, intelligent, and conscious being (say, an android), and I were to give it the ability to choose it's actions, would I be responsible for it in any way?

I realize that there is a distinction between the android making the choice to kill someone and me programming it to kill someone, but since I was the one who wrote the code of it's ability to choose, don't I have some responsibility in creating a being with the freedom to harm?

 I would not argue that God would be directly responsible for the actions I make, but he is responsible for the attributes I have.  God could have created people that didn't have the imperfections (chemichal imbalances, phychosis, etc) that cause us to do harm.  God, again, either created us intentionally with these imperfections or he's simply imcompetent.

I'm anticipating your reply that Adam was created differently and that his sin effects us, but let me continue the analogy;

If my first android was created as well as I intended but still, nonetheless, had something go wrong (let's say an unforseen conflict in programming that caused it to malfunction--but this analogy is inept because God, being perfect, would have to have anticipated any such flaw in design).  Would I allow the android to make more of itself with this flaw and then continue to punish every subsequent android for that first flaw which I ultimately carry responsibility for because I designed poorly?

I would not hold a creation of mine responsible for a design flaw.  That would be irresponsible of me.

God made us free, you say? Fine, but God still would have created Adam with some imperfection, otherwise no sin would have been possible.  To continue to punish people because of this design flaw would be like me beating androids I designed for being poorly designed.  

Shaun

...waiting for the day when Michael finally sees what we're saying... 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
And because I'm

And because I'm anticipating further points...

 Yes, that darned snake told Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  She sinned, you say?

Here is Eve's situation.  She does not have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.  In humans, part of our moral faculty is related to the ability to detect lies, deception, etc.  So, unless you can tell me that Eve had reason to not believe the snake, her sin was unforseen.  That is, it was an unintended and unforseen consequence of her action.  

Would you punish a child for breaking a vase if they had no way to know that their action would have resulted in such a consequence?

All Eve knew was that she had two sets of instruction; 1) Don't eat the fruit or you will die and 2) Eat the fruit, you will not die.  Upon what other information did she have to go on? If someone tells you that you can't go into that store because you'll die, then someone else tells you that you can go in and taht you will not die,  whom are you to believe? Granted, you may decide to not go in just to be safe, but with no information to support either case, both claims have equal weight.

And without the experience with situations like this, the understanding of consequence (no knowledge of good or evil might be interpreted to mean that one is unaware of the concepts that ethics deals with, such as consequences), etc Eve had very little reason not to eat the fruit.

So, we are Fallen and deserve Hell (absence from God) because of this choice made between two contradictory and equally weighted choices by a woman (and later a man) thousands of years ago?  That's flimsey.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe I will have

I don't believe I will have time to respond to this in the near future.

I'll see when I can get around to it.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:

I don't believe I will have time to respond to this in the near future.

I'll see when I can get around to it.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

No, that's fine.  Take all the time you need to rationalize an answer.  I'm patient.  

I did notice you had time to respond in other threads, which I found interesting. 

 Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Give me a sense of decency.

Give me a sense of decency. As you may have noticed, the posts in this forum filled a good deal more space than the other forums did. At least half of the web page was filled with just answers to my column from about 4 different people all writing tracts as long as or slightly shorter than my own. I am only one person and am responding to MANY arguments. Give me the sense of common decency I would give you.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
You deserve some common

You deserve some common decency.  You have remained polite throughout the entire exchange, which is very much to your credit, and yes, you are currently one against many.  The last few posts do contain some solid arguments, so you ought to take some time and care in responding. 

Take care 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly   I thought

ShaunPhilly

 

I thought that was an excellent point that Eve had nothing to base an informed decision on in that story. But beyond that wasn't the tree that they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? And the decision that she had in front of her was a moral decision on some level, eating the apple was bad not eating it was good, obeying god was good disobeying was bad. But without the knowledge of good and evil your not in a position to make any kind of moral decision. It's almost paradoxical she would have to eat the apple to know that she had done anything wrong by eating it.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
My response time was

My response time was further complicated by not being able to access the website for a few days previous. I will answer these posts fairly shortly before or after this Monday (which is the March for Life and I will be attending the event with my fellow seminarians from around the USA - If you are in the area, drop on by).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Hither comes an

Hither comes an answer!!!!1

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Maybe I mistook you somewhere. If so, then you haven't proven why they are credible in the first place.

They are credible because they fit what can be known naturally and because they are supported by miracles.

I don't accept that miracles as acts of god happen until I have seen evidence supporting the concept. And scripture does not fit with what I know naturally.

If God is the cause of all things and omnipotent respect to what He causes, there is no question that He would be able to intervene in a miraculous way. (We could prove this later, if that is necessary)

Further, I would argue that Scripture contains nothing contradictory to naturally known truths.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

1400 AC is a bit before my time, and you'll have to explain that a bit more. It didn't make sense. And saints are outside my expertise. I'd have to believe they were godly before I would care anything about them. Got anything recent? And that has testimony other than from the church?

These things exist today. You can go to Lanciano, Italy and see the miracle.

A nice thought. Care to pay for the trip? I can't afford to take that much time off work, let alone fly to Italy. Not sure why god needs me to pay the Italians to see evidence of him.

OK, but that is not an argument against the truth of the miracle.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

And these are not testified to by the Church alone (whatever that means), but by scientific professionals as well.

I'd have to see said testimonies.

You may mail your questions about Lanciano in general to:

Santuario del Miracolo Eucaristico
Frati Minori Conventuali
66034 Lanciano (CH), Italy
Telephone: (0872) 713189

 

The most recent scientific study was conducted in 1970 by Prof. Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

 

I would likewise point out that it has clearly been verified as real human blood, and the fact that it has not decayed for the past 800 years is a miracle on its own. There are some websites where you could find pictures of the cardiac tissue of the Host itself.

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

There is no reason one would have to accept a saint's "godliness" before one noticed that their body had not decayed for the past 300 years.

Actually, we have perfectly perserved bodies from 3000 years ago.

Intentionally preserved, and having rigour mortis. The incorruptibles have not been preserved naturally, and had no rigour mortis.

Quote:
 I do however find it telling that the oldest body is only 300. There were many practices developed within that time frame for preservation of a body. If it was gods work, there should be much older bodies in the same shape.

There are. I just gave examples of Saint Vincent and Bernadette, but there are older incorruptibles.

Further, they are only one example of these “perpetual” miracles that exist in the Catholic Church.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

 Quote:

 Well obviously people aren't going to go around the world spreading word of a god if they don't think it exists and wants them to. But just because christianity effectively monopolized viral tactics doesn't mean they got everything right.

I did not say that it definitely proves that Christianity is true. It would just be miraculous if they spread so fast and so wide without a single miracle, which they claimed to have.

Much like scientology, which I'm sure you would agree is a ludicrous theology. It hasn't been around for even 70 years, yet it already has 50,000+ members. I'd say that the spread of christianity had more to do with christians moving around than anything else.

Again, I never claimed it proved its truth. It would just lend credibility to the belief that if Christianity claimed miracles and never produced them, it would not be believed.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

 

And quite frankly, even 100 years back in time changes everything when viewing the church's definition of a miracle. Go back 2000 years and you could very easily claim that lightning was a miracle. Noone could prove otherwise.

That is nonsense. A miracle is a miracle. There was no difference in the definition. There is no natural way for a human being to regrow a limb spontaneously or for bread to actually become flesh (as in Lanciano) or for the dead to rise.

The definition itself hasn't changed, but it's application most certainly has. It's very definition proves that beyond argument.
"an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of a religious teacher and the truth of his message (John 2:18; Matt. 12:38)"

While our sight and hearing in and of themselves hasn't changed at all, the technologies we use to enhance them provide more than a thousand times more depth than was available even 100 years ago. A billion times more depth if looking at the time of the bible. The vast majority of miracles are simply natural phenomena that cannot be explained by the people of the day. By definition.

Now, you must clarify what you are talking about here, rather than just assert that “the vast majority of miracles are simply natural phenomena” and further how science has disproven them. Lightning does not count, again, as nobody claimed it to be a miracle in the sense I intend, or according to the definition given above.

 

 

Quote:

I've never seen bread become flesh, and never seen the dead rise(except in movies). I also would point out that neither of those claims is nearly as powerful as a force that lights the sky and screams over hundreds of kilometres. A force that even a brief contact with turns to ash and flame and death.

Except that the first miracle is a proper miracle because it cannot happen naturally. Lightning, however, is not of the same category. Nor is aurora borealis.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

 

I take this whole miracle thing with a grain of salt. A percieved face in a grilled cheese sandwich isn't what I call a miracle, though many christians seem to think it is.

Did I ever claim it was? It has nothing to do with what other people might consider a miracle. I am talking about what a really and truly extraordinary miracle would be, and how the Church sees it.

I never claimed you claimed it was. But other christians did. Which is all I need for conclusive evidence that people pick stupid things as their proofs of god.

Clarification: it is not a proof that God exists. It is a proof that Christ was God and His Church exists according to God’s institution (and that, as such, its doctrines are true).

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

It is not ridiculous. It is fact. People call it a miracle when they can see jesus in a cloud. Good for you if you're above that. Not everyone is. Now if you want to go into just biblical/sainthood miracles, I'm going to have to back away since I don't know enough on the subject to debate it.

The documentation exists for modern canonizations. You could look up the cases and the medical files, or other testimony. The Scriptural miracles are attested to by the lives and witness of the persons having seen them; we can know this through historical evidence.

Again, there are miracles, colloqially speaking, and there are miracles as truly extraordinary events. I never claimed seeing Jesus' face in a cloud was a miracle.

I could. You could also pick up a book on paleontology and biology and learn about evolution. But you probably won't, because you don't believe in it.
Again, I didn't say you said seeing jesus' face in a cloud was a miracle. But it's all many christians need,which is adequate to explain how people could come to believe it when told by an outsider.  

I do not disbelieve in evolution. Don’t be so condescending and patronizing.

But this doesn’t answer my question.

Further, it has nothing to do with why ordinary fundamentalist Protestants believe, but whether the Catholic religion has a reasonable ground for belief in miracles.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

"Created in grace" - the first human beings were created by God in a state of grace, possessing knowledge naturally, possessing the ability to rule their passions through reason, and freedom from suffering and death.~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Personal sin" - the sin that I have personally committed and for which I can be rightly punished as proceeding from my volition

Right then. So why am I suffering because someone else broke a rule? Has nothing to do with me. If we're going to be held accountable for the actions of another, then we should have inborn knowledge of this. We do not. So I refuse to accept the claim that I deserve to suffer because of someone else. The concept is immoral.

You suffer all the time from the action of other people. If someone lights your house on fire, I would call that easily a suffering that proceeds from someone else’s action. The effects of original sin were a depriving of grace and right ordering in human nature. It is not a personal punishment of sin. It is much more akin to the natural example of lighting your house on fire. Original sin is a defect in the soul of human beings, which makes our wills weak in resisting sin. It is not a personal sin.

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Or so it is written.

No, you can go look at their tombs. You can read ancient testimony about that that is a-Scriptural.

Alas, I cannot. As mentioned previously, I can't afford to take a trip to Italy. And having to do so in the first place cements my knowledge of it all as a lie. An all powerful being doesn't need me to work beyond my means to prove itself. It can do so right here right now.

Why is that true? It does not follow that God will give you all your proof so you don’t need to work for it. He gave visible signs that accompany His Church, not to accompany you in your toilet.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Without a dictionary handy, I define knowledge as the result of accumulation of facts and experience during a lifetime.  

But that is not a good definition of knowledge. Knowledge is not merely what I experience, or I would not know that a vase is blue, but I would merely experience the vase as blue.~~~~~~etc.

I said facts AND experience. Not just experience. I would also point out that any alternate definition you come up with is subject to an equal claim by myself. Google "Define:knowledge" and you'll come up with a huge range of possibilities. At which point the whole section of conversation turns into linguistic games. The english languages flexibility turns on us. Heh.

Except that your definition is clearly contrary to any adequate definition. Further, you never define what a “fact” is.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

If I understood this correctly, I don't believe it is. I think it is illogical to believe that one complexity needs a cause when a higher complexity does not. If a complexity needs a designer, then every equal or greater complexity also needs a designer...."

What does this have to do with anything at all? I never claimed an argument from design or complexity. I claimed that things were in motion and hence required a mover.

And then you know the mover is a god. When I know the mover is energy. And we reach an impass.

Have we thus agreed that an unmoved mover exists? If we have, we can move on.

Further, energy cannot be an unmoved mover mover because energy is in motion and has potency.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

I could have argued from the way that natural things follow ends intelligently, but this wouldn't answer it anyway. Things in the universe which are irrational, such as rocks and heat, pursue ends naturally in such a way that the best situation is achieved (such as gravity or maximization of entropy production).

Entropy does not apply to the universe itself, merely to that which is within it. The only way entropy could apply to the universe itself is if the universe was an open system. Which would mean that it's just part of something bigger. It doesn't prove a gods existance or lack thereof. Theoretically you could design a system that was entropy free. You would merely need to find a way to isolate it from the universe.

I see no reason why entropy would not apply to the universe as a whole. It is a closed system, which is all that is necessary. Further, scientists constantly speak in theoretical physics of the sum entropy of the universe. It is not like this is a new item in science.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

But it is the character of intelligence to be ordered toward ends. These things are not intelligent, so they require an orderer.

I see equal elements of chaos and order when looking at the universe. I do not see universal order.

For example, MEP always (ALWAYS) maximizes entropy production in the most efficient way. If there is no orderer of ends, this would be impossible.

Quote:

Quote:

Motion is only relevant if you prove there was no motion. You are probably considering that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. But an object in motion tends to stay in motion as well.

No, it does not need that at all. To be in motion, a thing requires a mover in the first place. Even if a thing tends to stay in motion when in motion, its motion must derive from a mover.

Only if it wasn't moving once. Your unmoved mover is only a logical conclusion to the discovery that all matter was once inert. Accomplish this and succeed. Fail and your mover is merely an idea. Not reality. And it's all a laymans argument anyway, based on a lack of knowledge of the structures of matter. Matter can't exist without energy. Matter cannot move without energy. Energy is the mover.

That is like saying “my hand moves because it is passing through the air.” Where does the energy come from, pray tell? If there was no initial energy to move anything, there would be no motion at all.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Further, energy itself is a form of motion. It would require God as its mover.

Not quite. Energy is motion. It is also heat. And light. Perhaps other things we have yet to explain fully as well.

You are just saying “things are in motion because they are in motion.” But that is not the question. The problem is that things are in motion only because they were moved (acquired energy). If no first mover exists, no energy.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

 

The simple act of creation would not cause motion, and yet motion would be a symptom of the cause.

I have no idea what this ought to mean. If motion follows from creation (whatever that means), then wouldn't creation lead to motion and so God would be the Prime Mover?

Well, if you toss a ball that happens to land on a stick, which bounces in the air and kills a mosquito, can you claim credit for killing the mosquito? I suppose you could, but it would be debatable. This is hardly the greatest analogy, but it should suffice. I wish I could explain the properties of matter and energy to you better, but I'm not a walking science text. And I don't really have time to become one.

But God remains the cause of the universe. Period.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

As for your uncaused cause, it must be proven that there was cause to prove there was uncaused cause.

All that needs to be proven is that all things are caused,

Bingo, with my modification.

Which modification?

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

and at least one cause which is uncaused is logically necessary.

If you say the universe, you are mistaken. There are explanations other than a first beginning. We don't know, so debating it is merely intellectual exercise. It is not evidence.

Not a first beginning in time, but a Prime Mover. Motion requires a mover. No getting around it.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

No, God is not your existence, God is Being itself. God is the act of existing. God is.

That is contradictory. That is saying god is, but god isn't. Which is it?

God is. God is not your existence. God is subsistent existing.

 

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

The act itself is an entity.

Then this is a fallacy known as a "category error". Acts are "activities" in which entities participate .. acts are not entities. You are trying to turn a verb into a noun! Good luck with that. Smiling

We speak of acts as entities all the time. But that doesn’t matter. We are referring to Aristotelian actuality, not action in the physical sense. God is pure action without any potency. He is subsistent existing, as I said above.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

God is existence existing. God is.

And what does that mean exactly??? Existence existing is another fallacy ... it is a tautology. An example of simply saying the same thing twice. "God is" begs the question. God is what?

God is God. God’s essence is beyond our knowledge as to what it is in itself. Only Revelation can reveal that. We can merely come to the knowledge that God exists and certain properties which flow from what we know about His nature as cause of all things.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

That only presumes that there is a "before" time.

There must have been a point when there was God and no universe. This entails a "before the universe". This entails that time stretches back to before the universe (otherwise there couldn't be a before and the universe is eternal). btw, I'm a presentist.

It does not entail a time before time. Such a statement is a contradiction. God created the world from outside of time. There was no “before.”

I quote Saint Augustine’s Confessions where the great Doctor answers this precise question (and because I know you agree with him):

14. Behold, I answer to him who asks, "What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?" I answer not, as a certain person is reported to have done facetiously (avoiding the pressure of the question), "He was preparing hell," says he, "for those who pry into mysteries." It is one thing to perceive, another to laugh,—these things I answer not. For more willingly would I have answered, "I know not what I know not," than that I should make him a laughing-stock who asks deep things, and gain praise as one who answers false things. But I say that Thou, our God, art the Creator of every creature; and if by the term "heaven and earth" every creature is understood, I boldly say, "That before God made heaven and earth, He made not anything. For if He did, what did He make unless the creature?" And would that I knew whatever I desire to know to my advantage, as I know that no creature was made before any creature was made.

15. But if the roving thought of any one should wander through the images of bygone time, and wonder that You, the God Almighty, and All-creating, and All-sustaining, the Architect of heaven and earth, for innumerable ages refrained from so great a work before You would make it, let him awake and consider that he wonders at false things. For whence could innumerable ages pass by which You did not make, since You are the Author and Creator of all ages? Or what times should those be which were not made by You? Or how should they pass by if they had not been? Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You refrained from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What were You doing then? For there was no "then" when time was not.

16. Nor dost Thou by time precede time; else wouldest not Thou precede all times. But in the excellency of an ever-present eternity, Thou precedest all times past, and survivest all future times, because they are future, and when they have come they will be past; but "You are the same, and Your years shall have no end." Your years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come, that all may come. All Your years stand at once since they do stand; nor were they when departing excluded by coming years, because they pass not away; but all these of ours shall be when all shall cease to be. Your years are one day, and Your day is not daily, but today; because Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begat the Co-eternal, to whom You said, "This day have I begotten You." You have made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time.

17. At no time, therefore, had Thou not made anything, because You had made time itself. And no times are co-eternal with You, because Thou remainest for ever; but should these continue, they would not be times. For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it? But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time? And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another. What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not. Yet I say with confidence, that I know that if nothing passed away, there would not be past time; and if nothing were coming, there would not be future time; and if nothing were, there would not be present time. Those two times, therefore, past and future, how are they, when even the past now is not; and the future is not as yet? But should the present be always present, and should it not pass into time past, time truly it could not be, but eternity. If, then, time present—if it be time—only comes into existence because it passes into time past, how do we say that even this is, whose cause of being is that it shall not be—namely, so that we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be?

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

There was none. Everything is present to God as one eternal "now."

If God's perceptions are accurate (which they would need to be if he is a perfect being) then this must be how things actually are. Everything exists "now". But that is not how we see things. This means that he has created us to see things other than how they really are. This would make him a deceiver and the argument that he validates the accuracy of our perceptions fails. It also means that you exist in all your historical states "now" and simultaneously to God and this must be how it really is. So everything actually exists in a logically contradictory state even though we observe it to exist in a logically consistent state and conformity to logic is a conceptual delusion foisted upon us by God?

It is not in a logically contradictory state, nor is there a reason why we should make the jump to say that God is lying to us. God created us with temporal minds and we know reality in a finite way. But we still know reality and not a figment.

 

 

Quote:

Perfect perfection? That's so nonsensical it's funny. There is either perfection, or imperfection. "Is that being perfect?" The answers are yes or no. Not "sorta". You can argue "Well, in a sense he is perfect because he is good in x way". That's not perfection, it's excellence, or goodness in general. Perfect: it's either yes or no.

“Perfect” is yes or no. “A perfection” is not yes and no. Perfection adds something to the subject. For me to wash my car would be to give it a perfection, namely, to make it clean. But I have not made my car “perfect.”

Quote:

Except God did determine their fate. I'm not going to repeat my argument again. I've done it many times, and you still haven't proven it wrong. To me, God remains an evil bitch.

Just repeating, “God determined, God determined,” over and over again does not prove anything. There is no contradiction to be found in the proposition that “God created Adam and Eve free.”

Quote:

Again, Hell is not a choice, it's a consequence. But there's no point really, you're probably just going to yell "Free will" again.

Hell is the consequence of a choice, but the consequence was still chosen.

By choosing something other than God as their final end, this entails perfect unhappiness.

Quote:

Let's do this slowly:

Suppose you have a very grave case of a sinner, who rejected God all his life. He dies, and therefore is judged. He says "But I don't want to go to Hell!". That means, that if it was according to him, he wouldn't go to Hell. Correct? He clearly says he does NOT want to. It clearly is his will that he does NOT go to Hell. You surely can't deny that.

When God judges and says "You are going to hell", then he is making a final judgement against the sinner's will.

Argument debunked.

This does not work. The sinner might reject the pains of hell, but he still chooses his sin. The choosing of the created good over God is wherein the sin lies, not in the willing of “not hell” in general. In effect, the person still desires hell even when they reject its pains, because they are still rejecting God.

Quote:

Let's see:

P1) God wills that all men be happy

P2) Not all men are happy

P3) Not all men will be happy (since for sure someone is going to hell)

C1) God wills something that is not.

If not all men are happy, and that's God's will, then clearly there is a problem. Or are you going to say that men in hell are happy?

P1 is faulty because it confuses the senses of God’s will. God’s will, as I explained again and again, has different senses. God wills that all men be happy, following on the fact that they do this freely. If they choose something else, God does not will their happiness, except in the foregoing antecedent way.

 

Quote:

Contradiction: if God didn't want to send us to hell, then why does he? Please don't say people chose hell. Nobody chooses hell. It's a consequence, not a choice.

It is the consequence of a choice.

Quote:

If God didn't create Hell, then he is not the creator of all things. (and he is the creator of EVERYTHING)

Nobody created hell. Hell doesn’t properly exist as a thing. It is more a disposition of soul. The souls of the damned will wait for the Resurrection in some place made by God (and this is only hell in the sense that it is a place where the torments of hell happen in the souls of the damned). The souls, on the Resurrection, will be divided into virtuous and damned. The damned will be resigned in their resurrected bodies to a place of corporeal as well as spiritual punishment in something that could be called hell. This God made.

Quote:
And where do those axioms come from? From God. Therefore, if he defines those axioms, my argument still stands.

God does not define the axioms.

Quote:

First, many many people are kissing God's ass, metaphorically speaking. Do you honestly believe all people "choose" (beliefs are not choices anyway) Chrstianity because of the idea of God?

Yes.

Quote:

There are many, many people that "choose" Chrstianity not because of God, but because of Satan and Hell. They are so scared (and this is why religion works) that in a way, worship your God in a failed attempt to apply Pascal's Wager.

I think you are making an unwarranted generalization. I doubt most folks come to religion because they are scared. I don’t think that is true of Christianity and that is most certainly not true of Catholicism.

Quote:

Again, axioms are defined by God. He created free will, hell, he created EVERYTHING.

God does not define any axioms. Axioms exist because of God’s own nature. They are axiomatic because they rest in God. God cannot change logic itself.

Quote:

The Bible is ANYTHING but trustworthy. An science proves so: there are no speaking snakes, the flood never happened, people are not created from fairy dusts and ribs, etc. The Scriptures claim to know things that have been proven wrong, therefore they are not trustowrthy. To choose to obey only some parts of it is cherry-picking.

This is called shallow interpretation with minimal inquiry. Reading any Church Father for five minutes would easily show you that the Church never took these things literally. There is no literal 6 day creation, and the Bible does not intend to give us that impression. God created all at a moment, but the Bible divides it up allegorically. This is an old interpretation in Christianity, and the normative one.

Quote:

"God never had any reason why he needed to create us."

"His only reason in creathing things..."

A reason in the sense of “necessity.” We were created in freedom on God’s part out of His love for us.

Quote:
Then he is not the creator of all things. He created people who grew to be atheists. That means he created a future atheist.

Only indirectly. He created a person who became an atheist. God creates people free to choose, He does not create atheists and theists.

 

Quote:

Except it has everything to do with our design, since the original sin had to do with Adam and Eve's design. Refer to the argument posted one thousand million times on the boards (in the post you quoted as well, it applies to a man as it applies to Adam and Eve).

It has nothing to do with our “design” as if we were robots without free will. God created us free of external constraint.

Quote:

You are filling in the gaps here. You don't know ANYTHING about the beginning of the Universe. You don't know if there was one. You are just assuming arrogantly. You can't claim to know about the nature of the matter, at all! Your assumptions might not apply in the beginning of the Universe, that is if there ever was one. Maybe there was no beginning. You don't know. To assume you do is to play the guessing game.

I never make a claim about the temporal beginning of the universe. I only posit that an unmoved mover must exist in order for motion to exist. There is no other option, regardless of how the universe got started.

Quote:

No you are explicitly wrong here. Only change in state of inertial motion (including zero velocity relative to an observer in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference) requires an external cause, NOT motion itself. The idea that some outside 'influence' was required to keep an object moving was disproved centuries ago. The idea that such a force was required was a natural conclusion from the observation that ordinary objects required effort to keep them going to overcome the effects of friction and other things such as uneven ground.

These are the same thing; a change in a thing.

Quote:

Inertial motion, ie uniform motion in a straight line requires no interaction with outside forces or other objects. The next most 'passive' motion is two objects in stable orbit arond their mutual center of gravity. There is little 'action' occurring here in any meaningful way - in a pure vacuum, with perfectly rigid objects, such motion can in principle continue indefinitely. But such idealised states can only be observed to any usefully close approximation in space.

Nevertheless, they are still in motion and require a mover regardless of how much they orbit.

Quote:

Clinging to these ancient concepts has held back the progress of human thought, the 'enlightenment', for millenia. 

Now that’s just so ignorant I won’t even begin to say how wrong you are. I want to finish answering this post tonight.

 

 

 

Quote:

If I were to develop technology to create a sentient, intelligent, and conscious being (say, an android), and I were to give it the ability to choose it's actions, would I be responsible for it in any way?

You are responsible for it in a different way than God is. Further, God’s justice compensates for any infractions His creatures commit against each other in this life.

Quote:

I realize that there is a distinction between the android making the choice to kill someone and me programming it to kill someone, but since I was the one who wrote the code of it's ability to choose, don't I have some responsibility in creating a being with the freedom to harm?

But human beings in this life can only harm bodies. There is a difference. God, however, does create a just recompense for these infractions, both for the person abused and for the perp.

Quote:

 I would not argue that God would be directly responsible for the actions I make, but he is responsible for the attributes I have.  God could have created people that didn't have the imperfections (chemichal imbalances, phychosis, etc) that cause us to do harm.  God, again, either created us intentionally with these imperfections or he's simply imcompetent.

These imperfections are a result of original sin, not God’s intention for human beings. However, if you do have schizophrenia or psychosis, obviously you aren’t morally culpable in the same degree that I am as a normal person. God likewise judges according to the reality of your condition of moral rectitude.

Quote:

If my first android was created as well as I intended but still, nonetheless, had something go wrong (let's say an unforseen conflict in programming that caused it to malfunction--but this analogy is inept because God, being perfect, would have to have anticipated any such flaw in design).  Would I allow the android to make more of itself with this flaw and then continue to punish every subsequent android for that first flaw which I ultimately carry responsibility for because I designed poorly?

Bad analogy because God does not punish those who possess this flaw. God sent His Son to accomplish the redemption of the human race because of this flaw and caused us to be made adopted sons of God. His whole purpose in the Incarnation was to fix this flaw.

Quote:

God made us free, you say? Fine, but God still would have created Adam with some imperfection, otherwise no sin would have been possible.  To continue to punish people because of this design flaw would be like me beating androids I designed for being poorly designed.  

No “imperfection” existed that caused Adam to sin. It was merely free choice on Adam’s part to pursue the apparent good over God.

 

 

Quote:

Here is Eve's situation.  She does not have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.  In humans, part of our moral faculty is related to the ability to detect lies, deception, etc.  So, unless you can tell me that Eve had reason to not believe the snake, her sin was unforseen.  That is, it was an unintended and unforseen consequence of her action.  

She possessed full and complete moral knowledge due to her original justice that she and Adam were created in. The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” refers clearly to something else. The traditional interpretation is that the devil tempted them to be “like gods” in knowing evil personally, as having committed it. In other words, bad Scripture interpretation.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't recommend anyone

I wouldn't recommend anyone to answer StMichael's post. I know I'm not going to. Go ahead if you want (not that you need my permission), but honestly? It's completely fruitless.

This person cleary did NOT come here to debate or discuss. Even if he knows something to be true, it is rather obvious he wills to remain in his comfortable position. No offense mate, but you're head is not really open. This is a guy who's admitted "God tolerates Hell" and mantains God is all-loving? That thought speaks for itself... He claims to know the nature of the Universe (closed system, in motion because of an unmoved mover), and he fails to understand the responsibility of God in the whole free will illusion. A talking snake "is not interpreted literally by the Church", but when it comes to Jesus dying for our sins, which can be traced back to Adam and Eve, the story is literally true! Science tells us the Earth is not 6k-10k years old. The fact that the original sin happened in the book of Genesis and is the cause for all sin and evil in the world; which is supposedly why Jesus came, and the fact that science tells us the Earth and humans are much more older than that should be enough for anyone. But he will try and argue that "Evolution and Christianity can co-exist too!". "A consequence is chosen", "A person chooses hell" oh and the best one: "I would argue that Scripture contains nothing contradictory to naturally known truths"--we all know whoever says that is beyond the power of logic and reason, even if 48 individuals are simultaneously showing him the obvious ... To think everyone chooses Christianity because they are fulfilled (of course NOT because of Hell, nobody fears eternal torment! Everyone stays for their personal relationship with their buddy Jebus) is just... I won't even bother. It's just evident: this person is not looking for debates or opinions, or other ways of looking at things. He just will not accept them. Not that he's not in his right to do so, but anyway...

It is impossible to reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into. We can only hope he thinks these things through one day. 

 I'm out of this topic. Peace!


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael
StMichael wrote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:
 

Here is Eve's situation.  She does not have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.  In humans, part of our moral faculty is related to the ability to detect lies, deception, etc.  So, unless you can tell me that Eve had reason to not believe the snake, her sin was unforseen.  That is, it was an unintended and unforseen consequence of her action.

 

She possessed full and complete moral knowledge due to her original justice that she and Adam were created in. The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” refers clearly to something else. The traditional interpretation is that the devil tempted them to be “like gods” in knowing evil personally, as having committed it. In other words, bad Scripture interpretation.

You have got to be kidding me.

If one assumes that something is true, then one must interpret the details of that thing that lead to the conclusion that would not contradict that thing.

Why, StMichael, is your interpretation correct? Upon what basis does the Church interpret it that way? 

The "tree of knowledge of good and evil" does not "clearly" refer to something else.  It would only be clear if one already assumed the truth of their interpretation, but that is question begging.

But we've been down that road before.

StMichael, you are a bafoon.  I'm not saying that because you are a bafoon you are wrong about God existing, I'm saying that you are severely biased and blind to your bias and therefore will not learn anything. 

I will not further converse with you until you at loeast understand our criticisms and begin to recognize your biases.  I at least appreciate that you have kept a civil tone, but civility does not imply wisdom (eternal or not).

To everyone else, I wish you well on your attempts to converse.  I see nothing more here that is worth my time at the moment in this thread.

Shaun 

 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: This person

 

Quote:

This person cleary did NOT come here to debate or discuss.

I am debating my point. You must not have come here to debate or discuss because you are not a fervent Catholic at the moment.

Quote:
Even if he knows something to be true, it is rather obvious he wills to remain in his comfortable position.

All you have shown is that you lack the ability to discuss matters in an even way. I would further not accept my positions if I did not think them true. I cannot say the same about your blind faith and uncritical acceptance of your own opinions, sadly.

 

Quote:

No offense mate, but you're head is not really open.

I like to keep my brains from running out onto the cassock. It keeps everything nice and neat for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Your laundry bills must be astronomical.

 

Quote:

This is a guy who's admitted "God tolerates Hell" and mantains God is all-loving?

God lets His creatures choose themselves instead of Him. A mystery that God loves creatures enough to allow them to freely turn their backs on Him. I compare Him to a lover who rather wills the good of his beloved in allowing her to choose some other man than himself merely because she chooses it. It is a great and magnificent mystery of love. And He, the all-powerful Creator of the stars of night, died on the Cross to get our attention.

 

Quote:

 He claims to know the nature of the Universe (closed system, in motion because of an unmoved mover),

No argument apparently on your end.

Quote:
and he fails to understand the responsibility of God in the whole free will illusion.

I have sufficently explained why your contradictions were only apparent. You have no said why mine are not thus sufficent. You merely repeat your original point over and over again, that God created man and must have thus determined His will. But, again, this is not the case. 

Quote:
 

A talking snake "is not interpreted literally by the Church",

Actually, I quite enjoy the idea that the snake can talk. However, I would err on the side that such an image is merely allegorical to symbolize the fallen spirit Satan introducing a temptation into the mind of Eve. Whether Satan truly commandeered a snake to his nefarious purposes is irrelevant.

 

Quote:
 

but when it comes to Jesus dying for our sins, which can be traced back to Adam and Eve, the story is literally true!

Which part? Jesus Christ literally died on the Cross. I have no problem maintaiing that. I likewise think that the history of sin can be traced back to Adam and Eve. No argument from you as to why this is irrational.

Quote:
 

Science tells us the Earth is not 6k-10k years old. The fact that the original sin happened in the book of Genesis and is the cause for all sin and evil in the world; which is supposedly why Jesus came, and the fact that science tells us the Earth and humans are much more older than that should be enough for anyone.

? And this has to do with my belief...how? I never espouse any young earth theory, as I find it likewise stupid/superficial interpretation of Scripture and dissonant with what science shows me. But, y'know, do what ever you need to mentally justify your irrational contempt of my religion. No pressure to be rational, or anything like that.

Quote:
 

Quote:
To think everyone chooses Christianity because they are fulfilled (of course NOT because of Hell, nobody fears eternal torment! Everyone stays for their personal relationship with their buddy Jebus

I did not say that all people are not influenced by fear of punishment. I just think that your estimates that fear drives the religion is VERY overstated. Most even among fundamentalist Protestants who preach hellfire and brimstone are not in the religion because they fear the pains of hell primarily, but in their relationship to Christ. 

Quote:
It's just evident: this person is not looking for debates or opinions, or other ways of looking at things. He just will not accept them. Not that he's not in his right to do so, but anyway...

I merely pursue the truth. That does not entail accepting every word of wisdom that falls from your pristine lips. I likewise greatly appreciate how you express that, I will just "not accept" your opinions, so I must be wrong. It is not in my right to reject your opinions as wrong. Oh, too bad. I didn't realize I was insulting your faith when I proposed that we evaluate our beliefs on the level of reason.

 

Quote:

If one assumes that something is true, then one must interpret the details of that thing that lead to the conclusion that would not contradict that thing. 

Why, StMichael, is your interpretation correct? Upon what basis does the Church interpret it that way? 

The "tree of knowledge of good and evil" does not "clearly" refer to something else.  It would only be clear if one already assumed the truth of their interpretation, but that is question begging.

I do not assume the truth of their interpretation. In fact, it would be quite silly to look up the "Catholic Church's official interpretation" of any verse of Scripture, as Scripture carries several meanings. Nevertheless, this interpretation is based on, as I said earlier, an historical basis. The Church Fathers and the Catholic theologians (and the Jews) have never interpreted this passage as a statement that Eve lacked moral capacity. In fact, as you yourself said, the passage would make no sense if Eve lacked moral capacity. How, for example, could God punish Adam and Eve if they had no knowledge of morality? It would be silly and absurd. However, this is clearly not is what is meant, as the context of the passage indicates.   

Quote:

StMichael, you are a bafoon.  I'm not saying that because you are a bafoon you are wrong about God existing, I'm saying that you are severely biased and blind to your bias and therefore will not learn anything. 

I could likewise say that you are blind to your bias. If my arguments are cogent and I can provide answers to your questions, I see no reason why my arguments must hence be false. Even if I was an evil bastard who delighted in twisting people into pretzels with my rationalizations (like Descarte's demon Smiling ), it would not affect the truth or falsity of my arguments themselves.

You have yet to prove anything but your own ability to reject truth and reason on your own blind faith and pre-held convictions. I do not do that at all. If there is something that seems to present a difficulty to my articles of faith or my reason, I answer it as best as I can. I might start out with a presumption from faith that my position is accurate, but that I never argue from my presumption itself (which would be false). Rather, I present correct arguments to support my contentions. 

 I am sorry you think that this is a waste of your time, but I will sincerely keep you and all the folks on this forum in the prayers of my own seminary community, the prayers of a convent of religious in my area, and in the prayers of Our Most Holy Mother of God and of Saint Dominic, Our Holy Father.

I encourage you to change your mind.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 


 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Jutter
Jutter's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-24
User is offlineOffline
Talking about requirements.

Talking about requirements. All a multi-page thread with long-ass replies appearantly requires, is a petty argument from ignorance.

 Can't explain, ergo goddidit. Yawn.

~Let us be reasonable~

You want to claim there's such a thing as "the supernatural"? Fine. I hereby declare you to be "paracorrect" in doing so. 


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Jutter wrote: Talking

Jutter wrote:

Talking about requirements. All a multi-page thread with long-ass replies appearantly requires, is a petty argument from ignorance.

 Can't explain, ergo goddidit. Yawn.

I can handle it. *cRaCk FiNgErS* Laughing out loud

God had no time to create time.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
michael,

michael,

Congratulations on driving away a couple of opponents in frustration (at least for now), but sorry, no congrats on having defended your beliefs in any reasonable manner. As I've mentioned before, you simply play an ongoing game of cat and mouse, and have not brought to conclusion a single point. Let's try this again...

1) You take the truthfulness of the First Cause and Prime Mover arguments for granted, without having soundly argued their truthfulness even up until now. You argue that god exists because there has to be a First Cause/Prime Mover. Yet when taken to task on why there has to be a First Cause/Prime Mover, you have turned around and responded, because the First Cause/Prime Mover represent the attributes of god. The argument remains circular. Furthermore, the First Cause/Prime Mover arguments did not become part of the church's doctrine until the Renaissance when Plato and Aristotle were rediscovered (the same time as which the church's absolute authority was challenged for the first time, resulting in Protestantism). If this is what you offer as an argument for god's existence "through reason", what argument was the church relying on for the first two thirds of its existence? You have gone further to argue against other religions, because their god(s) do not have attributes of the First Cause, as if that alone suffices to dismiss them. All this means essentially is that other religions have not applied Aristotle to their creation myths, which would have aptly described Catholicism as well up until the Renaissance. You went as far as to assert Islam is wrong because it does not have an ex nihilo creation story, which you base on a Quranic reference of Allah creating from some primordial dust. I am unaware of any independent proof that affirms that only gods involved in ex nihilo creation can be true. Nonetheless, neither does the god in your hallowed gospel create ex nihilo. Genesis I mentions pre-existing water over which god was travelling; in Genesis II god creates man from the dust of the earth. So first cause or no first cause, there remains no way to extrapolate "through reason alone" that catholicism is the one true faith.

2) Speaking of scripture, you freely make references to it as a historical resource. Yet elsewhere you acknowledge (to your credit) that there are allegorical parts, which should not be taken literally, and therefore, not be taken as history. You have never explained by what criteria you determine which passages are literal and which are not, which you absolutely must do before treating anything about it historically. By what independent means do we determine that the Talking Snake story is allegorical, but not the Transfiguration or the 12 Baskets of Food? When asked for historical sources other than the Gospels corroborating jesus' life, you provided Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. Perhaps this is my fault for not specifying contemporary sources; by that I mean independent sources documenting Lazarus, or the feeding of the multitude or the resurrection, or the bodies that rose from graves, etc. Surely if any of these "miraculous" things happened for all to see, we would have multiple sources to refer to, and not just one. In the case of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, they were from the first century (therefore, not contemporary), and they were church apologists, so an inherent bias would taint any of their claims. Ignatius is said to be a disciple of John the Apostle, and you mention the fact that the apostles suffered for their beliefs as proof of their credibility. You did not respond to my assertion that they thought jesus was going to return in their lifetime, which would admittedly undermine their credibility. You also mention Josephus as a reference. There is much reason to believe that statements in his writings supporting the jesus story represent redactions by later christian apologists. Here's just one link to learn about that: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html. Surely you should have addressed such claims, or at least offered a caveat about possible christian revisions before quoting Josephus.

You have hitherto acknowledged that the gospel writings date to after 70 A.D. You maintain that the stories about Jesus are drawn from eyewitness accounts despite the 40 year hiatus from his supposed death. You further mention (correctly) that Paul's epistles date earlier than 70 A.D. Apart from the fact (as mentioned above), that there are no independent contemporary accounts corroborating these eyewitness events (why indeed would noone have seen the need to write down these divine occurrences for 40 years), it is an enduring mystery that Paul makes no reference in his letters to the majority of events in jesus life. Only his death and resurrection - nothing about his humble birth, miracle-laden ministry, etc. Also, do you acknowledge the "eyewitness accounts" of jesus must have undergone at least one word-of-mouth transfer prior to being recorded in written form, or were the eyewitness still alive in 70 A.D., when the pens hit the paper? If so, is it entirely unreasonable for me to suspect that anything might have changed in the retelling? Furthermore, address the fact that all four gospels differ on precise details, and as long as they do, their historical reliability is questionable.

3) More than once, when called to task on your assertions, you have pulled in something, which really ought to have been mentioned when you first made your assertion. One example is your claim that god can be known through reason (yes, this has been beat into the ground and back again). When further pressed, all of a sudden you mention "natural" reason distinct from some other form of reason. You have also brought in "faith" and "revelation". When you originally said god could be proven by reason, it was not contingent upon us to know whether you meant "natural" reason, or something else, or whether we had to make allowance for faith/revelation. At the point that you do this, the entire discussion is shot, because we pretty much have to start from the beginning. I am not saying this to be petulant or obstinate, it's simply that after so many countless exchanges, with a full willingness to hear your argument through, I still don't know how you argue god's existence from reason, and what type of reason, and where and how faith/revelation comes into it, and how the inclusion of faith/reason doesn't negate the original assertion, which I had thought to be an argument from pure reason.

Another example would be the the elusive argument regarding god's omnipotence, god's omniscience, and our free will. Here are two of your quotes:

"God could not change the conditions for happiness. It is "axiomatic"-ally corresponded with a free will and a mind."

"God's omnipotence is not an issue because free will is necessary for happiness to exist. God cannot change those parameters because they are axiomatic. "

If god "could not", "cannot"...then god is not omnipotent. If it is constrained by these axioms, then god not omnipotent. Who/what created these axioms, if not god? If god created them, god could have very well created different axioms. If god did not create them, then what did? Did the axioms always exist, just as god did? Or isn't god the first cause? I am mentioning nothing new here, you have simply dodged this very simple, very straightforward question, time and again. Plato addressed this in the Euthypro. You might find it interesting.

 

There is certainly more, but I know this is quite a bit here already. I'm not demanding a response, or claiming victory if you choose not to respond. It doesn't appear this exchange is progressing towards any sense of greater understanding, and I doubt anyone showing up now would have the ability (or desire) to trace the argument through the glut of forgoing posts. If we are to continue discussion, I imagine we should settle on some protocol (maybe separating some of the main points into threads of their own), and for identifying fallacious arguments (committed by either side). Anyone have suggestions? Otherwise, we can just continue on as before, until the server runs out of space...

Take care

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  1)  You take the

Quote:

 1)  You take the truthfulness of the First Cause and Prime Mover arguments for granted, without having soundly argued their truthfulness even up until now.  You argue that god exists because there has to be a First Cause/Prime Mover.  Yet when taken to task on why there has to be a First Cause/Prime Mover, you have turned around and responded, because the First Cause/Prime Mover represent the attributes of god.   The argument remains circular.

I do not. I have been arguing that one exists for a long time now. People keep sidetracking into what the properties of the Prime Mover are and how I can call it God, but that was not the intent. Th existence of the Prime Mover is easily seen in the fact that things are in motion only because they were set in motion by another, and an infinite regress in movers is impossible because then no motion would exist.

Quote:
 

Furthermore, the First Cause/Prime Mover arguments did not become part of the church's doctrine until the Renaissance when Plato and Aristotle were rediscovered (the same time as which church's absolute authority was challenged for the first time, resulting in Protestantism).

Bah. Learn your history. Saint Augustine and other Church Fathers used many of the arguments for the existence of God, which is far before the Renaissance. In fact, the earliest argument for the Prime Mover could be said to be in the Book of Wisdom.

 

Quote:

You have gone further to argue against other religions, because their god(s) do not have attributes of the First Cause, as if that alone suffices to dismiss them.

Even if we reject that the Church postulates that God is the Prime Mover, the Prime Mover still retains all qualities that would identify such with the Christian/Jewish God alone in exclusivity to all other gods, with the possible exception of Islam. But I would say this narrows things down considerably.

Quote:
 

I am unaware of any independent proof that affirms that only gods involved in ex nihilo creation can be true.

Because if anything existed prior to God, He would not be the Prime Mover. Hence, He must create purely from His will, without any prior matter.

Quote:
 

 Nonetheless, neither does the god in your hallowed gospel create ex nihilo.  Genesis I mentions pre-existing water over which god was travelling; in Genesis II god creates man from the dust of the earth.  So first cause or no first cause, there remains no way to extrapolate "through reason alone" that catholicism is the one true faith.

First, I never claim I can prove or demonstrate rationally that Catholicism is the one true faith. I can only demonstrate that it is not self-contradictory and that it fits with what we know naturally, in combination with probable arguments from miracles.

 Second, God does not create things from the water, but by His Word alone in Genesis. "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth," and matter from which He made the universe is not mentioned. The "waters" over which God moves is an allegory for the formless matter in the beginning which God created before the universe.

Quote:
 

 2) Speaking of scripture, you freely make references to it as a historical resource.  Yet elsewhere you acknowledge (to your credit) that there are allegorical parts, which should not be taken literally, and therefore, not be taken as history.  You have never explained by what criteria you determine which passages are literal and which are not, which you absolutely must do before treating anything about it historically.  By what independent means do we determine that the Talking Snake story is allegorical, but not the Transfiguration or the 12 Baskets of Food?

I would argue that context and type of work gives indication of how the literal sense of the passage is to be determined. For example, it is clear that the Psalms when mentioning God's "hand" are speaking allegorically (because God has no hand) and the context indicates this. The Gospels on a whole are obviously and clearly historical in character and the interpretative tradition of the Church confirms this character.

Quote:
 

When asked for historical sources other than the Gospels corroborating jesus' life, you provided Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.  Perhaps this is my fault for not specifying contemporary sources; by that I mean independent sources documenting Lazarus, or the feeding of the multitude or the resurrection, or the bodies that rose from graves, etc.  Surely if any of these "miraculous" things happened for all to see, we would have multiple sources to refer to, and not just one.

I highly doubt that any source other than the Gospels and St. Paul's letters exist for the basic reason that all of the folks who witnessed Christ's life were basically illiterate (with the exception of some scribes, the high priest, and Pilate himself). The Gospel was written down after the fact by Gentile educated converts who were informed by eyewitnesses. Further, I doubt many educated people really cared enough about the Galillean "prophet" to write anything at all about Him, let alone attend any of the famous miracles. Really, the Gospels and Saint Paul's letters are about the only historical evidence we would have.

Quote:
 

In the case of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, they were from the first century (therefore, not contemporary), and they were church apologists, so an inherent bias would taint any of their claims.

I don't think that it is fair to say that they were biased merely because they were apologists. But it also doesn't discredit any and all claims they make about Christ.

Quote:
You did not respond to my assertion that they thought jesus was going to return in their lifetime, which would admittedly undermine their credibility.

Not necessarily on two levels. I think, as it seems clear to me from their recorded sermons, ect. in the Scriptures, that they did not think Christ was necessarily coming in their lifetime, but at least at an undetermined time which could have been during their lifetime. On another level, I don't think that this undermines their credibility, because they never taught that Christ would come during their lifetime; the most they ever did was to say that Christ could come.

Quote:
You also mention Josephus as a reference.  There is much reason to believe that statements in his writings supporting the jesus story represent redactions by later christian apologists.  Here's just one link to learn about that:  http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html.  Surely you should have addressed such claims, or at least offered a caveat about possible christian revisions before quoting Josephus.

I believed I did. I would say that while it is clear that there might be some interpolation, it at least represents some knowledge of Christ to Josephus (as most historical scholars would point out, it was interpolated, not made up).

Quote:
 

Apart from the fact (as mentioned above), that there are no independent contemporary accounts corroborating these eyewitness events (why indeed would noone have seen the need to write down these divine occurrences for 40 years),

I think it fairly simple to say that nobody probably cared about Christ other than the Jews, most of whom were illiterate. Judea was a backwater little Roman territory with hardly any importance. No surprise that there were not independent pagan accounts. 

Quote:
 

it is an enduring mystery that Paul makes no reference in his letters to the majority of events in jesus life.  Only his death and resurrection - nothing about his humble birth, miracle-laden ministry, etc. 

Well, I think that you overlook some references. I would point out that, for example, in his letter to the Galatians, Saint Paul does make reference to Christ's birth of a virgin. Also, elsewhere he makes a reference to Christ as the new Adam, born of a virgin. I don't recall him referencing any particular miracles of Christ, but I would not find that surprisingly odd, as Saint Paul is not explicating Christ's life, but His doctrine, ect. Further, the major event in Christ's life was His Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Go into any major church today and you could easily find someone who would not speak of anything more than these in a sermon.

Quote:
 

Also, do you acknowledge the "eyewitness accounts" of jesus must have undergone at least one word-of-mouth transfer prior to being recorded in written form, or were the eyewitness still alive in 70 A.D., when the pens hit the paper?

I wouldn't hit right away on 70 AD as the time. I suspect, as the date is fairly variable, that the Gospel according to Matthew would have been written before this date. It is clear that, for example, in the case of the Gospel of Luke that Luke himself is not an eyewitness, but is investigating these events after the fact. I don't think that impairs the credibility of the testimony. In the case of Mark, Matthew, and John, these were probably most directly from the eyewitnesses themselves. In either event, I would still think that at least some eyewitnesses were alive (John, of course, included) even when John wrote his Gospel.

 

Quote:

If so, is it entirely unreasonable for me to suspect that anything might have changed in the retelling?  Furthermore, address the fact that all four gospels differ on precise details, and as long as they do, their historical reliability is questionable. 

I think that there is no compelling reason why the discrepancies between the Gospels cannot be explained.

Quote:
 

I still don't know how you argue god's existence from reason, and what type of reason, and where and how faith/revelation comes into it, and how the inclusion of faith/reason doesn't negate the original assertion, which I had thought to be an argument from pure reason.

I will try to quickly explain my terms then. Reason itself is the capacity for a human being to know. Faith is the acceptance of some article of faith on the authority of the one revealing. Natural reason is reason operating only on naturally known principles (scientific, mathematical, philosophical, ect.), as opposed to faith, which knows based on the Revelation by God. God's existence can be proven according to natural reason by reasoning from effects to cause - from the existence and state of the universe to the One who created it. Faith builds on what is known naturally, and completes what human knowledge cannot, of its own power, know.

Quote:
 

If god "could not", "cannot"...then god is not omnipotent.  If it is constrained by these axioms, then it god not omnipotent.  Who/what created these axioms, if not god? 

God is the source of existence and cannot cause an absolute contradiction. His omnipotence is an ability to do all things, not an ability to do the impossible. The absolute end of His power is that He cannot do something that is an absolute contradiction. It is not so much that God cannot do it, and more so that such a thing cannot exist. God, in a certain sense, is the axioms we speak of. God Himself is subsistent existence, and hence cannot negate His own being. 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
A prompt response! One

A prompt response!

One thing I hadn't previously pointed out is how often you pepper your responses with "...maybe...", "...i think...", "...perhaps...", which would indicate that they do not purport to be definitive respones, or you yourself don't have full confidence in them. As long as you do that, all I have to refute you is respond "...maybe not...", "...I don't think...". Try not to do that. Makes you look bad. I'll point them out in italics as we arrive at them.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

1) You take the truthfulness of the First Cause and Prime Mover arguments for granted...when taken to task on why there has to be a First Cause/Prime Mover, you have turned around and responded, because the First Cause/Prime Mover represent the attributes of god. The argument remains circular.

I do not. I have been arguing that one exists for a long time now. People keep sidetracking into what the properties of the Prime Mover are and how I can call it God, but that was not the intent. Th existence of the Prime Mover is easily seen in the fact that things are in motion only because they were set in motion by another, and an infinite regress in movers is impossible because then no motion would exist.

You do. The existence of the p.m. is not easily seen in the fact that things are in motion only because they were set in motion by another. If something could have always existed (first cause), it could also have been always moving. Look below for more about your beloved prime mover.

 

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore, the First Cause/Prime Mover arguments did not become part of the church's doctrine until the Renaissance...

Bah. Learn your history. Saint Augustine and other Church Fathers used many of the arguments for the existence of God, which is far before the Renaissance. In fact, the earliest argument for the Prime Mover could be said to be in the Book of Wisdom.

"...could be said..." Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Not interested in "could be said". Not definitive.

Granted, I was referring specifically to Aquinas who represents the foundation for most of today's catholic dogma; and it is my fault for not specifying. Saint Augustine is still from the 4th century, so what fumes was the church running on up until then, and jews for the thousands of years preceding that? Augustine was at first influenced by Neo-Platonism, but eventualy absconded it, preferring scripture as his primary source. One erroneous claim of Augustine's is that the universe was created all at an instant. Another, sensible claim is that we should be willing to modify our views when presented with new evidence. Indeed as more evidence mounts, your deity makes less and less sense. (Among references used: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html)

All the same the Aristotelian Aquinas replaced the Neo-Platonist Augustine as the church's main apologist, and his prime mover/first cause apologies have formed the main part of your argument.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
You have gone further to argue against other religions, because their god(s) do not have attributes of the First Cause, as if that alone suffices to dismiss them.

Even if we reject that the Church postulates that God is the Prime Mover, the Prime Mover still retains all qualities that would identify such with the Christian/Jewish God alone in exclusivity to all other gods, with the possible exception of Islam. But I would say this narrows things down considerably.

"...possible exception..." - Not definitive - A possible, but not a definite exception

"...I would say..." - Not definitive - I wouldn't say.

"...narrow things down considerably..." - Not definitive - considerably, but not entirely.

Is this part of the argument intractable until we come to a conclusion about the Prime Mover argument itself? And if Islam can sneak into the club as a "possible exception" (you locked it out before), would you let in any others if they started chanting "prime mover"?

StMichael wrote:

...I never claim I can prove or demonstrate rationally that Catholicism is the one true faith.

Then I advise you stop practicing the faith until you can.

 

StMichael wrote:

I can only demonstrate that it is not self-contradictory and that it fits with what we know naturally, in combination with probable arguments from miracles.

"...probable..." Talking about god here. Not interested in probable.

Still not clear what you mean by that which we know naturally. Galileo came to know naturally that the earth was not the center of the universe, and the church claimed to know better than he. So precisely when did the church start embracing natural knowledge?

StMichael wrote:

I would argue that context and type of work gives indication of how the literal sense of the passage is to be determined. For example, it is clear that the Psalms when mentioning God's "hand" are speaking allegorically (because God has no hand) and the context indicates this. The Gospels on a whole are obviously and clearly historical in character and the interpretative tradition of the Church confirms this character.

"...I would argue..." Not definitive.

"...on a whole..." Not definitive.

Context and type of work? Not clear on that. I imagine I could use "context and type of work" to show that the Three Little Pigs was a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh. By your precious context, what about the gospels is "on the whole" true and what "on the whole" isn't? And the interpretive tradition of anyone not belonging to the church denies the "obvious and clearly historical character" of the gospels.

StMichael wrote:

I highly doubt that any source other than the Gospels and St. Paul's letters exist for the basic reason that all of the folks who witnessed Christ's life were basically illiterate (with the exception of some scribes, the high priest, and Pilate himself). The Gospel was written down after the fact by Gentile educated converts who were informed by eyewitnesses. Further, I doubt many educated people really cared enough about the Galillean "prophet" to write anything at all about Him, let alone attend any of the famous miracles. Really, the Gospels and Saint Paul's letters are about the only historical evidence we would have.

"...I highly doubt..." - Not definitive. I highly doubt the existence of god. Good enough for you?

So no contemporary accounts exist because all the witnesses were "basically illiterate". Noone besides the scribes, the priest and Pilate knew how to write in Jerusalem? I genuinely don't know either way, but I'd be interested in your source for that assertion. And you think educated people wouldn't care if they heard someone was touring the countryside making noise, performing miracles, claiming to be the son of god? Did only the uneducated people care? Why do you suppose that is?

Just to remind you, you didn't address why Paul makes no mention of jesus' life events. He apparently could write letters, why not the gospels, if he was privy to those same "eyewitness accounts"?

StMichael wrote:

I don't think that it is fair to say that they were biased merely because they were apologists. But it also doesn't discredit any and all claims they make about Christ.

"...you don't think..." - Not definitive

It is fair to say they were biased. They were writing for the church. How is it not? Particularly when their only source, as you say, is the gospels? Justin Martyr for one, attributed the similarities between jesus and pagan figures as Dionysus and Mithra, to the work of the devil, who anticipated jesus, and instituted pagan religions as an obstacle (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html). Unbiased and objective? You decide.

StMichael wrote:

Not necessarily on two levels. I think, as it seems clear to me from their recorded sermons, ect. in the Scriptures, that they did not think Christ was necessarily coming in their lifetime, but at least at an undetermined time which could have been during their lifetime. On another level, I don't think that this undermines their credibility, because they never taught that Christ would come during their lifetime; the most they ever did was to say that Christ could come.

"...Not necessarily...I think, as it seems clear to me..." Not definitive. I don't think so, it seems unclear to me...

You don't think it undermines their credibility? I think it does.

StMichael wrote:

I believed I did. I would say that while it is clear that there might be some interpolation, it at least represents some knowledge of Christ to Josephus (as most historical scholars would point out, it was interpolated, not made up).

"...i would say...it at least represents some knowledge..." - Not definitive.

Knowledge of what? Someone named jesus? Origen mentions (ca. 240) that Josephus "did not believe that Jesus was Christ". Rather, Josephus equates the Messianic prophecies with Vespasian. Are we therefore worshipping the wrong Messiah? "...as most historical scholars would point out..."? As they would point out, or as they have pointed out, Michael? I mean, I like using the subjunctive too, but there are limits...

StMichael wrote:

I think it fairly simple to say that nobody probably cared about Christ other than the Jews, most of whom were illiterate. Judea was a backwater little Roman territory with hardly any importance. No surprise that there were not independent pagan accounts.

"...I think it fairly simple...nobody probably cared..." Not definitive. I think it fairly complex...

If it was enough to get Pilate's attention and get Barabbas released (a killer of Romans), you think the pagans would not have cared at all?

StMichael wrote:

Well, I think that you overlook some references. I would point out that, for example, in his letter to the Galatians, Saint Paul does make reference to Christ's birth of a virgin. Also, elsewhere he makes a reference to Christ as the new Adam, born of a virgin. I don't recall him referencing any particular miracles of Christ, but I would not find that surprisingly odd, as Saint Paul is not explicating Christ's life, but His doctrine, ect. Further, the major event in Christ's life was His Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Go into any major church today and you could easily find someone who would not speak of anything more than these in a sermon.

"...I would not find that surprisingly odd..." I would find that surprisingly odd...

Agreed on the virgin birth, but nothing of his entire life and ministry? Not one of those amazing miracles which you now latch onto to support your belief? Were the Galatians, Phillipians, Ephesians, etc., make of stronger stuff than we are, that they didn't need to hear about those miracles? Not even the tear-jerking Beatitudes? So far, you have listed him as the only link between the time jesus reportedly died, and the writing of the gospels. So far, he doesn't make for a very good link.

StMichael wrote:

I wouldn't hit right away on 70 AD as the time. I suspect, as the date is fairly variable, that the Gospel according to Matthew would have been written before this date. It is clear that, for example, in the case of the Gospel of Luke that Luke himself is not an eyewitness, but is investigating these events after the fact. I don't think that impairs the credibility of the testimony. In the case of Mark, Matthew, and John, these were probably most directly from the eyewitnesses themselves. In either event, I would still think that at least some eyewitnesses were alive (John, of course, included) even when John wrote his Gospel.

"...I wouldn't...I suspect...I don't think...probably most directly...I would still think..." - Guess what I have to say?

Bah. Learn your history. The Temple was destroyed in 70, and the gospels mention it. Your analysis is actually apalling, since as a catholic even I knew that the church acknowledges the synoptic gospels - namely that the writers of matthew and luke used mark as their prototype, tailoring their details for their intended audiences.

Thank you for at least attempting a distillation of your previous claims of "reason,faith,revelation" in respect to establishing god's existence. I'm still not getting it, but i'll respond later. We can continue the axiom vs. omnipotence discussion, but I fear it is descending into merely an argument of semantics: "omni" means all,"omnipotent" means the ability to do everything. If god cannot do "all", he needs to turn in his "omni" badge. Do you wish to volunteer a new term to imply the ability to do everything except (insert list here)?

Thanks for Playing!

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If something could

Quote:
If something could have always existed (first cause), it could also have been always moving.

Nope. It could not have always been moving. It does not follow. It requires a mover who moves, but necessitates that this mover is not in motion.

 

Quote:

Granted, I was referring specifically to Aquinas who represents the foundation for most of today's catholic dogma; and it is my fault for not specifying.

He wasn't in the Renaissance.

Quote:
Saint Augustine is still from the 4th century, so what fumes was the church running on up until then, and jews for the thousands of years preceding that?

Umm... The Jews existed before the 4th century AD...

Quote:
Augustine was at first influenced by Neo-Platonism, but eventualy absconded it, preferring scripture as his primary source.

Nonsense, totally unsupported.

Quote:
 

One erroneous claim of Augustine's is that the universe was created all at an instant.

And it was. What's the issue? 

Quote:
 


"...probable..." Talking about god here. Not interested in probable.

Faith cannot be demonstrated from reason with certainty, but it is certain on the grounds of God's authority revealing (as His authority is supremely trustworthy).

Quote:
 

 

Context and type of work? Not clear on that. I imagine I could use "context and type of work" to show that the Three Little Pigs was a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

What were the forms used in writing the book of Scripture? What was intended historically? What was being used to convey that message? How is the author expressing his message (possibly in parallelisms)? Ect.

Quote:
 

By your precious context, what about the gospels is "on the whole" true and what "on the whole" isn't?

Everything is historically true, with the exception coming to, for example, Christ's parables (which are obviously not historical in their subject matter).

Quote:
And the interpretive tradition of anyone not belonging to the church denies the "obvious and clearly historical character" of the gospels.

I don't see how it does.

 

Quote:
 


Why do you suppose that is?

Quite a few people were claiming to be the Messiah, as even the Gospel indicates. It would not be far to see that Christ would just have been taken for one of these and most probably ignored generally by most of the elite pagans (who didn't care about the Messiah, anyway).

Quote:
 

Just to remind you, you didn't address why Paul makes no mention of jesus' life events.

Yes I did. And he does write about them, as I said earlier. He writes about the Last Supper, he writes about Christ's birth, he writes about His death on the Cross, he writes about Christ's rising from the dead, ect. 

Quote:
 


It is fair to say they were biased. They were writing for the church. How is it not?

 They were writing as people who maintained it happened. But I wouldn't call that biased, any more than a man writing a book on mathematics would be biased for believing in the truth of what he maintains.

 

Quote:
Particularly when their only source, as you say, is the gospels?

I never said that.  

Quote:
 

Justin Martyr for one, attributed the similarities between jesus and pagan figures as Dionysus and Mithra, to the work of the devil, who anticipated jesus, and instituted pagan religions as an obstacle (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html).

?And?

Quote:

 


Knowledge of what? Someone named jesus? Origen mentions (ca. 240) that Josephus "did not believe that Jesus was Christ". Rather, Josephus equates the Messianic prophecies with Vespasian. Are we therefore worshipping the wrong Messiah? "...as most historical scholars would point out..."? As they would point out, or as they have pointed out, Michael? I mean, I like using the subjunctive too, but there are limits...

As they have pointed out. Is that clear enough?

 

Quote:

If it was enough to get Pilate's attention and get Barabbas released (a killer of Romans), you think the pagans would not have cared at all?

But of course that was at His death. They might have cared if they thought He was causing an insurrection or just trouble among the people. But they wouldn't have really cared about what He taught or His life/miracles.

Quote:

 

Agreed on the virgin birth, but nothing of his entire life and ministry? Not one of those amazing miracles which you now latch onto to support your belief? Were the Galatians, Phillipians, Ephesians, etc., make of stronger stuff than we are, that they didn't need to hear about those miracles? Not even the tear-jerking Beatitudes?

The stories were probably supposed. Anyway, it wouldn't have been necessary to impart anything more than the general Christian doctrine in a letter. He was personally founding their churches, not by way of letter alone.

 

 

Quote:

Bah. Learn your history. The Temple was destroyed in 70, and the gospels mention it.

And? Luke and John would obviously be written after the destruction, but Matthew is arguably placed before the destruction. This is, of course, a theory, but I think it rather supported.

Quote:
 

Your analysis is actually apalling, since as a catholic even I knew that the church acknowledges the synoptic gospels - namely that the writers of matthew and luke used mark as their prototype, tailoring their details for their intended audiences.

The Church does not teach officially either way.

 

Quote:
Do you wish to volunteer a new term to imply the ability to do everything except (insert list here)?

It is not so much as that God cannot do it. It would be more accurate to say that such a thing is impossible, because it contradicts itself.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:


Quote:
If something could have always existed (first cause), it could also have been always moving.


Nope. It could not have always been moving. It does not follow. It requires a mover who moves, but necessitates that this mover is not in motion.


Nope. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:


Granted, I was referring specifically to Aquinas who represents the foundation for most of today's catholic dogma; and it is my fault for not specifying.


He wasn't in the Renaissance.


Correct. He was 13th century. For the first 12 centuries of its existence, what First Cause/Prime Mover was the church using for its dogma?

StMichael wrote:


Quote:
Saint Augustine is still from the 4th century, so what fumes was the church running on up until then, and jews for the thousands of years preceding that?


Umm... The Jews existed before the 4th century AD...


Umm...Yeah, with no mention of First Cause / Prime Mover...

StMichael wrote:


Quote:
Augustine was at first influenced by Neo-Platonism, but eventualy absconded it, preferring scripture as his primary source.


Nonsense, totally unsupported.



Here's a bibliography. Unsupport it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Bibliography
StMichael wrote:


Quote:


"...probable..." Talking about god here. Not interested in probable.


Faith cannot be demonstrated from reason with certainty, but it is certain on the grounds of God's authority revealing (as His authority is supremely trustworthy).


Either it's certain or it isn't. If you have to qualify your assertions with "...probable...", I don't have to accept them. Thank you!

StMichael wrote:


Quote:


Context and type of work? Not clear on that. I imagine I could use "context and type of work" to show that the Three Little Pigs was a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh.


What were the forms used in writing the book of Scripture? What was intended historically? What was being used to convey that message? How is the author expressing his message (possibly in parallelisms)? Ect.


I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, and.... I don't know. Do you? If so, make it known before citing scripture, and try not to use "...probable...", "...I think..." etc. Otherwise, don't cite scripture.

StMichael wrote:


Everything is historically true, with the exception coming to, for example, Christ's parables (which are obviously not historical in their subject matter).


It's not. Let me know if you need a list of inconsistencies, and point out whether you are treating the entire scriptures as history, or just the gospels. I'll be happy to provide a list, but honestly anyone who reads the scriptures should be able to spot problems without much trouble. By the way, might you have an answer handy for why the gospels belonging to the Apocrypha don't count as history alongside M,M,L & J?

StMichael wrote:


Quote:
And the interpretive tradition of anyone not belonging to the church denies the "obvious and clearly historical character" of the gospels.


I don't see how it does.


Simple. I interpret the entire jesus story, miracles and all, as a myth, and not history. Now you see.

StMichael wrote:


Quite a few people were claiming to be the Messiah, as even the Gospel indicates. It would not be far to see that Christ would just have been taken for one of these and most probably ignored generally by most of the elite pagans (who didn't care about the Messiah, anyway).



"...most probably ignored generally..." - Thought you could sneak that in did you?

But you used Josephus as a reference to support the claim that Jesus was the Messiah, when Josephus was assuredly not of that opinion. If you wish to discontinue your use of Josephus, fine by me, just say so.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:
Particularly when their only source, as you say, is the gospels?


I never said that.


If I insinuated something other than what you mean, I sincerely apologize. But based on our discussion, I am aware of only these citations as examples of jesus' historicity: these church apologists, Josephus, Paul, and the Gospels, which you claim are drawn from eyewitness accounts. I assumed the gospels represented the apologists' source. I apologize if I wrongly assumed that; please kindly indicate what sources they would have otherwise used.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:


Justin Martyr for one, attributed the similarities between jesus and pagan figures as Dionysus and Mithra, to the work of the devil, who anticipated jesus, and instituted pagan religions as an obstacle (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html).


?And?


And? And he is one of the apologists you provide as a reference for jesus' historicity. Do you find this claim of Justin's objective and impartial, or subjective and biased towards christianity? Does it affect the objectivity of any of his other claims about jesus? The number of similarities among Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra and jesus (among others) just as easily suggest that jesus was just another figure drawn from a common source of myths. Let me know your thoughts please.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:
...Origen mentions (ca. 240) that Josephus "did not believe that Jesus was Christ". Rather, Josephus equates the Messianic prophecies with Vespasian. "...as most historical scholars would point out..."? As they would point out, or as they have pointed out, Michael? I mean, I like using the subjunctive too, but there are limits...


As they have pointed out. Is that clear enough?


That is indeed clear enough. Thank you for refraining from using the subjunctive, and saying something definitive. Now consult the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus and tell me what you see.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:


If it was enough to get Pilate's attention and get Barabbas released (a killer of Romans), you think the pagans would not have cared at all?


But of course that was at His death. They might have cared if they thought He was causing an insurrection or just trouble among the people. But they wouldn't have really cared about what He taught or His life/miracles.


Why not? If I heard David Blaine was in the street performing tricks, I would certainly go out and take a look at least.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:


Agreed on the virgin birth, but nothing of his entire life and ministry? Not one of those amazing miracles which you now latch onto to support your belief? Were the Galatians, Phillipians, Ephesians, etc., make of stronger stuff than we are, that they didn't need to hear about those miracles? Not even the tear-jerking Beatitudes?


The stories were probably supposed. Anyway, it wouldn't have been necessary to impart anything more than the general Christian doctrine in a letter. He was personally founding their churches, not by way of letter alone.



"...PROBABLY SUPPOSED..."?!?! If it wasn't necessary to impart anything then, why did it become necessary in 70 A.D., and why is it necessary now, for you to refer to the gospels as historically accurate?

StMichael wrote:


Quote:


Bah. Learn your history. The Temple was destroyed in 70, and the gospels mention it.


And? Luke and John would obviously be written after the destruction, but Matthew is arguably placed before the destruction. This is, of course, a theory, but I think it rather supported.


"...arguably..." "...I think it rather supported..."

Let me know when the theory which you think rather supported is resurrected as a fact.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:


Your analysis is actually apalling, since as a catholic even I knew that the church acknowledges the synoptic gospels - namely that the writers of matthew and luke used mark as their prototype, tailoring their details for their intended audiences.
StMichael wrote:


The Church does not teach officially either way.


Check out Synoptica in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I can only say I attended a Jesuit university (maybe they don't count as catholics, perfectly understandable), and multiple courses on scripture I took all identified MML as the synoptic gospels, Mark being the first.

StMichael wrote:


Quote:
Do you wish to volunteer a new term to imply the ability to do everything except (insert list here)?


It is not so much as that God cannot do it. It would be more accurate to say that such a thing is impossible, because it contradicts itself.


If god was omnipotent, I'm sure he could find a workaround.

 
Gott ist tot,

 
Zarathustra

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Hither

StMichael wrote:

Hither comes an answer!!!!1

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Maybe I mistook you somewhere. If so, then you haven't proven why they are credible in the first place.

They are credible because they fit what can be known naturally and because they are supported by miracles.

I don't accept that miracles as acts of god happen until I have seen evidence supporting the concept. And scripture does not fit with what I know naturally.

If God is the cause of all things and omnipotent respect to what He causes, there is no question that He would be able to intervene in a miraculous way. (We could prove this later, if that is necessary)

Further, I would argue that Scripture contains nothing contradictory to naturally known truths.

You've just made a significant error. I don't have to disprove a miracle, you have to prove one. You might as well ask me to disprove the Force.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

1400 AC is a bit before my time, and you'll have to explain that a bit more. It didn't make sense. And saints are outside my expertise. I'd have to believe they were godly before I would care anything about them. Got anything recent? And that has testimony other than from the church?

These things exist today. You can go to Lanciano, Italy and see the miracle.

A nice thought. Care to pay for the trip? I can't afford to take that much time off work, let alone fly to Italy. Not sure why god needs me to pay the Italians to see evidence of him.

OK, but that is not an argument against the truth of the miracle.

It wasn't supposed to be.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

And these are not testified to by the Church alone (whatever that means), but by scientific professionals as well.

I'd have to see said testimonies.

You may mail your questions about Lanciano in general to:

Santuario del Miracolo Eucaristico
Frati Minori Conventuali
66034 Lanciano (CH), Italy
Telephone: (0872) 713189

 

The most recent scientific study was conducted in 1970 by Prof. Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

 

I would likewise point out that it has clearly been verified as real human blood, and the fact that it has not decayed for the past 800 years is a miracle on its own. There are some websites where you could find pictures of the cardiac tissue of the Host itself.

I don't believe the church, so that's insufficient in so far as evidence goes. I can just as easily point to a writing that says there is no god as you can to one that says there is a god.
And you cannot in any way say that the fluid in the container is proven as blood. It has not been. I did some looking up on it myself, and it's patently obvious that proper techniques were not utilized. And what's the big deal about keeping it sealed anyway? Afraid someones going to find out what it actually is? The church can't be worried about contamination. After all, it's a godly substance.

StMichael wrote:

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

There is no reason one would have to accept a saint's "godliness" before one noticed that their body had not decayed for the past 300 years.

Actually, we have perfectly perserved bodies from 3000 years ago.

Intentionally preserved, and having rigour mortis. The incorruptibles have not been preserved naturally, and had no rigour mortis.

Incorrect. There are many naturally preserved bodies that have been found. Some dating back 5000 odd years or more. You also cannot prove that the so-called-incorruptibles were not unnaturally preserved in their time. And I doubt you can prove they were not subject to rigor mortis either. I've seen nothing on them in my life, leading me to believe it's yet another thing the church says is proof, and maintains as such soley due to restricted access to articles. The day the doors of the church are flung open, science will disprove most if not all of the miracles they've claimed.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
 I do however find it telling that the oldest body is only 300. There were many practices developed within that time frame for preservation of a body. If it was gods work, there should be much older bodies in the same shape.

There are. I just gave examples of Saint Vincent and Bernadette, but there are older incorruptibles.

Further, they are only one example of these “perpetual” miracles that exist in the Catholic Church.

Well how old are the oldest then? And again, unless subjected to scientific study, there's no basis behind claims of miraculous events. And I don't mean studies of 200 years ago or by someone pretending to be a scientist but really working for the church either.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

 Quote:

 Well obviously people aren't going to go around the world spreading word of a god if they don't think it exists and wants them to. But just because christianity effectively monopolized viral tactics doesn't mean they got everything right.

I did not say that it definitely proves that Christianity is true. It would just be miraculous if they spread so fast and so wide without a single miracle, which they claimed to have.

Much like scientology, which I'm sure you would agree is a ludicrous theology. It hasn't been around for even 70 years, yet it already has 50,000+ members. I'd say that the spread of christianity had more to do with christians moving around than anything else.

Again, I never claimed it proved its truth. It would just lend credibility to the belief that if Christianity claimed miracles and never produced them, it would not be believed.

The history of our species disagrees with your conjecture. It is plainly obvious that people are willing and capable of self deception in any number of different scenarios. And the fact that the church has miserably failed to keep unified it's own religion flies in the face of your claims. If christianity were as perfect as you suggest, there would only be one christianity. There wouldn't be a thousand.

StMichael wrote:
Now, you must clarify what you are talking about here, rather than just assert that “the vast majority of miracles are simply natural phenomena” and further how science has disproven them. Lightning does not count, again, as nobody claimed it to be a miracle in the sense I intend, or according to the definition given above.

Perhaps it was editted from the bible once clear it wasn't evidence of supernaturalism. Or perhaps it's something never utilized by this particular religion. It hardly matters. The fact is that the definition, by your own church, was as stated. Anything unexplained is proof of god. Which is the highest order of bullshit I've ever heard of.

StMichael wrote:

Except that the first miracle is a proper miracle because it cannot happen naturally.

Nor can you prove it happened at all.

StMichael wrote:
Lightning, however, is not of the same category. Nor is aurora borealis.

Because you understand it. If you didn't, it would indeed be in the same category. By definition.

StMichael wrote:
Clarification: it is not a proof that God exists. It is a proof that Christ was God and His Church exists according to God’s institution (and that, as such, its doctrines are true).

So you now believe in the sandwich?

StMichael wrote:
I do not disbelieve in evolution. Don’t be so condescending and patronizing.

That was hardly my intent. Don't side track simply because you are apart from the norm. I was making a point, and you have failed to refute it. I have no reason to look something up when it's legitimacy is in serious question.

StMichael wrote:

But this doesn’t answer my question. Further, it has nothing to do with why ordinary fundamentalist Protestants believe, but whether the Catholic religion has a reasonable ground for belief in miracles.

And I pointed out that we have strayed from subjects I'm well versed in. I can easily argue against religion on most facets. I disregard everything religion claims is evidence because it is not evidence. There is no rock in the churches possesion that glows with the words "God Exists". You're merely attributing the unknown to god. That is not proof. It's the highest form of arrogance. It is saying that something happens because of something, without knowing what anything going on is. When faced with this arrogance often enough, I get in the mood to reciprocate with it. Which is when you find me start to make absolute claims that there is no god. Which you can't prove wrong, and I can prove right. I will simply use the theist mentality to do it.

StMichael wrote:
You suffer all the time from the action of other people. If someone lights your house on fire, I would call that easily a suffering that proceeds from someone else’s action.

Easy enough to deal with. Remove myself from anyone capable of doing harm to me, and I'm immune to their sin.

StMichael wrote:
The effects of original sin were a depriving of grace and right ordering in human nature. It is not a personal punishment of sin. It is much more akin to the natural example of lighting your house on fire. Original sin is a defect in the soul of human beings, which makes our wills weak in resisting sin. It is not a personal sin.

It is made personal. We are defective. You don't blame the clock for not working, you blame the guy who built it badly enough for it to stop working. Simple logic.

StMichael wrote:
Why is that true? It does not follow that God will give you all your proof so you don’t need to work for it. He gave visible signs that accompany His Church, not to accompany you in your toilet.

He wants me to believe in him, yet locks all the evidence up in an Italian vault? I don't think so.
He has given me no signs, visible or otherwise.

StMichael wrote:

Except that your definition is clearly contrary to any adequate definition.

I can pull up a number of sources that disagree with you, from more credible stand points. Therefore your claim is null and void.

StMichael wrote:
Further, you never define what a “fact” is.

A fact is a reality. "I have 5 fingers" is a fact. I thought this had been covered.

StMichael wrote:
Have we thus agreed that an unmoved mover exists? If we have, we can move on.

No we have not. The whole concept is based on your misconception of the properties of matter and energy. You will never convince me that your unmoved mover is even possible before first proving that things existed without moving, which would require all energy to be matter. We have never observed a completely and naturally inert object as far as I'm aware.

StMichael wrote:
I see no reason why entropy would not apply to the universe as a whole. It is a closed system, which is all that is necessary.

Which leads me to believe you don't know what entropy is. Entropy is impossible in a closed system. Quite literally impossible. Energy has nowhere to escape to in a closed system. All observations of entropy deal with an open system. Not a closed one.

StMichael wrote:
For example, MEP always (ALWAYS) maximizes entropy production in the most efficient way. If there is no orderer of ends, this would be impossible.

False. There is as much chaos as there is order. The fact that life exists is proof of chaos. Order is perfection. Chaos is imperfection. An orderly universe would never change. It changes, so it is not orderly.

StMichael wrote:
That is like saying “my hand moves because it is passing through the air.” Where does the energy come from, pray tell? If there was no initial energy to move anything, there would be no motion at all.

If there was no energy, then there was no matter, and there was no motion nor non-motion. Hence your whole argument collapses on itself.

StMichael wrote:
You are just saying “things are in motion because they are in motion.” But that is not the question. The problem is that things are in motion only because they were moved (acquired energy). If no first mover exists, no energy.

No, you just don't know what energy is and does. So further discussion on this point is irrelevant.

StMichael wrote:
But God remains the cause of the universe. Period.

But the universe was always there. Period.

StMichael wrote:
Which modification?

Compare the quote with the original statement.

StMichael wrote:
Not a first beginning in time, but a Prime Mover. Motion requires a mover. No getting around it.

On the contrary. Your mover cannot exist.

StMichael wrote:
God is. God is not your existence. God is subsistent existing.

Again, you contradict yourself. You say god is, but god isn't. I repeat, which is it?

Yours in humanity and science,
Vastet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Rational Faith wrote: Life

Rational Faith wrote:
Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.

 

Oh i see... so just because you cannot grasp how life can exist without a supernatural creator, there is one!

 

Okay, sold.

you've covinced me.

 

I'm denouncing my atheism and becoming a Muslim. 


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
If something could have always existed (first cause), it could also have been always moving.

Nope. It could not have always been moving. It does not follow. It requires a mover who moves, but necessitates that this mover is not in motion.

 

Do you have a random crap generating program?

I have been looking all over the interweb for one without success.

 

I presume someone has allready asked you the following, but since i know that you don't have a rational answer to it i'm asking it again: 

- Who made this prime mover of yours? 

  
 The universe, a long long time ago:

 

0

 

 got that? a zero. 0 = 0.

how do we get 1 from zero, without inventing a God?

easy.

 

0 = 0

0 = 1 - 1

there you have it. 

 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You've just made a

Quote:
You've just made a significant error. I don't have to disprove a miracle, you have to prove one. You might as well ask me to disprove the Force.

But the question was not to prove a particular miracle, but to prove that miracles are possible. I did the latter.

 

Quote:


I don't believe the church, so that's insufficient in so far as evidence goes.

 

OK, but you are asking for evidence and I clearly am presenting it with a phone number and references. Just rejecting it because it is a miracle approved by the Catholic Church is no argument, nor is it terribly rational.

Quote:
 

I can just as easily point to a writing that says there is no god as you can to one that says there is a god.

Except that this does not prove that God exists. It proves the articles of faith we believe in, such as for example the supernatural miracle involved in the Eucharist.

Quote:
And you cannot in any way say that the fluid in the container is proven as blood. It has not been.

It was opened multiple times, the most recent being in 1970,as I said. A portion of the blood was subjected to an spectometrical analysis, confirming its nature as blood, as well as a seperate test to determine blood type, which was found to be AB.  

Quote:
 

And what's the big deal about keeping it sealed anyway?

Because it is Christ's Body and Blood. That's why. However, I would point out that these scientific studies have been allowed to proceed with examining the contents at various times.

 

Quote:


Incorrect. There are many naturally preserved bodies that have been found. Some dating back 5000 odd years or more.

Not in a state of resisting decay, or without rigor mortis. Likewise, point some of these out. In all of the cases I know of natural mummies, this occured in peat bogs or at sub-zero temperatures, which is not true in any event with the incorruptible bodies of saints.

 

Quote:
 

You also cannot prove that the so-called-incorruptibles were not unnaturally preserved in their time.

Yes I can. These methods to preserve people with embalming or even with an Egyptian method were unknown at the time of most of these saints' death.

Quote:
 

And I doubt you can prove they were not subject to rigor mortis either.

You can shake Saint Bernadette's or Saint Vincent de Paul's hand. Their bodies still have no rigor.

Quote:

I've seen nothing on them in my life, leading me to believe it's yet another thing the church says is proof, and maintains as such soley due to restricted access to articles.

The Church allows research teams to investigate the bodies periodically. Of course, open investigation would be bad on two levels: it would impair the veneration of the saints' relics by the faithful and it would not be respectful of the saints to be prying about their corpses all day.

Quote:
 

The day the doors of the church are flung open, science will disprove most if not all of the miracles they've claimed.

Who's faith is being disputed now?

 

Quote:

Well how old are the oldest then?

Saint Gregory Nazianzen has some incorrupt relics that would be about 1600 years old. I suppose Saint Agatha and Saint Cecilia still have their relics in some churches, which are incorrupt from the year 100-200 or so. Many incorrupt relics were destroyed during the Protestant Reformation, but many from before that time period survive in partial form (a hand, a foot, ect.). The oldest other one I know of is about 800 years old.

 

Quote:

And again, unless subjected to scientific study, there's no basis behind claims of miraculous events. And I don't mean studies of 200 years ago or by someone pretending to be a scientist but really working for the church either.

Well, none of these scientists works for the Catholic Church. Also, scientific studies continue on these miracles; it is not just from 200 years ago.

 

Quote:

The history of our species disagrees with your conjecture. It is plainly obvious that people are willing and capable of self deception in any number of different scenarios.

People do not want to be decieved. Especially in Christianity, which claims to produce miracles. It would make no sense to believe in Christian doctrine unless miracles were produced. There have been people with inquiring minds far before you or I showed up.

Quote:

And the fact that the church has miserably failed to keep unified it's own religion flies in the face of your claims. If christianity were as perfect as you suggest, there would only be one christianity. There wouldn't be a thousand.

I don't see what this has to do with it. My Church did not splinter. My Church has remained unified throughout the centuries.

 

Quote:

Perhaps it was editted from the bible once clear it wasn't evidence of supernaturalism. Or perhaps it's something never utilized by this particular religion. It hardly matters. The fact is that the definition, by your own church, was as stated. Anything unexplained is proof of god. Which is the highest order of bullshit I've ever heard of.

Except that is not what the definition said. The definiton said that something which cannot be explained naturally is a miracle. It does not mean, "something we don't know the answer to today," but it means something that is naturally impossible, regardless of degree of scientific or technological prowess. Nobody can resuscitate a corpse naturally, nor can one transform naturally bread into flesh and wine into blood, nor can one preserve blood and cardiovascular tissue in open air for 500 years, nor can one instantaneously heal a mortal wound, nor can one regrow a limb spontaneously, nor can one levitate naturally and without exterior aid. Science cannot explain it, ever. It proceeds from an superior source.

 

Quote:

There is no rock in the churches possesion that glows with the words "God Exists".

God's existence is not proved by miracles, except indirectly. God's existence is known without miracles by reason alone.

 

Quote:

You're merely attributing the unknown to god.

It is attributing that which is naturally impossible to God, not just that which is unknown.

Quote:
 


Easy enough to deal with. Remove myself from anyone capable of doing harm to me, and I'm immune to their sin.

What does this have to do with anything? You claimed that sin never affects other people. Sin can and does affect others. 

 

Quote:


It is made personal. We are defective. You don't blame the clock for not working, you blame the guy who built it badly enough for it to stop working. Simple logic.

But God did not build our decisions. God built the soul as able to determine itself. 

Quote:

 

 


He wants me to believe in him, yet locks all the evidence up in an Italian vault? I don't think so.
He has given me no signs, visible or otherwise.

The proof that exists seems adequate for a reasonable person. We don't need to put it on our night table to investigate it.

Anyway, "it's" not locked up in an Italian vault. It is out in the open. 

 

Quote:

 

I can pull up a number of sources that disagree with you, from more credible stand points. Therefore your claim is null and void.

So let's just make up definitions, then.

Quote:

 

A fact is a reality. "I have 5 fingers" is a fact. I thought this had been covered.

And knowledge is a reality as well. Knowledge is the habitual possession of truth.

 

Quote:


No we have not. The whole concept is based on your misconception of the properties of matter and energy. You will never convince me that your unmoved mover is even possible before first proving that things existed without moving, which would require all energy to be matter. We have never observed a completely and naturally inert object as far as I'm aware.

And if we naturally have never observed an inert object, all things are in motion, requiring a mover. It has nothing to do with things having to be proved non-moving, but only to show that motion cannot exist without a mover.

 

 

Quote:

 

 

StMichael wrote:
I see no reason why entropy would not apply to the universe as a whole. It is a closed system, which is all that is necessary.

Which leads me to believe you don't know what entropy is. Entropy is impossible in a closed system. Quite literally impossible. Energy has nowhere to escape to in a closed system. All observations of entropy deal with an open system. Not a closed one.

Entropy is more than possible in a closed system. This is why physics speaks of the "heat-death" of the universe. With entropy occurring and no outside energy source to reinvigorate the system, the system inevitably declines in order. Closed system entropy is a readily available topic.

 

Quote:

 

False. There is as much chaos as there is order. The fact that life exists is proof of chaos. Order is perfection. Chaos is imperfection. An orderly universe would never change. It changes, so it is not orderly.

Not perfectly orderly, as in static, but it possesses order. Anyway, this doesn't argue against MEP order, but only for the presence of chaos. If order exists in ordering things toward ends, there must be an orderer. If we want to assume "chaos theory," what seems as chaos spontaneously produces order.

Quote:

If there was no energy, then there was no matter, and there was no motion nor non-motion. Hence your whole argument collapses on itself.

There was no motion, period. Saying there is not motion nor non-motion is a contradiction (and a double negative); you say motion exists and doesn't exist. There was NO MOTION at all. No matter, no energy.

 

Quote:


But the universe was always there. Period.

Even if the universe existed eternally, God would still be logically necessary as the eternal cause of the universe. However, I think science tends to show that this is not the case, as the universe arose some 13.7 billion years ago.

 

Quote:

You say god is, but god isn't. I repeat, which is it?

God is Himself subsistent existing, which you participate in. God cannot enter into composition with anything by His nature as Prime Mover/First Cause. We only participate in His existence.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Nope. Objects at

Quote:


Nope. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place.

Quote:

 

Correct. He was 13th century. For the first 12 centuries of its existence, what First Cause/Prime Mover was the church using for its dogma?

The same one. God. From the Church's beginnings with Christ, the Catholic Church has always taught that God is the creator of the universe and first cause of the cosmos, without any accompanying cause.

Quote:

 

Umm...Yeah, with no mention of First Cause / Prime Mover...

Yes they did. Read, as I said, the Book of Wisdom. Or Genesis. Either suffices, though references are many.

Quote:
 

Here's a bibliography. Unsupport it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Bibliography

Your assertion was unfounded, not the biography. I do not find your position in this biography.

Quote:

 

Either it's certain or it isn't. If you have to qualify your assertions with "...probable...", I don't have to accept them. Thank you!

 Faith is not a matter of demonstration. The existence of God, however, is not a matter of faith (except accidentally), and can be demonstrated.

 

Quote:

I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, and.... I don't know. Do you? If so, make it known before citing scripture, and try not to use "...probable...", "...I think..." etc. Otherwise, don't cite scripture.

Scripture has many senses and its interpretation is one of the most difficult sciences. I cite Scripture because you do. 

Quote:

 It's not. Let me know if you need a list of inconsistencies, and point out whether you are treating the entire scriptures as history, or just the gospels. I'll be happy to provide a list, but honestly anyone who reads the scriptures should be able to spot problems without much trouble.

I treat the historical parts of Scripture as history, of which the Gospels are clearly part of.

Quote:
 

By the way, might you have an answer handy for why the gospels belonging to the Apocrypha don't count as history alongside M,M,L & J?

Because the Church determines the canon of Sacred Scripture and the false gospels were rejected, with good reason. However, I would point out that these gospels are not part of the "apocrypha," which is a Protestant term denoting those books from our canon that they reject. Also, your use of the term "history" is ambiguous.

 

Quote:


Simple. I interpret the entire jesus story, miracles and all, as a myth, and not history. Now you see.

Too bad.

Quote:

 


"...most probably ignored generally..." - Thought you could sneak that in did you?

But you used Josephus as a reference to support the claim that Jesus was the Messiah, when Josephus was assuredly not of that opinion. If you wish to discontinue your use of Josephus, fine by me, just say so.

I never used Josephus to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, but to prove that at least Josephus had knowledge of Jesus (assuming interpolation).

 

Quote:

 


...please kindly indicate what sources they would have otherwise used.

The testimony of the eyewitnesses themselves (as many were alive during the lifetime of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, for example), or of tradition in the Church (oral or otherwise).  

 

Quote:

 


And? And he is one of the apologists you provide as a reference for jesus' historicity. Do you find this claim of Justin's objective and impartial, or subjective and biased towards christianity? Does it affect the objectivity of any of his other claims about jesus? The number of similarities among Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra and jesus (among others) just as easily suggest that jesus was just another figure drawn from a common source of myths. Let me know your thoughts please.

I don't think it does in any meaningful way. Christ was not a mythical figure for a number of reasons. First among these is the fact that the Apostles could easily have advocated a mythic Christ, and this would have easily won acceptance of their position in the pagan world. However, this did not happen, and the Apostles and early Christians clearly advocated the literal death of Christ on the Cross and His physical resurrection from the dead, both of which were unacceptable.

Quote:

 

Why not? If I heard David Blaine was in the street performing tricks, I would certainly go out and take a look at least.

That is quite different. Christ lived in a society seperate from the educated world of the time. The pagans would care less about the claims of a particular little Jewish man in Palestine. Further, travel to Palestine was a great deal more difficult then than now, which would discourage a great deal of movement to Palestine in the first place.

Quote:

 

"...PROBABLY SUPPOSED..."?!?! If it wasn't necessary to impart anything then, why did it become necessary in 70 A.D., and why is it necessary now, for you to refer to the gospels as historically accurate?

"Probably assumed by the listeners of his letter," would be more what I meant. Paul's letters were mostly disciplinary in nature to address specific issues in the churches, and his catechesis was performed in person when he visited the churches.

Quote:

 


Let me know when the theory which you think rather supported is resurrected as a fact.

I refrain from giving a definite answer because these things are debated by scholars. 

Quote:

 

Check out Synoptica in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I can only say I attended a Jesuit university (maybe they don't count as catholics, perfectly understandable), and multiple courses on scripture I took all identified MML as the synoptic gospels, Mark being the first.

I know what the synoptics are. Whatever a Catholic university teaches is not necessarily Catholic doctrine. But the order of the writing of the Gospels is not a matter of doctrine, anyway. The Church wouldn't officially teach one position rather than another.

Quote:
 


If god was omnipotent, I'm sure he could find a workaround.

One cannot do a "non-thing." It is absolutely impossible because the thing cannot exist.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
StMichael wrote:Objects

StMichael wrote:

Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place.

Okay, let's try again. It makes as much sense to say that an object at rest needs to be put to rest. We can go back and forth with this until you take a physics class, I don't care.

StMichael wrote:
From the Church's beginnings with Christ, the Catholic Church has always taught that God is the creator of the universe and first cause of the cosmos, without any accompanying cause.

Then what was Aquinas' contribution to dogma with the Summa Theologica? If not for him, you wouldn't have your First Cause/Prime Mover security blanket.

StMichael wrote:

Yes they did. Read, as I said, the Book of Wisdom. Or Genesis. Either suffices, though references are many.

Read them. They're no more impressive than any other religious text. Creation myths and a little poetry. Yawn.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Either it's certain or it isn't. If you have to qualify your assertions with "...probable...", I don't have to accept them. Thank you!

Faith is not a matter of demonstration. The existence of God, however, is not a matter of faith (except accidentally), and can be demonstrated.

"...not a matter of faith (except accidentally)..." I don't like the look of "except accidentally" in parentheses. Can't explain why, I just don't.

Faith is not a matter of demonstration? Let's try this: Remove anything based on faith from your belief system and tell me what you're left with. So now you say you can "demonstrate" god's existence? Empirically, like we can demonstrate gravity or diffusion? Then please demonstrate. Just keep in mind, crying "First Cause/Prime Mover" over and over does not a demonstration make. If you're planning to try (for the 40th time) to prove god's existence through reason (only to spring faith/revelation when the ride gets bumpy), drop it. It hasn't worked yet.

StMichael wrote:

Scripture has many senses and its interpretation is one of the most difficult sciences. I cite Scripture because you do.

A difficult science? I agree. Finding truth in the scriptures is right up there with magnetic monopoles. You cite it because I do - but only you think it is a reliable historical source, and simultaneously a reliable basis for your faith. As you have just acknowledged it "has many senses", and is open to "interpretation", it ought not to be considered historically reliable. Let's spend a week citing the Iliad and meditating on its many senses, and see where it gets us.

StMichael wrote:

I treat the historical parts of Scripture as history, of which the Gospels are clearly part of.

They are not clearly a part (we've been through this). And (we've been through this too), the gospels differ in multiple details. They cannot all be historically accurate.

StMichael wrote:

Because the Church determines the canon of Sacred Scripture and the false gospels were rejected, with good reason....Also, your use of the term "history" is ambiguous.

By what "good reason" did the church determine this? And if the scriptures are so "clearly historical", why were they still debating what to include in the canon as late as the council of Trent (16th century)?

StMichael wrote:

Quote:


Simple. I interpret the entire jesus story, miracles and all, as a myth, and not history. Now you see.

Too bad.

Ooooh. That hurt.

StMichael wrote:

...Do you find this claim of Justin's objective and impartial, or subjective and biased towards christianity? Does it affect the objectivity of any of his other claims about jesus? The number of similarities among Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra and jesus (among others) just as easily suggest that jesus was just another figure drawn from a common source of myths. Let me know your thoughts please.

I don't think it does in any meaningful way. Christ was not a mythical figure for a number of reasons. First among these is the fact that the Apostles could easily have advocated a mythic Christ, and this would have easily won acceptance of their position in the pagan world. However, this did not happen, and the Apostles and early Christians clearly advocated the literal death of Christ on the Cross and His physical resurrection from the dead, both of which were unacceptable.

"...I don't think...in any meaningful way..."

And by sheer coincidence, these myths which predate jesus (and begat their own cults) just happen to also include virgin births, miracles (like water to wine) and resurrection?

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Why not? If I heard David Blaine was in the street performing tricks, I would certainly go out and take a look at least.

That is quite different. Christ lived in a society seperate from the educated world of the time. The pagans would care less about the claims of a particular little Jewish man in Palestine. Further, travel to Palestine was a great deal more difficult then than now, which would discourage a great deal of movement to Palestine in the first place.

If the issue was important enough to land on Pilate's desk, I have to think something would have made it onto record at the time, or at least before the destruction of the Temple 40 years later.

StMichael wrote:

"Probably assumed by the listeners of his letter," would be more what I meant. Paul's letters were mostly disciplinary in nature to address specific issues in the churches, and his catechesis was performed in person when he visited the churches.

If Paul could write letters, he could write gospels. If the details of the gospels are important enough for you to mention, they should have been important enough for him to mention.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Let me know when the theory which you think rather supported is resurrected as a fact.

I refrain from giving a definite answer because these things are debated by scholars.

If they're still debating it, and you don't have a definite answer, how about refraining from believing in it?

StMichael wrote:

One cannot do a "non-thing." It is absolutely impossible because the thing cannot exist.

A god sacrificing himself to himself sounds like a contradiction to me, but hey, he pulled it off, didn't he?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:But the

StMichael wrote:

But the question was not to prove a particular miracle, but to prove that miracles are possible. I did the latter.

No you haven't. All any theist has done is prove that there are things we don't know and can't explain. That is not proof of anything save our own ignorance.

StMichael wrote:

OK, but you are asking for evidence and I clearly am presenting it with a phone number and references. Just rejecting it because it is a miracle approved by the Catholic Church is no argument, nor is it terribly rational.

You are not giving evidence, you are giving church propoganda.

StMichael wrote:
Except that this does not prove that God exists. It proves the articles of faith we believe in, such as for example the supernatural miracle involved in the Eucharist.

It does no such thing. Show me an IV removing pure wine from someones veins. Show me blood turning into wine even. The best you can do is show me is wine that is claimed to have once been blood. That claim is unsubstantiated.

StMichael wrote:
It was opened multiple times, the most recent being in 1970,as I said. A portion of the blood was subjected to an spectometrical analysis, confirming its nature as blood, as well as a seperate test to determine blood type, which was found to be AB.

The spectrometer you speak of was an improper one, that did not take advantage of the technology of the day, and the results of the scan could easily be mistaken and or lies. As for it being opened and scientifically examined, feel free to prove this. Everything I've seen contradicts your claim. 

StMichael wrote:

Because it is Christ's Body and Blood. That's why.

That is only a reason to open it, not to keep it sealed.

StMichael wrote:

Not in a state of resisting decay, or without rigor mortis.

The corpses you refer to are protected from the elements and from decay, and so they are not comparable, and proof of nothing.

StMichael wrote:
Likewise, point some of these out. In all of the cases I know of natural mummies, this occured in peat bogs or at sub-zero temperatures, which is not true in any event with the incorruptible bodies of saints.

A bog isn't natural? How amusing.

StMichael wrote:
Yes I can. These methods to preserve people with embalming or even with an Egyptian method were unknown at the time of most of these saints' death.

Unsubstantiable and contradictory. There are plenty of Egyptian mummies dating before christs supposed time. Beyond that, embalming techniques even predate the Egyptians. They just didn't do it as well.

StMichael wrote:
You can shake Saint Bernadette's or Saint Vincent de Paul's hand. Their bodies still have no rigor.

That proves nothing. The muscles relax again about 24 hours after rigor has set in(or somewhere around there). A medical autopsy would be all you could point to as proof of rigor not setting in.

StMichael wrote:
The Church allows research teams to investigate the bodies periodically.

Church research teams.

StMichael wrote:
Of course, open investigation would be bad on two levels: it would impair the veneration of the saints'

It would do the opposite.

StMichael wrote:
relics by the faithful and it would not be respectful of the saints to be prying about their corpses all day.

Says you. There's no respect to pay, they are dead. They don't even have family members. I say respecting them would be proving them. It's not like you need to bring them out every ten minutes. While not a doctor, you probably wouldn't even need to open them up on an operating table. One comprehensive, open, and unbiased examination would be enough.

StMichael wrote:
Who's faith is being disputed now?

Still yours. I have no faith.

StMichael wrote:
Saint Gregory Nazianzen has some incorrupt relics that would be about 1600 years old. I suppose Saint Agatha and Saint Cecilia still have their relics in some churches, which are incorrupt from the year 100-200 or so. Many incorrupt relics were destroyed during the Protestant Reformation, but many from before that time period survive in partial form (a hand, a foot, ect.). The oldest other one I know of is about 800 years old.

That isn't nearly old enough to predate embalming and other forms of preservation.

StMichael wrote:

Well, none of these scientists works for the Catholic Church. Also, scientific studies continue on these miracles; it is not just from 200 years ago.

Since they don't get published, they aren't scientific. I can guarantee that proof of a miracle would hit headlines everywhere. Even solid cooincidental evidence would be enough to get right wing media to blare it around the world.

StMichael wrote:
People do not want to be decieved. Especially in Christianity, which claims to produce miracles. It would make no sense to believe in Christian doctrine unless miracles were produced. There have been people with inquiring minds far before you or I showed up.

Your claim might have substance if the belief taught didn't remove some very natural fears. If religion didn't claim to let you live forever in heaven, then it wouldn't have gone anywhere like it did. People love to be decieved if it makes them feel good.

StMichael wrote:
I don't see what this has to do with it. My Church did not splinter. My Church has remained unified throughout the centuries.

Nope. Your church has split more than any religion in recorded history. Your claims that all the splits are not from your church is contrary to history. Even the Moslems and the Jews religions are to some extent spawned of the same events. There are not many religions in practice today that do not come from those times. You think your church has it right. Well so do all the other churches. You have no more valid claim than they.

StMichael wrote:
Except that is not what the definition said.

That's exactly what it said.

StMichael wrote:
The definiton said that something which cannot be explained naturally is a miracle. It does not mean, "something we don't know the answer to today,&quot

That's exactly what it means, since time answers all.

StMichael wrote:
; but it means something that is naturally impossible, regardless of degree of scientific or technological prowess. Nobody can resuscitate a corpse naturally

Sure you can. It's done all the time. I've even watched it happen. God had no hand in it though.

StMichael wrote:
nor can one transform naturally bread into flesh and wine into blood,

Theoretically one could. But that's neither here nor there. There's no evidence it happened in the first place.

StMichael wrote:
nor can one preserve blood and cardiovascular tissue in open air for 500 years

No evidence it's been done.

StMichael wrote:
, nor can one instantaneously heal a mortal wound,

Same.

StMichael wrote:
nor can one regrow a limb spontaneously,

Same.

StMichael wrote:
nor can one levitate naturally and without exterior aid.

Same.

StMichael wrote:
Science cannot explain it, ever.

Science can explain anything.

StMichael wrote:
It proceeds from an superior source.

There is no such thing as a superior source. More advanced maybe, but not superior.

StMichael wrote:
God's existence is not proved by miracles, except indirectly.

Which is good, because miracles are speculation in ignorance.

StMichael wrote:
God's existence is known without miracles by reason alone.

And yet reason says there isn't a god.

StMichael wrote:
It is attributing that which is naturally impossible to God, not just that which is unknown.

No, it's the unknown. And in some cases the unsubstantiated myth.

StMichael wrote:
What does this have to do with anything? You claimed that sin never affects other people. Sin can and does affect others.

And yet I showed how you can be immune to it. So therefore it does not always.

StMichael wrote:
But God did not build our decisions. God built the soul as able to determine itself.

Our decisions have nothing to do with our obvious imperfections. Though I could make a case on decisions too, since so many of them are based on physical imperfection.

StMichael wrote:
 The proof that exists seems adequate for a reasonable person.

No, it is adequate for an irrational person.

StMichael wrote:
We don't need to put it on our night table to investigate it.

I do.

StMichael wrote:
Anyway, "it's" not locked up in an Italian vault. It is out in the open.

It might as well be in a vault for all the access I have.

StMichael wrote:
So let's just make up definitions, then.

Well that's what you've been doing anyway.

StMichael wrote:
And knowledge is a reality as well. Knowledge is the habitual possession of truth.

So you have no knowledge then. That explains your belief.

StMichael wrote:
And if we naturally have never observed an inert object, all things are in motion, requiring a mover.

False assumption based on misconception.

StMichael wrote:
It has nothing to do with things having to be proved non-moving, but only to show that motion cannot exist without a mover.

More of the same.

StMichael wrote:
Entropy is more than possible in a closed system.

No it isn't.

StMichael wrote:
This is why physics speaks of the "heat-death" of the universe.

You're failing to understand what the whole situation is. The universe is expanding at what appears to be an accelerated rate. Entropy is a result of this. But it is not applicable to the universe itself. Nothing is leaving the universe. It's just getting farther apart. If it should one day contract instead of expand, then entropy will reverse itself. It doesn't affect the universe, just what's inside it.

StMichael wrote:

With entropy occurring and no outside energy source to reinvigorate the system, the system inevitably declines in order. Closed system entropy is a readily available topic.

See above.

StMichael wrote:
Not perfectly orderly, as in static, but it possesses order.

Imperfect order is chaotic order by definition.

StMichael wrote:
Anyway, this doesn't argue against MEP order, but only for the presence of chaos. If order exists in ordering things toward ends, there must be an orderer.

Unless the order and chaos is natural, which to all appearances and evidence it is.

StMichael wrote:
If we want to assume "chaos theory," what seems as chaos spontaneously produces order.

Order can degenerate into chaos just as quickly.

StMichael wrote:
There was no motion, period. Saying there is not motion nor non-motion is a contradiction (and a double negative)

Incorrect. There cannot be motion or a lack of motion if there is nothing to move.

StMichael wrote:
you say motion exists and doesn't exist. There was NO MOTION at all. No matter, no energy.

No god.

StMichael wrote:
Even if the universe existed eternally, God would still be logically necessary as the eternal cause of the universe.

False assumption. An eternal universe needs no cause. Any argument you make against it applies to your own god as well.

StMichael wrote:
However, I think science tends to show that this is not the case, as the universe arose some 13.7 billion years ago.

Not quite. We see the universe as we know it started about then. That does not translate to knowing there was nothing before that.

StMichael wrote:
God is Himself subsistent existing, which you participate in. God cannot enter into composition with anything by His nature as Prime Mover/First Cause. We only participate in His existence.

So I don't exist then. Right....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:


Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place.

 

And why not the opposite?

"Objects at rest require stoppers to be at rest in the first place..."

 

If a particle is created with an initial velocity (Big Bang) then it doesn't require a magical mover. 

 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
This is a little long, so

This is a little long, so my response will be a bit delayed.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: This is a

StMichael wrote:

This is a little long, so my response will be a bit delayed.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Take your time. I must admit that you are opening my mind to even further evidence against god, though it's obviously not your intent, and I find this topic stimulating.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael wrote:

Quote:
StMichael wrote: Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place. Okay, let's try again. It makes as much sense to say that an object at rest needs to be put to rest. We can go back and forth with this until you take a physics class, I don't care.
An object at rest DOES need to be put at rest by a lack of net forces acting upon it. If there were forces acting upon it, it would not be at rest. Any object, likewise, in motion requires an actual mover.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: From the Church's beginnings with Christ, the Catholic Church has always taught that God is the creator of the universe and first cause of the cosmos, without any accompanying cause. Then what was Aquinas' contribution to dogma with the Summa Theologica? If not for him, you wouldn't have your First Cause/Prime Mover security blanket.
Aquinas contributed nothing to dogma with his arguments for the existence of God, as none of these is dogma. However, this argument is far prior to Aquinas’ time. He systematized previous arguments and beliefs.
Quote:
Faith is not a matter of demonstration? Let's try this: Remove anything based on faith from your belief system and tell me what you're left with. So now you say you can "demonstrate" god's existence? Empirically, like we can demonstrate gravity or diffusion? Then please demonstrate. Just keep in mind, crying "First Cause/Prime Mover" over and over does not a demonstration make. If you're planning to try (for the 40th time) to prove god's existence through reason (only to spring faith/revelation when the ride gets bumpy), drop it. It hasn't worked yet.
One can, with no knowledge of Revelation, prove that God exists from naturally known truth. This is the point of the Prime Mover argument (which is only 1 argument, anyway). Here it is, straight outa the Summa Theologica. “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Scripture has many senses and its interpretation is one of the most difficult sciences. I cite Scripture because you do. A difficult science? I agree. Finding truth in the scriptures is right up there with magnetic monopoles. You cite it because I do - but only you think it is a reliable historical source, and simultaneously a reliable basis for your faith. As you have just acknowledged it "has many senses", and is open to "interpretation", it ought not to be considered historically reliable. Let's spend a week citing the Iliad and meditating on its many senses, and see where it gets us.
Which is why the Church exists: to define what is necessary for salvation and to ensure proper interpretation of Scripture.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: I treat the historical parts of Scripture as history, of which the Gospels are clearly part of. They are not clearly a part (we've been through this). And (we've been through this too), the gospels differ in multiple details. They cannot all be historically accurate.
I don’t disagree that they seem to differ, but I would argue that they do so only on a superficial level.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Because the Church determines the canon of Sacred Scripture and the false gospels were rejected, with good reason....Also, your use of the term "history" is ambiguous. By what "good reason" did the church determine this? And if the scriptures are so "clearly historical", why were they still debating what to include in the canon as late as the council of Trent (16th century)?
The “good reason” was the historical character of the Gospels as being known by all to have derived from the Apostles. The other false gospels were written much later than the Gospels. The Tradition of the Church attested to the veracity of the four Gospels. While the Gospels were clearly accepted early on, the other writings took some time to codify. The canon was set in the 4th or 3rd century, but debate emerged with Protestantism in the 16th century. Thus, the Church clearly and infallibly defined the canon in response.
Quote:
And by sheer coincidence, these myths which predate jesus (and begat their own cults) just happen to also include virgin births, miracles (like water to wine) and resurrection?
And these myths were never advocated as actually historical occurrences. The pagan myths were never predicated of real people in history. Further, no pagan myth had ever had a true resurrection in the sense that Christ rose from the dead or how the Christians advocated the final resurrection of the body. Pagans might have advocated a mythic resurrection in the seasons, but most of these served merely allegorical purposes. The Christians, on the other hand, were considered stupid and insane by the pagans because they literally believed that their God was a historical man who literally died on the Cross and rose again three days later. All that was foreign to paganism.
Quote:
If the issue was important enough to land on Pilate's desk, I have to think something would have made it onto record at the time, or at least before the destruction of the Temple 40 years later.
Pilate dealt with hundreds of possible insurgents. No reason why he would take any more notice of Christ.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: "Probably assumed by the listeners of his letter," would be more what I meant. Paul's letters were mostly disciplinary in nature to address specific issues in the churches, and his catechesis was performed in person when he visited the churches. If Paul could write letters, he could write gospels. If the details of the gospels are important enough for you to mention, they should have been important enough for him to mention.
But his point in writing the letters was not the same as writing a Gospel. His were disciplinary letters, not Gospels. He could have done so, but he what we have are not gospels.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Quote: Let me know when the theory which you think rather supported is resurrected as a fact. I refrain from giving a definite answer because these things are debated by scholars. If they're still debating it, and you don't have a definite answer, how about refraining from believing in it?
No article of my faith defines when precisely the Gospels were written. I am free to hold any number of opinions, which are supported by scholarship.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: One cannot do a "non-thing." It is absolutely impossible because the thing cannot exist. A god sacrificing himself to himself sounds like a contradiction to me, but hey, he pulled it off, didn't he?
The problem is because you don’t understand what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is. Read my posts in another thread that I believe is called “Jesus’ Supposed Sacrifice.” No contradiction exists.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: But the question was not to prove a particular miracle, but to prove that miracles are possible. I did the latter. No you haven't. All any theist has done is prove that there are things we don't know and can't explain. That is not proof of anything save our own ignorance.
It is not a proof from ignorance. It is something that can never be done by man.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: OK, but you are asking for evidence and I clearly am presenting it with a phone number and references. Just rejecting it because it is a miracle approved by the Catholic Church is no argument, nor is it terribly rational. You are not giving evidence, you are giving church propoganda.
Even if it is church propaganda (I don’t see how that term applies, anyway), that does not a priori disprove the claims it makes.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Except that this does not prove that God exists. It proves the articles of faith we believe in, such as for example the supernatural miracle involved in the Eucharist. It does no such thing. Show me an IV removing pure wine from someones veins. Show me blood turning into wine even. The best you can do is show me is wine that is claimed to have once been blood. That claim is unsubstantiated.
What? This is total nonsense and begets a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is that the substance of bread and wine turns, by God’s miraculous intervention, into the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, while the accidents (all sensible qualities of taste, sight, smell, ect.) of bread and wine remain. It is an article of faith, of course. Miracles show the veracity of these claims. Further, the miracle I spoke of was not blood turning into wine, but wine and bread turning into flesh and blood (with some bread still visible on the edge of what is flesh) and being miraculously preserved for 800 years.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: It was opened multiple times, the most recent being in 1970,as I said. A portion of the blood was subjected to an spectometrical analysis, confirming its nature as blood, as well as a seperate test to determine blood type, which was found to be AB. The spectrometer you speak of was an improper one, that did not take advantage of the technology of the day, and the results of the scan could easily be mistaken and or lies. As for it being opened and scientifically examined, feel free to prove this. Everything I've seen contradicts your claim.
You are just rejecting without evidence that the tests are faulty, or that nothing was removed (which is contradictory, as no blood type test occurs without a sample, nor does mass spectrometry take place without samples). I gave you references. Show me how my tests are improper or faulty, or prove that these tests never occured. Specific references to actual facts, mind you, and not just your fantasies.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Because it is Christ's Body and Blood. That's why. That is only a reason to open it, not to keep it sealed.
Why is that?
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Not in a state of resisting decay, or without rigor mortis. The corpses you refer to are protected from the elements and from decay, and so they are not comparable, and proof of nothing.
They are not protected from decay or the elements. They sit in big glass boxes (not even airtight) all day long. In fact, one at least was purely open to the elements and, in particular, to the burning of candles before her so much that her body was blackened with the soot. No decay or decomposition occurred.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Likewise, point some of these out. In all of the cases I know of natural mummies, this occured in peat bogs or at sub-zero temperatures, which is not true in any event with the incorruptible bodies of saints. A bog isn't natural? How amusing.
The incorruptibles were not in peat bogs nor sub-zero temperatures.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Yes I can. These methods to preserve people with embalming or even with an Egyptian method were unknown at the time of most of these saints' death. Unsubstantiable and contradictory. There are plenty of Egyptian mummies dating before christs supposed time. Beyond that, embalming techniques even predate the Egyptians. They just didn't do it as well.
In embalming, decay occurs as does rigor mortis. No decay occurs in the bodies of the saints. Further, it is a fact that the people of these saints’ times knew next to nothing about embalming.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: You can shake Saint Bernadette's or Saint Vincent de Paul's hand. Their bodies still have no rigor. That proves nothing. The muscles relax again about 24 hours after rigor has set in(or somewhere around there). A medical autopsy would be all you could point to as proof of rigor not setting in.
I am sorry; I was not referring to rigor mortis. After death, the body ordinarily decomposes, or gains rigor over time (such as a mummy). The incorruptibles have done neither.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: The Church allows research teams to investigate the bodies periodically. Church research teams.
There are no such things.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: relics by the faithful and it would not be respectful of the saints to be prying about their corpses all day. Says you. There's no respect to pay, they are dead. They don't even have family members. I say respecting them would be proving them. It's not like you need to bring them out every ten minutes. While not a doctor, you probably wouldn't even need to open them up on an operating table. One comprehensive, open, and unbiased examination would be enough.
Then this condition has already been satisfied. Regularly, examinations and studies ARE done on the saints.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Well, none of these scientists works for the Catholic Church. Also, scientific studies continue on these miracles; it is not just from 200 years ago. Since they don't get published, they aren't scientific. I can guarantee that proof of a miracle would hit headlines everywhere. Even solid cooincidental evidence would be enough to get right wing media to blare it around the world.
Actually, some are published in medical journals. One of the miracles being used to forward the canonization of the founder of the Grey Nuns was published in a CMAJ, a Canadian medical journal. The same is true of a particular cure being used in the canonization of Blessed Damien, who was a priest who worked with lepers in Hawaii. I quote: “The cure in question involved the disappearance without treatment of cancer from the lungs of a Honolulu woman four years ago. The case was documented in an article about “complete spontaneous regression of cancer” published by Dr. Walter Y.M. Chang, in the October 2000 issue of the Hawaii Medical Journal. According to the article, three malignant lung tumors were discovered by x-ray in September 1998. The cancer was a reappearance of a matching malignancies surgically removed earlier from other parts of the body. The patient, upon learning of her condition, began prayers to Blessed Damien, including pilgrimages to Kalaupapa, the place were Damien worked and died among Hawaii’s Hansen’s disease patients. Before therapy could be applied, an x-ray a month later showed that the tumors had decreased in size. Monthly x-rays revealed further shrinkage until scans in May and October 1999 could find no sign of the cancer. The doctor’s comment was that the “lung metastases disappeared with no therapy at all,” The doctor summarily concluded that this was a miracle. And he was not a Catholic.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: People do not want to be decieved. Especially in Christianity, which claims to produce miracles. It would make no sense to believe in Christian doctrine unless miracles were produced. There have been people with inquiring minds far before you or I showed up. Your claim might have substance if the belief taught didn't remove some very natural fears. If religion didn't claim to let you live forever in heaven, then it wouldn't have gone anywhere like it did. People love to be decieved if it makes them feel good.
Again, people are not stupid. There are always people like you, who don’t care about natural fears obviated by religion. Why can’t it have been inquired into for the past 1900-some years prior to yourself?
Quote:
StMichael wrote: I don't see what this has to do with it. My Church did not splinter. My Church has remained unified throughout the centuries. Nope. Your church has split more than any religion in recorded history. Your claims that all the splits are not from your church is contrary to history. Even the Moslems and the Jews religions are to some extent spawned of the same events. There are not many religions in practice today that do not come from those times. You think your church has it right. Well so do all the other churches. You have no more valid claim than they.
My Church itself has not split. People have split from it, but the Church itself has not split. On the other hand, Islam clearly split into parties of Shiite and Sunni early on as a dispute over leadership. Judaism never split historically, but, after the destruction of the Temple and the priesthood, currently lacks authority and thus undergoes splits in interpretation. Even if one granted that people split off from my religion, I don’t see why that invalidates my claim for its truth.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: The definiton said that something which cannot be explained naturally is a miracle. It does not mean, "something we don't know the answer to today," That's exactly what it means, since time answers all.
But that is precisely the point. You merely assume that there is no such thing as a miracle to prove that there is no such thing as a miracle. No human or created agency can transform instantly a piece of bread into flesh. No created or human agency can bring a irrevocably dead person back to life. No created or human agency can instantly cause the regrowth of a limb.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: ; but it means something that is naturally impossible, regardless of degree of scientific or technological prowess. Nobody can resuscitate a corpse naturally Sure you can. It's done all the time. I've even watched it happen. God had no hand in it though.
I doubt that you have ever witnessed a true miracle of that kind. You might have seen a patient resuscitated after a couple of seconds without a heart beat or vitals, but that is most definitely not the variety of miracle I am speaking of.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: nor can one transform naturally bread into flesh and wine into blood, Theoretically one could. But that's neither here nor there. There's no evidence it happened in the first place.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge that such evidence exists.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: nor can one preserve blood and cardiovascular tissue in open air for 500 years No evidence it's been done.
Go look at it. It is sitting there. It has been sitting there for 800 years. It is cardiovascular tissue and blood. Pure and simple.
Quote:
Science can explain anything.
You are merely assuming the conclusion to prove your point. Who here is not the one open to rational debate?
Quote:
StMichael wrote: What does this have to do with anything? You claimed that sin never affects other people. Sin can and does affect others. And yet I showed how you can be immune to it. So therefore it does not always.
Yes it does. I further see no reason why it matters whether one persons’ sin affects you. It is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
Our decisions have nothing to do with our obvious imperfections. Though I could make a case on decisions too, since so many of them are based on physical imperfection.
? You don’t explain what you mean here.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Anyway, "it's" not locked up in an Italian vault. It is out in the open. It might as well be in a vault for all the access I have.
That is your fault, not mine. Then don’t tell me that my claim that the moon is made of green cheese can be false.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: And if we naturally have never observed an inert object, all things are in motion, requiring a mover. False assumption based on misconception.
Which would that be, praytell?
Quote:
StMichael wrote: This is why physics speaks of the "heat-death" of the universe. You're failing to understand what the whole situation is. The universe is expanding at what appears to be an accelerated rate. Entropy is a result of this. But it is not applicable to the universe itself. Nothing is leaving the universe. It's just getting farther apart. If it should one day contract instead of expand, then entropy will reverse itself. It doesn't affect the universe, just what's inside it.
I quote Stephen Hawking: “In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time. In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.”
Quote:
StMichael wrote: There was no motion, period. Saying there is not motion nor non-motion is a contradiction (and a double negative) Incorrect. There cannot be motion or a lack of motion if there is nothing to move.
A lack of motion exists regardless of whether things exist to move or not. But things are moving now.
Quote:
False assumption. An eternal universe needs no cause. Any argument you make against it applies to your own god as well.
An eternal universe needs a necessary cause its existence and motion.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: However, I think science tends to show that this is not the case, as the universe arose some 13.7 billion years ago. Not quite. We see the universe as we know it started about then. That does not translate to knowing there was nothing before that.
Yes it does. All possible universes would have begun at the singularity.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: God is Himself subsistent existing, which you participate in. God cannot enter into composition with anything by His nature as Prime Mover/First Cause. We only participate in His existence. So I don't exist then. Right....
You exist. You depend on God for your existence, however. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael StMichael wrote: Quote: Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place. And why not the opposite? "Objects at rest require stoppers to be at rest in the first place..." If a particle is created with an initial velocity (Big Bang) then it doesn't require a magical mover.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OK - one more time:

OK - one more time:

Matter and energy are essentially interchangeable.

Whatever lead to the matter-energy constituting our known Universe existing, assuming it wasn't always existing in some sense, ie whatever lead to the Big Bang event, it had to start with both matter and energy, which meant motion was there from the beginning. To postulate some special 'prime mover', or 'un-moved mover' is utterly illogical. PERIOD.

There is absolutely no logical requirement that whatever triggerred the Big Bang was complex, let alone sentient, therefore no requirement whatsoever for anything corresponding to a God, let alone the Xian God. PERIOD. What we perceive as order, by any definition, can, in principle, arise 'spontaneously', subject only to the availability of a suitable energy input. In the case of life on earth, the Sun's light and heat, or internal heat from inside the earth in the case of thermal vents in the ocean, which have been proposed as a possible site of biogenesis.

This doesn't mean it is inevitable in any given location, but given the enormous number of planets which we now have every reason to believe exist throughout the universe, the chances of just the right conditions arising somewhere, even if very unlikely in any given case, cannot be dismissed as impossible. 

Elementary examples of order from disorder are commonplace, from simple crystal growth, to the example of every living organism developing from an egg, or a seed, or a spore, all of which are clearly vastly simpler than the mature organism. Even the formation of the Solar system from a relatively amorphous cloud of matter shows the same thing, and has been modelled mathematically in remarkable detail.

Unsupported assertions cannot alter these FACTS.

Re ENTROPY:

Entropy in a closed system cannot decrease. That is the 2nd LoTD.

Decrease of entropy in a system requires a nett input of energy in a form that can increase the temperature of something within the system. IOW if it is in the form of thermal energy, it has to be hotter than at least some part of the system. Other forms of energy, such as radiation, or mechanical energy, or electrical energy, can do that intrinsically.

The total matter-energy content of a closed system cannot change, by definition.

The Big Bang event is in the quantum realm, therefore all bets are off with regard to simplistic applications of stuff like the 2nd LoTD. The current appropriate response is 'We Don't Know', but we are working on it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Matter and energy

Quote:

Matter and energy are essentially interchangeable.

I perfectly and utterly agree with this. No problem here.

Quote:
 

Whatever lead to the matter-energy constituting our known Universe existing, assuming it wasn't always existing in some sense, ie whatever lead to the Big Bang event, it had to start with both matter and energy, which meant motion was there from the beginning. To postulate some special 'prime mover', or 'un-moved mover' is utterly illogical. PERIOD.

First, we do not postulate that the Prime Mover is that which started the Big Bang (though it might be the case). The Prime Mover needs no temporal priority to the universe, only a causal one.

Second, your only way to refute the notion that an unmoved mover exists is to claim that the universe must have started with an impetus from matter and energy...just because. This is further clearly unsupported by the physics of the Big Bang, where it is clear that matter and energy cannot exist prior to the Big Bang.

[ quote]

There is absolutely no logical requirement that whatever triggerred the Big Bang was complex, let alone sentient, therefore no requirement whatsoever for anything corresponding to a God, let alone the Xian God. PERIOD.

The Prime Mover must be purely in act. He cannot be caused by any other thing. He cannot have any potentiality for change, as the Prime Mover must be unchanging, otherwise it is in potency to something else (and, hence, not the PM). So, the PM must be immutable and eternal. He must further possess every perfection, as He is in pure act. In other words, He must be possessing every perfection found in creatures as their cause and exemplar. We could from here move to the notion of a sentient God (we could go further to prove this, but I think the step is justified for the time being) that such a Prime Mover, possessing every postive perfection found in created things would likewise possess the highest degree of life and intellect in comparison to those things which He created.

Quote:

 

What we perceive as order, by any definition, can, in principle, arise 'spontaneously', subject only to the availability of a suitable energy input. In the case of life on earth, the Sun's light and heat, or internal heat from inside the earth in the case of thermal vents in the ocean, which have been proposed as a possible site of biogenesis.

 

Intelligent ordering of things clearly exists because things do not merely move in a happenchance manner, occasionally obtaining the best result. Rather, everywhere and almost always, things move in the universe according to a definite order in order to achieve the best end. For example, chemical reactions tend to stability. Or, maximum entropy production leads to the most efficent reaction in any scenario. Or, in evolution, species evolve for the betterment of the species and the increased survival of their kind.

 

Quote:

This doesn't mean it is inevitable in any given location, but given the enormous number of planets which we now have every reason to believe exist throughout the universe, the chances of just the right conditions arising somewhere, even if very unlikely in any given case, cannot be dismissed as impossible. 

I never make the claim that the existence of complex life is my proof for God's existence.

Quote:
 

Elementary examples of order from disorder are commonplace, from simple crystal growth, to the example of every living organism developing from an egg, or a seed, or a spore, all of which are clearly vastly simpler than the mature organism. Even the formation of the Solar system from a relatively amorphous cloud of matter shows the same thing, and has been modelled mathematically in remarkable detail.

 I find these all instances of clearly intelligent guiding of the universe's operation.

 

 

 On entropy and the Second Law:

It is clear to me that you are not understanding the Second Law correctly. Science has been postulating the heat-death theory of the universe for quite some time. It is not a new theory. The entropy in any isolated, aka closed, system decreases over time. Which is why the universe, beginning with definite order at one point in time would inevitably lead to such a degredation of order at some point in the future. Stephen Hawking says as much in his lecture, "The Beginning of Time" with a specific application of the Second Law to the closed system of the universe. You cannot claim that I am misapplying the second law, as science would have been performing the same misappropriation for years. I refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe to find links to these particular scientists.

 

 

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: An object

StMichael wrote:
An object at rest DOES need to be put at rest by a lack of net forces acting upon it.

Only if it's already in motion.

StMichael wrote:

If there were forces acting upon it, it would not be at rest.

Actually, there could be equal and opposing forces on it and it would still be at rest.

StMichael wrote:
Any object, likewise, in motion requires an actual mover.

Fine, lets try something else.
But there are natural movers. And the big bang itself was a mover. There's no need for a god.

StMichael wrote:
From the Church's beginnings with Christ, the Catholic Church has always taught that God is the creator of the universe and first cause of the cosmos, without any accompanying cause.

Something cannot come from nothing.

StMichael wrote:
One can, with no knowledge of Revelation, prove that God exists from naturally known truth. This is the point of the Prime Mover argument (which is only 1 argument, anyway). Here it is, straight outa the Summa Theologica.~~~~~~~~~~~Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

That entire thing is based on a very primitive understanding of the nature of matter and energy. There is no evidence there.

Which is why the Church exists: to define what is necessary for salvation and to ensure proper interpretation of Scripture.

And yet the church is one of the most greedy, underhanded cults on the face of the planet. The church is made of men, which even you acknowledge is fallible. Which means the church is fallible. From the lowest clergyman all the way up to the pope himself. Neither their interpretations nor yours are guaranteed to be accurate.

StMichael wrote:
It is not a proof from ignorance. It is something that can never be done by man.

No, it is proof from ignorance. If you went up to some guy 3000 years ago and suggested that today we would be able to watch moving images on glass and communicate across unspeakably vast distances for his time, he would have laughed you off as a maniac. If you had suggested that people would fly around the world in metal crates he would have denounced you as a fool. Which is what you're trying to do now, with me. I'm aware enough to see that our lack of knowledge is beyond our knowledge. You try to define that lack as a god. I don't.

StMichael wrote:

Even if it is church propaganda (I don’t see how that term applies, anyway), that does not a priori disprove the claims it makes.

It doesn't prove it either. Which is the whole problem.

StMichael wrote:
What? This is total nonsense and begets a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is that the substance of bread and wine turns, by God’s miraculous intervention, into the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, while the accidents (all sensible qualities of taste, sight, smell, ect.) of bread and wine remain. It is an article of faith, of course.

Oh I admit that I am rather ignorant of many of your beliefs. I don't tend to waste my time reading about religions. I'd rather read reality. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that bread is the body of a 2000 year old dead guy. Lmfao. I'm sorry, but that's hillarious. This chocolate bar I'm eating is Luke Skywalker! The Force is real!

StMichael wrote:
Miracles show the veracity of these claims. Further, the miracle I spoke of was not blood turning into wine, but wine and bread turning into flesh and blood (with some bread still visible on the edge of what is flesh) and being miraculously preserved for 800 years.

Got a picture? Scientific examination proving it's part bread and part skin? Actually fused, not just glued or mixed together in some way?

StMichael wrote:
You are just rejecting without evidence that the tests are faulty, or that nothing was removed (which is contradictory, as no blood type test occurs without a sample, nor does mass spectrometry take place without samples).

That just shows your own ignorance of the testing. It was never opened. Candles were used to backlight the container. It was pathetic. Where are the scientific journals documenting these so-called studies?

StMichael wrote:
I gave you references. Show me how my tests are improper or faulty, or prove that these tests never occured. Specific references to actual facts, mind you, and not just your fantasies.

You gave me church propoganda. Try a peer reviewed scientific journal.

StMichael wrote:
Why is that?

There are a number of reasons. Genetic testing, which would be a huge asset to anyone looking for articles of his existance. Actual proof that it's blood, and that it's old, and that it can do what the church says it does while being old blood, and that such is unnatural. This would be scientific evidence for your god. It wouldn't quite prove it, but it would certainly make it a lot harder to deny.

StMichael wrote:
They are not protected from decay or the elements. They sit in big glass boxes (not even airtight) all day long.

In a dry, stable environment. Protected from snow, wind, rain, and a million other factors.

StMichael wrote:
In fact, one at least was purely open to the elements and, in particular, to the burning of candles before her so much that her body was blackened with the soot. No decay or decomposition occurred.

Define the elements it was presented to. In order for it to have been exposed to candle smoke of such intensity, it would certainly have had to be inside. Which is not exposure to the elements.

StMichael wrote:
The incorruptibles were not in peat bogs nor sub-zero temperatures.

You can prove this? And you still have yet to prove that they were naturally preserved too, by the way.

StMichael wrote:
In embalming, decay occurs as does rigor mortis. No decay occurs in the bodies of the saints.

There are other preservative techniques dating from ancient times to achieve this. It also assumes we never knew, and didn't lose the ability later. There is plenty of evidence for lost or secretively kept technologies over the millenia. And I should mention you haven't explained why every saint isn't in the same shape.

StMichael wrote:
Further, it is a fact that the people of these saints’ times knew next to nothing about embalming.

You can't prove that.

StMichael wrote:

I am sorry; I was not referring to rigor mortis. After death, the body ordinarily decomposes, or gains rigor over time (such as a mummy). The incorruptibles have done neither.

That's due to chemical interactions which can be unnaturally brought to a halt. You can't prove they didn't have the ability to do so.

StMichael wrote:
There are no such things.

Yes there are. Some working directly for the church, others working on their own volition in concordant beliefs.

StMichael wrote:
Then this condition has already been satisfied. Regularly, examinations and studies ARE done on the saints.

Then where are they? You still haven't shown a single peer reviewed scientific journal.

StMichael wrote:
Actually, some are published in medical journals. One of the miracles being used to forward the canonization of the founder of the Grey Nuns was published in a CMAJ, a Canadian medical journal.

I just read it. Pathetically biased. And no proof of anything. No hospital records, patient conditions, etc. Just one guys beliefs tainting his view of the situation.

StMichael wrote:

The same is true of a particular cure being used in the canonization of Blessed Damien, who was a priest who worked with lepers in Hawaii. I quote: “The cure in question involved the disappearance without treatment of cancer from the lungs of a Honolulu woman four years ago. The case was documented in an article about “complete spontaneous regression of cancer” published by Dr. Walter Y.M. Chang, in the October 2000 issue of the Hawaii Medical Journal. According to the article, three malignant lung tumors were discovered by x-ray in September 1998. The cancer was a reappearance of a matching malignancies surgically removed earlier from other parts of the body. The patient, upon learning of her condition, began prayers to Blessed Damien, including pilgrimages to Kalaupapa, the place were Damien worked and died among Hawaii’s Hansen’s disease patients. Before therapy could be applied, an x-ray a month later showed that the tumors had decreased in size. Monthly x-rays revealed further shrinkage until scans in May and October 1999 could find no sign of the cancer. The doctor’s comment was that the “lung metastases disappeared with no therapy at all,” The doctor summarily concluded that this was a miracle. And he was not a Catholic.

Life can be very successful when it defends itself. It can also fail miserably. The doctor couldn't explain it, and invoked the traditional definition of miracle(something that can't be explained at the time). It doesn't say that this scenario could never be understood. This proves nothing.

StMichael wrote:
Again, people are not stupid.

Depending on your meaning of stupid, some most certainly are. And you don't have to be stupid to be indoctrinated. Nor does being intelligent make you immune to it.

StMichael wrote:
There are always people like you, who don’t care about natural fears obviated by religion. Why can’t it have been inquired into for the past 1900-some years prior to yourself?

I didn't say it wasn't. I just asked for evidence. You keep dodging around without giving me any.

StMichael wrote:
My Church itself has not split. People have split from it, but the Church itself has not split.

Are you actually telling me that I know more about your church than you? How fascinating. Your church split when Rome did. It has had offshoots of every branch since then. The vatican did not always exist you know.

And why isn't the church based in the so-called holy land in the first place? Seems to me that the moslems and jews have a far greater claim simply because they inhabit the area. The moslems would have the best claim because they've been there the longest without being evicted. Why should I believe that your side has it right when you can't even inhabit your own holy land, and have been forced into Italy?

StMichael wrote:

On the other hand, Islam clearly split into parties of Shiite and Sunni early on as a dispute over leadership. Judaism never split historically, but, after the destruction of the Temple and the priesthood, currently lacks authority and thus undergoes splits in interpretation. Even if one granted that people split off from my religion, I don’t see why that invalidates my claim for its truth.

When your church split even before it was defined as it is now, it most certainly brings your claims into question.

StMichael wrote:
But that is precisely the point. You merely assume that there is no such thing as a miracle to prove that there is no such thing as a miracle.

There's no assumption about it. You however assume that there are divine miracles in order to prove that there are divine miracles.

StMichael wrote:

No human or created agency can transform instantly a piece of bread into flesh.

Still haven't proven this to me, so I'm just going to start ignoring it. It's gotten old.

StMichael wrote:
No created or human agency can bring a irrevocably dead person back to life.

Same.

StMichael wrote:
No created or human agency can instantly cause the regrowth of a limb.

Same.

StMichael wrote:
I doubt that you have ever witnessed a true miracle of that kind. You might have seen a patient resuscitated after a couple of seconds without a heart beat or vitals, but that is most definitely not the variety of miracle I am speaking of.

Actually I've seen a patient revived after hours of death. I've heard of patients revived after days of clinical death, thanks to scientifically explainable phenomena. Because of scientific study I know it's theoretically possible to revive a patient after millenia of clinical death. The amusing thing about jesus is that there isn't even a medical cause of death, or proof he was dead in the first place. You assume. Try again.

StMichael wrote:
Only because you refuse to acknowledge that such evidence exists.

Only because you've refused to provide it.

StMichael wrote:
Go look at it. It is sitting there. It has been sitting there for 800 years. It is cardiovascular tissue and blood. Pure and simple.

Pay for the round trip and expenses and I will.

StMichael wrote:
You are merely assuming the conclusion to prove your point. Who here is not the one open to rational debate?

You. You're falsely assuming it can't, when it's already proven a huge number of things once thought impossible.

StMichael wrote:
Yes it does.

A blatant lie. I already proved it doesn't.

StMichael wrote:
I further see no reason why it matters whether one persons’ sin affects you. It is utterly irrelevant.

Actually, I should point out that I never claimed what you said I claimed in your previous post. Either way, I'm not sure what to do with where we've gone, so I'll let this go.

StMichael wrote:
? You don’t explain what you mean here.

I don't see a need to. It was a side comment that I'll only delve into if you force the issue. These responses are long enough as it is.

StMichael wrote:
That is your fault, not mine.

How is it my fault that it's all in Italy? That I can't afford to go there without ending up trapped there and jobless? I say it's the churches fault for not touring your false gods glory around the world. The only logical conclusion is that they are scared their deception will be exposed.

StMichael wrote:
Then don’t tell me that my claim that the moon is made of green cheese can be false.

I suppose in a philosophical sense I can't, yet I can say that such a claim is irrational. And I would fight your claim with evidence to the contrary. Evidence you could not disprove. And you would be unable to prove your own claim.

StMichael wrote:

Which would that be, praytell?

I've already told you about your misconceptions about energy and matter.

StMichael wrote:
I quote Stephen Hawking: “In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time. In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.”

I was hoping my intentional error would make you look up entropy, or at least force you to prove you understood it. With your response of this quote I'm not entirely sure you do. So I'll just lay it out for you and show you why it doesn't necessarily apply to the universe.
Entropy is effectively the dispersal of energy until a constant is attained. Basically, if you built a really big box, and isolated it from everything, then injected some energy into one corner, that corner would be more energetic than the rest of the box. Over time, that energy would spread out until it was uniform throughout the inside of the box. The universe is not a static box however. It is currently expanding(or at least, the light we see says it was within the last few thousand years, and we assume it still is without anything to suggest otherwise). If the box you made was able to expand infinately, then there would never be a constant. Energy would infinately expand throughout the box, getting infinately further apart through infinity. It's kind of a fake entropy. You can never achieve 0 energy, but you can get infinately closer to it(much like trying to achieve light speed). There can never be a constant, so entropy will never fully be realized. At the same time, we only know that the universe has been expanding for about 13 billion years, and that it has continued to expand at least up until a few thousand years ago. We do not know that the universe will always expand. If the universe ever contracts, then entropy will become impossible the other way. All the energy will get closer and closer together, until critical mass is achieved and it explodes outwards again. There can be no mass lost, because the universe is a closed system. With no loss of mass, there is no loss of energy. With no loss of energy, you have an endless cycle.

StMichael wrote:
A lack of motion exists regardless of whether things exist to move or not.

No it doesn't. If nothing exists, then nothing exists. Positive or negative.

StMichael wrote:
But things are moving now.

You still haven't proved that there was a point at which they didn't move, so you're only offering conjecture.

StMichael wrote:
An eternal universe needs a necessary cause its existence and motion.

Nope.

StMichael wrote:
Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

StMichael wrote:
All possible universes would have begun at the singularity.

Prove it.

StMichael wrote:
You exist. You depend on God for your existence, however.

If I exist, and god is existance, then I am part of god. If I am not part of god, then god is not existance. That's all there is to it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael wrote:

Quote:
StMichael wrote:
An object at rest DOES need to be put at rest by a lack of net forces acting upon it.

Only if it's already in motion.

Now you're not making any sense at all. The lack of net forces acting upon it, even if these forces were such that the thing was lacking motion from the beginning of the universe, is a cause of why it is at rest.

Quote:
 


 

StMichael wrote:
Any object, likewise, in motion requires an actual mover.

Fine, lets try something else.
But there are natural movers. And the big bang itself was a mover. There's no need for a god.

The Big Bang was itself a motion in moving bodies. Something that is in motion cannot be the Prime Mover, for it needs to be unmoved. Further, the unmoved mover cannot be a physical body, as every body that acts necessitates an equal and opposite reaction.  

Quote:

 

 

StMichael wrote:
From the Church's beginnings with Christ, the Catholic Church has always taught that God is the creator of the universe and first cause of the cosmos, without any accompanying cause.

Something cannot come from nothing.

And it did not. It came from God.

Quote:
 

 


That entire thing is based on a very primitive understanding of the nature of matter and energy. There is no evidence there.

It has nothing to do with concepts of matter and energy which are outdated. Just asserting that it has a flaw based on bad concepts, and not explicating the flaw, is not an argument.

Quote:
 

And yet the church is one of the most greedy, underhanded cults on the face of the planet. The church is made of men, which even you acknowledge is fallible. Which means the church is fallible. From the lowest clergyman all the way up to the pope himself. Neither their interpretations nor yours are guaranteed to be accurate.

Your assertion that the Catholic Church is a greedy and underhanded cult is without foundation. Also, even though every person in the Catholic Church is fallible in themselves, the reason the Church has a Pope and bishops is to guide the Church in an infallible manner. Their personal opinions are fallible and human, but their interpretation in the name of the Church is infallible. So, for example, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, intending to definitively define something, speaking on a matter of faith and morals, in a way to bind the whole Church, his defintions and decrees are then infallible. But the Pope's personal opinion on the weather, or whether Madrid will win is not infallible.

 

Quote:

I'm aware enough to see that our lack of knowledge is beyond our knowledge. You try to define that lack as a god. I don't.

But it is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from logical necessity. It doesn't matter how the universe was created or began, but it matters that it is necessary that one unmoved mover must exist.

 

Quote:

 

It doesn't prove it either. Which is the whole problem.

Yes it does. There is positive reason to accept its evidence. The evidence exists, and it can stand on its own.

Quote:
 

 

Oh I admit that I am rather ignorant of many of your beliefs. I don't tend to waste my time reading about religions. I'd rather read reality.

Which is funny because I take your religion and viewpoint seriously.

Quote:
 

However, correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that bread is the body of a 2000 year old dead guy.

Not 2000 year old dead guy. An eternal God who became man, died, and rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and by whose power transforms the substance of bread into the substance of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity to enable us to share in His divine nature.

Quote:

 

Got a picture? Scientific examination proving it's part bread and part skin? Actually fused, not just glued or mixed together in some way?

Actually, I was wrong about that. I confused something else. But here is a picture of Lanciano anyway.

Lanciano 

 

Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart.

 Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve.

 Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the "Rough" aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue

 Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group.

 

 

Quote:

 

That just shows your own ignorance of the testing. It was never opened. Candles were used to backlight the container. It was pathetic. Where are the scientific journals documenting these so-called studies?

Where are you getting you information? The monstrace has been opened multiple times for scientific testing. The pictures I posted above are the results of tests done on samples of the tissue in the monstrance.

Quote:

 


You gave me church propoganda. Try a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Just for fun, because I found them, here is the final page of the reports of 1970 and 1971 from Lanciano which validate the Eucharistic Miracle, as it is found in the shrine itself.

 

But, anyway, journals have published these things. It's not new. Witness the publication below the the miracle for Fr. Damien.

Quote:
 


There are a number of reasons. Genetic testing, which would be a huge asset to anyone looking for articles of his existance. Actual proof that it's blood, and that it's old, and that it can do what the church says it does while being old blood, and that such is unnatural. This would be scientific evidence for your god. It wouldn't quite prove it, but it would certainly make it a lot harder to deny.

We are not talking about proof for the existence of God, which the miracle certainly would validate, but proof for the truth of Catholic articles of faith. Anyway, the testing on the blood sample taken from Lanciano confirmed that it was blood of type AB. Further, the miracle, by my mistake, is not 800 years old, but actually began in 700 AD, making it a bit older at 1300 years. 1300 years for blood and cardiovascular tissue to be around is a long time.

Quote:
 

 


In a dry, stable environment. Protected from snow, wind, rain, and a million other factors.

But exposed to ordinary bacteria and air for 1200 years in a non-hermitically sealed environment is just as good as being exposed to the elements.

Quote:

 

Define the elements it was presented to. In order for it to have been exposed to candle smoke of such intensity, it would certainly have had to be inside. Which is not exposure to the elements.

Exposure to ordinary air, bacteria, and contaminants. The presence of these on normal historical artifacts is a death-knell. However, that is not the case with the incorruptibles. 

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
The incorruptibles were not in peat bogs nor sub-zero temperatures.

You can prove this? And you still have yet to prove that they were naturally preserved too, by the way.

Um, yes. Depending on the incorruptibles, many were buried in coffins in the ground, some were buried in the crypts of churches, others were placed in other various situtations. But no peat bogs were involved. You would have to prove that they were in all cases, which is insane. Also, it is not my burden of proof in either of these circumstances. If you want to disprove all the incorruptibles, you would have to show that they were artificially preserved somehow. But that is likewise irrelevant. The incorruptibles were not embalmed, which shows marks, nor pickled, which likewise is obvious, nor preserved in an Egyptian way with salt, which is likewise obvious. Further, their corpses are in displays that are open to the air and, in many cases, open to many contaminants. Naturally speaking, even a mummy cannot sustain treatement for years. 

Quote:
 

 And I should mention you haven't explained why every saint isn't in the same shape.

It depends on the specific circumstances. 

Quote:

 

You can't prove that.

Embalming was sporadically practiced sometimes during the Middle Ages and became more popular during the Renaissance. After that point, it waned in popularity until the American Civil War. Further, no incorruptible has been embalmed. Further, even if they had been, such embalming merely forestalls decay, and does not prevent it entirely, as is the case with the incorrupts.

 

Quote:

 


That's due to chemical interactions which can be unnaturally brought to a halt. You can't prove they didn't have the ability to do so.

Chemical efforts to stop decomposition is not perfect. Decay would still occur. 

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
There are no such things.

Yes there are. Some working directly for the church, others working on their own volition in concordant beliefs.

But there aren't. There are no "church doctors" or "chuch scientists."

Quote:
 


Life can be very successful when it defends itself. It can also fail miserably. The doctor couldn't explain it, and invoked the traditional definition of miracle(something that can't be explained at the time). It doesn't say that this scenario could never be understood. This proves nothing.

That is just inability to face facts. I gave you a medical journal and you rejected it. The medical community agreed that such an action could not have occured naturally.

 

Quote:
You keep dodging around without giving me any.

Let's see, scientific journals for the case of two miracles, and scientific reports on 1300 year-old blood and tissue, combined with evidence for any number of incorruptible saints. Oh no, I just keep dodging your request for evidence.

Quote:
 

 

 Your church split when Rome did.

It did not.

Quote:

The vatican did not always exist you know.

The Vatican city-state is not equivalent to the Catholic Church. The Vatican began in the early 1900s, whereas the Catholic Church has existed since Christ founded it.

Quote:
 

And why isn't the church based in the so-called holy land in the first place?

Because Christ did not establish Jerusalem as the Church, but gave the leadership of the Church to Peter. Peter's See was Rome, which is why it continues to be such.

 

Quote:


When your church split even before it was defined as it is now, it most certainly brings your claims into question.

The Catholic Church never split. There have been schisms and heresies, but the unity of the Catholic Church has never been rent as you claim.

Quote:
 

 


There's no assumption about it. You however assume that there are divine miracles in order to prove that there are divine miracles.

I don't know what you mean by that phrase, so please clarify.

 

 


Actually I've seen a patient revived after hours of death. I've heard of patients revived after days of clinical death, thanks to scientifically explainable phenomena. Because of scientific study I know it's theoretically possible to revive a patient after millenia of clinical death.

Nonsense. People cannot be revived after "millenia" of clinical death. Further, clinical death is not equivalent to death. Further, I have not heard of a man revived after days of clinical death. The longest possible period in which a man has been revived after clinical death is one hour, where it occured under very controlled conditions in a laboratory setting. In under 10 minutes without blood flow, brain cells become irremediably damaged. There is no way to revive a person after clinical death for 3 hours, let alone 3 days.

 

Quote:


How is it my fault that it's all in Italy? That I can't afford to go there without ending up trapped there and jobless? I say it's the churches fault for not touring your false gods glory around the world. The only logical conclusion is that they are scared their deception will be exposed.

They occasionally do so. For example, Saint John Vianney's incorrupt heart was in the USA this past year. I don' know that Lanciano has ever been taken elsewhere, but that is a different story.

 

Quote:

 

StMichael wrote:
Then don’t tell me that my claim that the moon is made of green cheese can be false.

I suppose in a philosophical sense I can't, yet I can say that such a claim is irrational. And I would fight your claim with evidence to the contrary. Evidence you could not disprove. And you would be unable to prove your own claim.

It is not irrational. You must pay for my trip to the moon and back until I acknowledge that such is not the case. And even then, how do I know I am really on the moon and you have not been tricking me? And even if the entire scientific community agrees, they must be atheist propagandists working against me! 

 And you call me irrational.

 

Quote:

 

StMichael wrote:
Which would that be, praytell?

I've already told you about your misconceptions about energy and matter.

And these are...what?

Quote:
 


Entropy is effectively the dispersal of energy until a constant is attained. Basically, if you built a really big box, and isolated it from everything, then injected some energy into one corner, that corner would be more energetic than the rest of the box. Over time, that energy would spread out until it was uniform throughout the inside of the box. The universe is not a static box however. It is currently expanding(or at least, the light we see says it was within the last few thousand years, and we assume it still is without anything to suggest otherwise). If the box you made was able to expand infinately, then there would never be a constant. Energy would infinately expand throughout the box, getting infinately further apart through infinity. It's kind of a fake entropy. You can never achieve 0 energy, but you can get infinately closer to it(much like trying to achieve light speed). There can never be a constant, so entropy will never fully be realized. At the same time, we only know that the universe has been expanding for about 13 billion years, and that it has continued to expand at least up until a few thousand years ago. We do not know that the universe will always expand. If the universe ever contracts, then entropy will become impossible the other way. All the energy will get closer and closer together, until critical mass is achieved and it explodes outwards again. There can be no mass lost, because the universe is a closed system. With no loss of mass, there is no loss of energy. With no loss of energy, you have an endless cycle.

Now you're just making things up. The universe is not an infinite system. It does increase the limit when the universe is expanding, but it will also inevitably contract. I encourage you to read those articles on heat-death and what Stephen Hawking said again. The second law clearly applies to the universe, and you own personal scientific theories are not in line with reality.  

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
A lack of motion exists regardless of whether things exist to move or not.

No it doesn't. If nothing exists, then nothing exists. Positive or negative.

Then we cannot say nothing exists in that context, according to your words. A lack of motion is a merely negative term indicating an absence of motion. If there is nothing, then there is no motion; ergo, a lack of motion. Nothing positive can be said of nothingness, but all negative terms are clearly applicable. There is no heat, there is no space, there is no John, there is no Socrates. 

Quote:
 

 

 

StMichael wrote:
But things are moving now.

You still haven't proved that there was a point at which they didn't move, so you're only offering conjecture.

I don't need to prove a point at which motion did not exist. I only need to prove that motion only exists because of movers and that things are in motion. I have done both.

 

Quote:

If I exist, and god is existance, then I am part of god. If I am not part of god, then god is not existance. That's all there is to it.

God is not existence, as the existence of all things. God is a subsistent existence, not the existence of you and me. He is the cause of the existence of all things, but you and I cannot enter into composition with God. This would likewise disqualify this thing as both subsistent existence (and we would not exist) and the cause of all things (because the cause of all things cannot enter into compostion with any other thing, but must be absolutely simple).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Now you're

StMichael wrote:
Now you're not making any sense at all.

That's a stupid suggestion. I'm making perfect sense.

StMichael wrote:
The lack of net forces acting upon it, even if these forces were such that the thing was lacking motion from the beginning of the universe, is a cause of why it is at rest.

Only if it was always at rest.

StMichael wrote:
The Big Bang was itself a motion in moving bodies. Something that is in motion cannot be the Prime Mover, for it needs to be unmoved.

The big bang was not a motion in itself, it was a cataclysmic explosion. Just try and prove that an explosion doesn't cause motion. Please.

StMichael wrote:
Further, the unmoved mover cannot be a physical body, as every body that acts necessitates an equal and opposite reaction.

An explosion isn't physical. It's energetic. There may be physical repercussions, but the explosion is not physical itself.

StMichael wrote:
And it did not. It came from God.

So god blew up and the universe was born. Interesting theory. I have to admit it's an enjoyable one.

StMichael wrote:
It has nothing to do with concepts of matter and energy which are outdated.

You wouldn't say that if you were up to date on the subject.

StMichael wrote:
Just asserting that it has a flaw based on bad concepts, and not explicating the flaw, is not an argument.

I'm sorry, but I'm no physicist. If you want to learn about matter and energy, look it up. And I'm not suggesting you have to travel all the way to Italy to do it either. You can do it in the comfort of the chair you're sitting in now(if you're sitting, and if it's in a chair).

StMichael wrote:
Your assertion that the Catholic Church is a greedy and underhanded cult is without foundation.

On the contrary. The proof that the church is greedy is within it's economics. It takes in more money than it spends, so it's a profitable business. Take a look at the vatican. So much for piety. The proof that it's a cult is simple, it's a religion. Every religion is a cult. You just lucked into, or chose, the biggest one of the day.

StMichael wrote:
Also, even though every person in the Catholic Church is fallible in themselves, the reason the Church has a Pope and bishops is to guide the Church in an infallible manner. Their personal opinions are fallible and human, but their interpretation in the name of the Church is infallible.

If they are fallible, then so are their interpretations. So is anything they do.

StMichael wrote:
So, for example, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, intending to definitively define something, speaking on a matter of faith and morals, in a way to bind the whole Church, his defintions and decrees are then infallible. But the Pope's personal opinion on the weather, or whether Madrid will win is not infallible.

Yes yes, I already know how the church has changed throughout the years to avoid it's own elimination. This isn't proof of infallibility. Quite the opposite.

StMichael wrote:
But it is not an argument from ignorance.

Yes it is. Especially in your case. Your whole mover argument is fundamentally flawed, and you don't seem to care. *shrug*

StMichael wrote:
It is an argument from logical necessity. It doesn't matter how the universe was created or began, but it matters that it is necessary that one unmoved mover must exist.

Yet it isn't, and there isn't.

StMichael wrote:
Yes it does. There is positive reason to accept its evidence. The evidence exists, and it can stand on its own.

No it doesn't, there isn't, it doesn't, and it doesn't again.

StMichael wrote:
Which is funny because I take your religion and viewpoint seriously.

I don't have a religion. And I do take your religion seriously, I just don't need to obsess about it to know it's false.

StMichael wrote:
Not 2000 year old dead guy. An eternal God who became man, died, and rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and by whose power transforms the substance of bread into the substance of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity to enable us to share in His divine nature.

2000 year old dead guy becoming food. That's rich. I'll drop this part now since it's too laughable.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to save the rest for tomorrow. I'm out of time. Rest of the post that follows is a quote, not a response. This post will be editted if possible instead of a new post being posted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

 

Got a picture? Scientific examination proving it's part bread and part skin? Actually fused, not just glued or mixed together in some way?

Actually, I was wrong about that. I confused something else. But here is a picture of Lanciano anyway.

Lanciano 

 

Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart.

 Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve.

 Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the "Rough" aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue

 Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group.

 

 

Quote:

 

That just shows your own ignorance of the testing. It was never opened. Candles were used to backlight the container. It was pathetic. Where are the scientific journals documenting these so-called studies?

Where are you getting you information? The monstrace has been opened multiple times for scientific testing. The pictures I posted above are the results of tests done on samples of the tissue in the monstrance.

Quote:

 


You gave me church propoganda. Try a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Just for fun, because I found them, here is the final page of the reports of 1970 and 1971 from Lanciano which validate the Eucharistic Miracle, as it is found in the shrine itself.

 

But, anyway, journals have published these things. It's not new. Witness the publication below the the miracle for Fr. Damien.

Quote:
 


There are a number of reasons. Genetic testing, which would be a huge asset to anyone looking for articles of his existance. Actual proof that it's blood, and that it's old, and that it can do what the church says it does while being old blood, and that such is unnatural. This would be scientific evidence for your god. It wouldn't quite prove it, but it would certainly make it a lot harder to deny.

We are not talking about proof for the existence of God, which the miracle certainly would validate, but proof for the truth of Catholic articles of faith. Anyway, the testing on the blood sample taken from Lanciano confirmed that it was blood of type AB. Further, the miracle, by my mistake, is not 800 years old, but actually began in 700 AD, making it a bit older at 1300 years. 1300 years for blood and cardiovascular tissue to be around is a long time.

Quote:
 

 


In a dry, stable environment. Protected from snow, wind, rain, and a million other factors.

But exposed to ordinary bacteria and air for 1200 years in a non-hermitically sealed environment is just as good as being exposed to the elements.

Quote:

 

Define the elements it was presented to. In order for it to have been exposed to candle smoke of such intensity, it would certainly have had to be inside. Which is not exposure to the elements.

Exposure to ordinary air, bacteria, and contaminants. The presence of these on normal historical artifacts is a death-knell. However, that is not the case with the incorruptibles. 

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
The incorruptibles were not in peat bogs nor sub-zero temperatures.

You can prove this? And you still have yet to prove that they were naturally preserved too, by the way.

Um, yes. Depending on the incorruptibles, many were buried in coffins in the ground, some were buried in the crypts of churches, others were placed in other various situtations. But no peat bogs were involved. You would have to prove that they were in all cases, which is insane. Also, it is not my burden of proof in either of these circumstances. If you want to disprove all the incorruptibles, you would have to show that they were artificially preserved somehow. But that is likewise irrelevant. The incorruptibles were not embalmed, which shows marks, nor pickled, which likewise is obvious, nor preserved in an Egyptian way with salt, which is likewise obvious. Further, their corpses are in displays that are open to the air and, in many cases, open to many contaminants. Naturally speaking, even a mummy cannot sustain treatement for years. 

Quote:
 

 And I should mention you haven't explained why every saint isn't in the same shape.

It depends on the specific circumstances. 

Quote:

 

You can't prove that.

Embalming was sporadically practiced sometimes during the Middle Ages and became more popular during the Renaissance. After that point, it waned in popularity until the American Civil War. Further, no incorruptible has been embalmed. Further, even if they had been, such embalming merely forestalls decay, and does not prevent it entirely, as is the case with the incorrupts.

 

Quote:

 


That's due to chemical interactions which can be unnaturally brought to a halt. You can't prove they didn't have the ability to do so.

Chemical efforts to stop decomposition is not perfect. Decay would still occur. 

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
There are no such things.

Yes there are. Some working directly for the church, others working on their own volition in concordant beliefs.

But there aren't. There are no "church doctors" or "chuch scientists."

Quote:
 


Life can be very successful when it defends itself. It can also fail miserably. The doctor couldn't explain it, and invoked the traditional definition of miracle(something that can't be explained at the time). It doesn't say that this scenario could never be understood. This proves nothing.

That is just inability to face facts. I gave you a medical journal and you rejected it. The medical community agreed that such an action could not have occured naturally.

 

Quote:
You keep dodging around without giving me any.

Let's see, scientific journals for the case of two miracles, and scientific reports on 1300 year-old blood and tissue, combined with evidence for any number of incorruptible saints. Oh no, I just keep dodging your request for evidence.

Quote:
 

 

 Your church split when Rome did.

It did not.

Quote:

The vatican did not always exist you know.

The Vatican city-state is not equivalent to the Catholic Church. The Vatican began in the early 1900s, whereas the Catholic Church has existed since Christ founded it.

Quote:
 

And why isn't the church based in the so-called holy land in the first place?

Because Christ did not establish Jerusalem as the Church, but gave the leadership of the Church to Peter. Peter's See was Rome, which is why it continues to be such.

 

Quote:


When your church split even before it was defined as it is now, it most certainly brings your claims into question.

The Catholic Church never split. There have been schisms and heresies, but the unity of the Catholic Church has never been rent as you claim.

Quote:
 

 


There's no assumption about it. You however assume that there are divine miracles in order to prove that there are divine miracles.

I don't know what you mean by that phrase, so please clarify.

 

 


Actually I've seen a patient revived after hours of death. I've heard of patients revived after days of clinical death, thanks to scientifically explainable phenomena. Because of scientific study I know it's theoretically possible to revive a patient after millenia of clinical death.

Nonsense. People cannot be revived after "millenia" of clinical death. Further, clinical death is not equivalent to death. Further, I have not heard of a man revived after days of clinical death. The longest possible period in which a man has been revived after clinical death is one hour, where it occured under very controlled conditions in a laboratory setting. In under 10 minutes without blood flow, brain cells become irremediably damaged. There is no way to revive a person after clinical death for 3 hours, let alone 3 days.

 

Quote:


How is it my fault that it's all in Italy? That I can't afford to go there without ending up trapped there and jobless? I say it's the churches fault for not touring your false gods glory around the world. The only logical conclusion is that they are scared their deception will be exposed.

They occasionally do so. For example, Saint John Vianney's incorrupt heart was in the USA this past year. I don' know that Lanciano has ever been taken elsewhere, but that is a different story.

 

Quote:

 

StMichael wrote:
Then don’t tell me that my claim that the moon is made of green cheese can be false.

I suppose in a philosophical sense I can't, yet I can say that such a claim is irrational. And I would fight your claim with evidence to the contrary. Evidence you could not disprove. And you would be unable to prove your own claim.

It is not irrational. You must pay for my trip to the moon and back until I acknowledge that such is not the case. And even then, how do I know I am really on the moon and you have not been tricking me? And even if the entire scientific community agrees, they must be atheist propagandists working against me! 

 And you call me irrational.

 

Quote:

 

StMichael wrote:
Which would that be, praytell?

I've already told you about your misconceptions about energy and matter.

And these are...what?

Quote:
 


Entropy is effectively the dispersal of energy until a constant is attained. Basically, if you built a really big box, and isolated it from everything, then injected some energy into one corner, that corner would be more energetic than the rest of the box. Over time, that energy would spread out until it was uniform throughout the inside of the box. The universe is not a static box however. It is currently expanding(or at least, the light we see says it was within the last few thousand years, and we assume it still is without anything to suggest otherwise). If the box you made was able to expand infinately, then there would never be a constant. Energy would infinately expand throughout the box, getting infinately further apart through infinity. It's kind of a fake entropy. You can never achieve 0 energy, but you can get infinately closer to it(much like trying to achieve light speed). There can never be a constant, so entropy will never fully be realized. At the same time, we only know that the universe has been expanding for about 13 billion years, and that it has continued to expand at least up until a few thousand years ago. We do not know that the universe will always expand. If the universe ever contracts, then entropy will become impossible the other way. All the energy will get closer and closer together, until critical mass is achieved and it explodes outwards again. There can be no mass lost, because the universe is a closed system. With no loss of mass, there is no loss of energy. With no loss of energy, you have an endless cycle.

Now you're just making things up. The universe is not an infinite system. It does increase the limit when the universe is expanding, but it will also inevitably contract. I encourage you to read those articles on heat-death and what Stephen Hawking said again. The second law clearly applies to the universe, and you own personal scientific theories are not in line with reality.  

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
A lack of motion exists regardless of whether things exist to move or not.

No it doesn't. If nothing exists, then nothing exists. Positive or negative.

Then we cannot say nothing exists in that context, according to your words. A lack of motion is a merely negative term indicating an absence of motion. If there is nothing, then there is no motion; ergo, a lack of motion. Nothing positive can be said of nothingness, but all negative terms are clearly applicable. There is no heat, there is no space, there is no John, there is no Socrates. 

Quote:
 

 

 

StMichael wrote:
But things are moving now.

You still haven't proved that there was a point at which they didn't move, so you're only offering conjecture.

I don't need to prove a point at which motion did not exist. I only need to prove that motion only exists because of movers and that things are in motion. I have done both.

 

Quote:

If I exist, and god is existance, then I am part of god. If I am not part of god, then god is not existance. That's all there is to it.

God is not existence, as the existence of all things. God is a subsistent existence, not the existence of you and me. He is the cause of the existence of all things, but you and I cannot enter into composition with God. This would likewise disqualify this thing as both subsistent existence (and we would not exist) and the cause of all things (because the cause of all things cannot enter into compostion with any other thing, but must be absolutely simple).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael wrote:

Quote:
StMichael wrote:
The lack of net forces acting upon it, even if these forces were such that the thing was lacking motion from the beginning of the universe, is a cause of why it is at rest.

Only if it was always at rest.

If it was always at rest = no forces acting upon it. No net forces acting upon X -> X is at rest

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
The Big Bang was itself a motion in moving bodies. Something that is in motion cannot be the Prime Mover, for it needs to be unmoved.

The big bang was not a motion in itself, it was a cataclysmic explosion. Just try and prove that an explosion doesn't cause motion. Please.

The Big Bang is a motion, as well as a mover. Every moving mover is in a state of potentiality and acutality at the same time. The Big Bang itself is in motion, while it causes the motions of other things. The domino is both pushed and pushing on the next domino.

Quote:

An explosion isn't physical. It's energetic. There may be physical repercussions, but the explosion is not physical itself.

The explosion requires energy. The energy of the thing is the physical motion of the thing in the exploding. The transfer of energy requires a mover.

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
And it did not. It came from God.

So god blew up and the universe was born. Interesting theory. I have to admit it's an enjoyable one.

No, God did not blow up. God caused by His existence other things to participate in His existence, which is how the universe came to exist.

Quote:
 

 


 

StMichael wrote:
Just asserting that it has a flaw based on bad concepts, and not explicating the flaw, is not an argument.

I'm sorry, but I'm no physicist. If you want to learn about matter and energy, look it up. And I'm not suggesting you have to travel all the way to Italy to do it either. You can do it in the comfort of the chair you're sitting in now(if you're sitting, and if it's in a chair).

You still have yet to say what is wrong in my concept of matter and energy. Just saying that my view is wrong is not proof.

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
Your assertion that the Catholic Church is a greedy and underhanded cult is without foundation.

On the contrary. The proof that the church is greedy is within it's economics. It takes in more money than it spends, so it's a profitable business.

Actually, quite wrong. The Vatican itself spends a great deal more money than it takes it, on average. Show figures for your assertion.

Quote:
 

Take a look at the vatican. So much for piety. The proof that it's a cult is simple, it's a religion. Every religion is a cult. You just lucked into, or chose, the biggest one of the day.

That's great. Religion = cult, cult = religion, no chance to argue. Talk about preconcieved biases.

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
Also, even though every person in the Catholic Church is fallible in themselves, the reason the Church has a Pope and bishops is to guide the Church in an infallible manner. Their personal opinions are fallible and human, but their interpretation in the name of the Church is infallible.

If they are fallible, then so are their interpretations. So is anything they do.

Only privately are their interpretations fallible. Acting as Christ's representatives, their interpretation is in Christ's name and infallible by special grace of God.

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
So, for example, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, intending to definitively define something, speaking on a matter of faith and morals, in a way to bind the whole Church, his defintions and decrees are then infallible. But the Pope's personal opinion on the weather, or whether Madrid will win is not infallible.

Yes yes, I already know how the church has changed throughout the years to avoid it's own elimination. This isn't proof of infallibility. Quite the opposite.

? The quote you cited had nothing to do with this. Your assertions are dumbfounding.

Quote:
 


I don't have a religion. And I do take your religion seriously, I just don't need to obsess about it to know it's false.

Yes you do. Your observance of atheistic doctrine in the spirit of blind faith and unquestioning obedience lays you much more open to the appellation of the term "cult" than myself. You even belong to this quasi-missionary operation, the Rational Response Squad, which seems on a mission from Science Itself to de-convert all believers to your faith of non-belief.  Your religion is built on a destruction of human reason and morality. At least I am worshipping a God who is Eternal Wisdom and Truth.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Siggghhh Atheism does NOT

Siggghhh

Atheism does NOT require faith. As I once heard said, "It does NOT require faith to believe it is not the case that the tides are caused by giant undersea hamsters running on wheels while dressed in clown costumes. It requires a great deal to believe this is the case."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If it was always at rest =

If it was always at rest = no forces acting upon it. No net forces acting upon X -> X is at rest

WRONG!!!

No nett forces results in no ACCELERATION!. IOW if it was moving, then no nett forces means it continues to move.

Force = mass X acceleration

This is elementary physics!

Second, your only way to refute the notion that an unmoved mover exists is to claim that the universe must have started with an impetus from matter and energy...just because. This is further clearly unsupported by the physics of the Big Bang, where it is clear that matter and energy cannot exist prior to the Big Bang.

I did not claim the Big Bang was started with an impetus from matter and energy, you may have mis-read me there. I was saying that just after its initiation, by whatever means, it contained matter and energy. I explicitly left it open as to what initiated or came before that point. WE (and YOU) DON'T KNOW.

Science has been postulating the heat-death theory of the universe for quite some time.

I know.

The entropy in any isolated, aka closed, system decreases over time

This is exactly the reverse of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - read any physics textbook. What does decrease over time is energy available for useful work.

I fully agree with that Wikipedia article, which says

The heat death is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has "run down" to a state of no free energy to sustain motion or life. In physical terms, it has reached maximum entropy.

Note it says maximum entropy, which doesn't quite fit with decreases over time which is what YOU said.

Intelligent ordering of things clearly exists because things do not merely move in a happenchance manner, occasionally obtaining the best result. Rather, everywhere and almost always, things move in the universe according to a definite order in order to achieve the best end. For example, chemical reactions tend to stability. Or, maximum entropy production leads to the most efficent reaction in any scenario. Or, in evolution, species evolve for the betterment of the species and the increased survival of their kind.

Note that maximum entropy production leads to the most efficent reaction in any scenario is precisely WRONG. Entropy increase in any process is a measure of INEFFICIENCY, or technically 'irreversibility'. In principle, any process which involves no friction, or turbulence, or flow of thermal energy thru a measurable temperature gradient, can take place without measurable entropy increase.

Chemical reactions proceed to lowest free energy state, more stable, yes. How much entropy increases as those reactions occur depends on the circumstances. If a gallon of gasoline is burnt in an open fire, entropy increase is hign. If it is burnt in a car, entropy increase is lower, since some of the energy released is converted to useful kinetic energy. The entropy increase will ultimately be similar when the car's kinetic energy is converted to heat in the brakes.

And anyway, a dead body, or ultimately a completely decomposed one, is more stable than a living one, so how is this the 'best' end? According to what criterion do you use 'best' in that statement?

Quote:

Elementary examples of order from disorder are commonplace, from simple crystal growth, to the example of every living organism developing from an egg, or a seed, or a spore, all of which are clearly vastly simpler than the mature organism. Even the formation of the Solar system from a relatively amorphous cloud of matter shows the same thing, and has been modelled mathematically in remarkable detail.

I find these all instances of clearly intelligent guiding of the universe's operation

 

You are welcome to your completely unsupported opinion here...

Are you seriously suggesting that God is actually actively 'guiding' these processes, or merely that he set up the initial properties of matter/energy so that it would lead to such behaviour? The latter position is more defensible, and actually corresponds to the Deist position of people like Thomas Jefferson, so I suspect that isn't your view.

Al those processes are explicanble in the blind working out of physical processes - you simply chose not to accept that.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

If it was always at rest = no forces acting upon it. No net forces acting upon X -> X is at rest

WRONG!!!

No nett forces results in no ACCELERATION!. IOW if it was moving, then no nett forces means it continues to move.

Force = mass X acceleration

This is elementary physics!

If a thing was always at rest, that indicates that no force ever acted upon it. It was not a debate that the thing was always in motion. If a thing is in motion, it requires a force to cause initial acceleration; to quote you, "this is elementary physics!"

Quote:

I did not claim the Big Bang was started with an impetus from matter and energy, you may have mis-read me there. I was saying that just after its initiation, by whatever means, it contained matter and energy. I explicitly left it open as to what initiated or came before that point. WE (and YOU) DON'T KNOW.

If I have misread you, and what you meant to say was that after the Big Bang there was matter and energy, I agree with you. But the cause of the Big Bang, while unexplainable according to natural science (as far as we know), will have to, ultimately (even if something else material caused the Big Bang), lead to an unmoved mover. There is no alternative. It is a logical necessity. It has nothing to do with checking scientifically with our instruments to find the exact point at which such a mover intervened; it is just logically necessary that one did do so. Further, the unmoved mover would not be able to be investigated with instruments, because it is a mover beyond matter and energy. It can't be seen or felt. The only way we can know it is by its effects, such as the created world.

Quote:

This is exactly the reverse of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - rerad any physics textbook. What does decrease over time is energy available for useful work.

I fully agree with that Wikipedia article, which says

The heat death is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has "run down" to a state of no free energy to sustain motion or life. In physical terms, it has reached maximum entropy.

Note it says maximum entropy, which doesn't quite fit with decreases over time which is what YOU said.

I admit that I misspoke when I said that entropy decreases over time. What I meant is that order decreases over time, and entropy increases, which is true (and I said this elsewhere in my post, so it should be obvious that my phrase was just a misspeaking). This, of course, still requires a mover. The order and initial "movement" in that sense is necessary as entropy in a closed system like the universe is a one-way street.

 

Quote:

Note that maximum entropy production leads to the most efficent reaction in any scenario is precisely WRONG. Entropy increase in any process is a measure of INEFFICIENCY, or technically 'irreversibility'. In principle, any process which involves no friction, or turbulence, or flow of thermal energy thru a measurable temperature gradient, can take place without measurable entropy increase.

No, maximum entropy production is technically the increase in disorder in a system, but the term does not merely indicate that. The term indicates the way in which entropy increases in a system. The "spreading" of disorder occurs in the most efficent and orderly way to cause an overall maximum increase of entropy in a system (hence, maximum entropy production). I refer you to: http://www.entropylaw.com/entropyproduction.html

Quote:

And anyway, a dead body, or ultimately a completely decomposed one, is more stable than a living one, so how is this the 'best' end? According to what criterion do you use 'best' in that statement?

It achieves an end according to spontaneous order. Chemical reactions tend to stability and order. Entropy tends to move in such a way as to produce spontaneous order in its efficent production. Even the actions of organisms that decompose bodies creates a spontaneous order in the natural world, providing nutrients for plants, ect.

Quote:

Are you seriously suggesting that God is actually actively 'guiding' these processes, or merely that he set up the initial properties of matter/energy so that it would lead to such behaviour? The latter position is more defensible, and actually corresponds to the Deist position of people like Thomas Jefferson, so I suspect that isn't your view.

Both. God both actively guides every action in the universe, sustains it in existence, and causes it to be in the first place. It is also true that the nature of matter and energy is orderly, according to God's design and active creation of it in such fashion.

Quote:

Al those processes are explicanble in the blind working out of physical processes - you simply chose not to accept that.

I clearly see intelligence in causing spontaneous order that pursues ends. Whether it is a physical process or not, it seems very obviously guided to particular ends in an intelligent manner. The essence of the issue is that these are "blind...physical processes" and that such spontaneous ordering of ends is clear evidence of an intelligent orderer.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

 

 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13400
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote: Yes you do. Your

Quote:

Yes you do. Your observance of atheistic doctrine in the spirit of blind faith and unquestioning obedience lays you much more open to the appellation of the term "cult" than myself. You even belong to this quasi-missionary operation, the Rational Response Squad, which seems on a mission from Science Itself to de-convert all believers to your faith of non-belief. Your religion is built on a destruction of human reason and morality. At least I am worshipping a God who is Eternal Wisdom and Truth.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Please do tell, what "doctrine" do we godless have? You bash science dispite that it can be and is taught in every country on the face of the planet. Are you saying that by us sayin 1+1=2 doesnt require Zues, Apollo, Allah, Jesus means we have a doctrine?

Are you saying that because we use a microscope which theists use as well, of all labels I might add, that somehow we are a cult because we dont assign magic and myth to the mycroscope wherase you apply the defaut, "It makes me feel good" excuse.

What a bunch of bunk. We dont have a doctrine. We are as diverse in politics and world view as any religion. The only thing atheists have in common is that we dont buy fairy tales as fact.

Atheism is not about obidiance, which is what all three Abrahamic gods demand. Atheism is not about anarchy either. Atheists are pragmatic enough to know there is more than one idea on the face of the planet.

However, what we do, which is what religion has constantly failed at throughout history, we dont use mythology as an incert to the unknown. We dont stick Micky Mouse or Horis or Thor in when we are frightened or are faced with the unknown. We seek answers, we dont make them up.

Christianity, Zoroastrainism, Scientology, Kabbalah is all the same comic book crap. It is nothing but human beings protecting their egos because being part of a club is more imporant than seeking reality.

You cannot face me with your "POOF"  magical  claims and look me streight in the face and tell me that a "spirit" knocked up a girl, anymore than you could convince me that a multiple armed being named Ganish exists. Nor could you convince me that blowing yoruself up will get you a harem of 72 virgins anymore than Superman can fly.

Again, your claims hold as much weight in reality as any other untill proven otherwise.

Atheism is a doctrine like bald is a hair color.

The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god or gods, that is it. 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael:

StMichael:

If it was always at rest = no forces acting upon it. No net forces acting upon X -> X is at rest

The first statement is a special case of the more general statement, that "if it has always been in the same state of motion, it must have had no net forces acting on it."

The second statement, if it is strictly taken in the context of the first statement, is simply a restatement of the same thing. As a general statement, it is wrong. IOW that second statement is either superfluous or incorrect.

No, maximum entropy production is technically the increase in disorder in a system, but the term does not merely indicate that. The term indicates the way in which entropy increases in a system. The "spreading" of disorder occurs in the most efficent and orderly way to cause an overall maximum increase of entropy in a system (hence, maximum entropy production).

OK I did a bit of research, and I see you are referring to a fringe science, controversial idea about what governs the particular paths which non-equilibrium heat or energy flows take. As differentials increase, the idea appears to be that the path will be whatever maximises the flow of 'entropy', which for such a situation is the same as maximising the flow of energy. This possibly may be true, at least for some systems. Although there is certainly a well-established principle by Ilya Prigogine called the Minimum Entropy Production Principle, which applies under at least some conditions, which seems to indicate that your MEP is definitely not a Law, or truly general principle.

The even more questionable proposition is that 'orderly' processes will mostly tend to maximise this. This is not necessarily the case. In the common example of heated liquids, what actually happens is that as the temperature is increased, the convection currents in the liquid go thru various stages, some of which show a degree of 'order', as with the Bernard cells. As the temperature continues to rise, we go thru various chaotic regimes as well as the more orderly states. This is actually a general property of chaotic, ie, non-linear unstable systems.

I clearly see intelligence in causing spontaneous order that pursues ends. Whether it is a physical process or not, it seems very obviously guided to particular ends in an intelligent manner. The essence of the issue is that these are "blind...physical processes" and that such spontaneous ordering of ends is clear evidence of an intelligent orderer.

That appears to be simply evidence of a selective bias in your perceptions. You are clearly strongly pre-disposed to see evidence of an 'intelligent orderer'. I am not, as I am aware that such processes, in general, are at least as likely to produce what we perceive as totally random effects as well. The idea of this 'designer' is simply and CLEARLY, to me, logically unnecessary. Order DOES NOT imply INTELLIGENT design - that is a thoroughly established FACT.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The first statement

Quote:

The first statement is a special case of the more general statement, that "if it has always been in the same state of motion, it must have had no net forces acting on it."

The second statement, if it is strictly taken in the context of the first statement, is simply a restatement of the same thing. As a general statement, it is wrong. IOW that second statement is either superfluous or incorrect.

I don't see how this statement could be wrong if taken in a general context. But at least we agree that the statement is not incorrect. I woud, again, argue that this statement is perfectly supported. A thing at rest tends to stay at rest unless a net force acts upon it. A thing in motion likewise tends to stay in motion unless a net force acts upon it.

 

Quote:
 

 

OK I did a bit of research, and I see you are referring to a fringe science, controversial idea about what governs the particular paths which non-equilibrium heat or energy flows take. As differentials increase, the idea appears to be that the path will be whatever maximises the flow of 'entropy', which for such a situation is the same as maximising the flow of energy. This possibly may be true, at least for some systems. Although there is certainly a well-established principle by Ilya Prigogine called the Minimum Entropy Production Principle, which applies under at least some conditions, which seems to indicate that your MEP is definitely not a Law, or truly general principle.

MEP is not a fringe science. It is very much in the mainstream. Further, it is merely one example of spontaneous order. I would also point out that the minimum entropy production principle likewise points to spontaneous self-order in the universe, and Illya Prigogine worked heavily in the area of spontaneously self-order.

 

Quote:

That appears to be simply evidence of a selective bias in your perceptions. You are clearly strongly pre-disposed to see evidence of an 'intelligent orderer'. I am not, as I am aware that such processes, in general, are at least as likely to produce what we perceive as totally random effects as well. The idea of this 'designer' is simply and CLEARLY, to me, logically unnecessary. Order DOES NOT imply INTELLIGENT design - that is a thoroughly established FACT.

I see that it does when the order is clearly present pervading all natural sciences and where natural, unintelligent things intelligently pursue ends. The spontaneous ordering found in nature seems to clearly point to an ordering principle behind the universe. If things merely happened at random according to chance, no such order ought to exist. It would be merely throwing dice at the ground and getting doubles once in a while. Instead, we see order all over the universe. We have even begun to find order in apparent chaos. And not just pervading the universe, but ordering all things from the motion of planets to sub-atomic reactions.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - In addition, we haven't even talked about the Prime Mover argument yet Smiling 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm ignoring the response

I'm ignoring the response since I clearly indicated I wasn't done with the post yet. Anything you quoted was subject to change in the finished post. I'm sorry if this is inconvenient for you, but you can always copy/paste that which is still relevant.

StMichael wrote:
Now you're not making any sense at all.

That's a stupid suggestion. I'm making perfect sense.

StMichael wrote:
The lack of net forces acting upon it, even if these forces were such that the thing was lacking motion from the beginning of the universe, is a cause of why it is at rest.

Only if it was always at rest.

StMichael wrote:
The Big Bang was itself a motion in moving bodies. Something that is in motion cannot be the Prime Mover, for it needs to be unmoved.

The big bang was not a motion in itself, it was a cataclysmic explosion. Just try and prove that an explosion doesn't cause motion. Please.

StMichael wrote:
Further, the unmoved mover cannot be a physical body, as every body that acts necessitates an equal and opposite reaction.

An explosion isn't primarily physical. It's energetic. There may be physical repercussions, but the explosion is not physical itself.

StMichael wrote:
And it did not. It came from God.

So god blew up and the universe was born. Interesting theory. I have to admit it's an enjoyable one.

StMichael wrote:
It has nothing to do with concepts of matter and energy which are outdated.

You wouldn't say that if you were up to date on the subject.

StMichael wrote:
Just asserting that it has a flaw based on bad concepts, and not explicating the flaw, is not an argument.

I'm sorry, but I'm no physicist. If you want to learn about matter and energy, look it up. And I'm not suggesting you have to travel all the way to Italy to do it either. You can do it in the comfort of the chair you're sitting in now(if you're sitting, and if it's in a chair).

StMichael wrote:
Your assertion that the Catholic Church is a greedy and underhanded cult is without foundation.

On the contrary. The proof that the church is greedy is within it's economics. It takes in more money than it spends, so it's a profitable business. Take a look at the vatican. So much for piety. The proof that it's a cult is simple, it's a religion. Every religion is a cult. You just lucked into, or chose, the biggest one of the day.

StMichael wrote:
Also, even though every person in the Catholic Church is fallible in themselves, the reason the Church has a Pope and bishops is to guide the Church in an infallible manner. Their personal opinions are fallible and human, but their interpretation in the name of the Church is infallible.

If they are fallible, then so are their interpretations. So is anything they do.

StMichael wrote:
So, for example, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, intending to definitively define something, speaking on a matter of faith and morals, in a way to bind the whole Church, his defintions and decrees are then infallible. But the Pope's personal opinion on the weather, or whether Madrid will win is not infallible.

Yes yes, I already know how the church has changed throughout the years to avoid it's own elimination. This isn't proof of infallibility. Quite the opposite.

StMichael wrote:
But it is not an argument from ignorance.

Yes it is. Especially in your case. Your whole mover argument is fundamentally flawed, and you don't seem to care. *shrug*

StMichael wrote:
It is an argument from logical necessity. It doesn't matter how the universe was created or began, but it matters that it is necessary that one unmoved mover must exist.

Yet it isn't, and there isn't.

StMichael wrote:
Yes it does. There is positive reason to accept its evidence. The evidence exists, and it can stand on its own.

No it doesn't, there isn't, it doesn't, and it doesn't again.

StMichael wrote:
Which is funny because I take your religion and viewpoint seriously.

I don't have a religion. And I do take your religion seriously, I just don't need to obsess about it to know it's false.

StMichael wrote:
Not 2000 year old dead guy. An eternal God who became man, died, and rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and by whose power transforms the substance of bread into the substance of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity to enable us to share in His divine nature.

2000 year old dead guy becoming food. That's rich. I'll drop this part now since it's too laughable.

StMichael wrote:
Actually, I was wrong about that. I confused something else. But here is a picture of Lanciano anyway.

Wrong about what exactly?

StMichael wrote:
{Pics}

That's cool. But a picture isn't everything. I'm still waiting for the unbiased scientific studies to be presented.

StMichael wrote:
Where are you getting you information?

Skeptics. I wasn't able to find anything from your church, even after trying for 30 odd mins. If you can provide a credible source for me to read, please do so. Right now all I have is their information. And it certainly looks valid. They presented more than you have. They even talked about it's last testing in 1989, after the one you've claimed. And how it was no different from the one in the early early 1900s.

http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101014.htm

Oh yeah, they're even Italian. heh.

StMichael wrote:
The monstrace has been opened multiple times for scientific testing. The pictures I posted above are the results of tests done on samples of the tissue in the monstrance.

You still have yet to prove it's been opened ever. Let alone multiple times. Saying it has isn't proving it has.

StMichael wrote:
Just for fun, because I found them, here is the final page of the reports of 1970 and 1971 from Lanciano which validate the Eucharistic Miracle, as it is found in the shrine itself.

Kind of makes me wish I could read Italian. But it's just a paper on a wall. I can take a picture of a paper on a wall.

StMichael wrote:
But, anyway, journals have published these things. It's not new.

Where are they then?

StMichael wrote:
Witness the publication below the the miracle for Fr. Damien.

I can't figure out where you're directing me here.

StMichael wrote:
We are not talking about proof for the existence of God, which the miracle certainly would validate, but proof for the truth of Catholic articles of faith.

How does this answer my question?

StMichael wrote:
Anyway, the testing on the blood sample taken from Lanciano confirmed that it was blood of type AB. Further, the miracle, by my mistake, is not 800 years old, but actually began in 700 AD, making it a bit older at 1300 years. 1300 years for blood and cardiovascular tissue to be around is a long time.

Yes it is. If it's blood.

StMichael wrote:
But exposed to ordinary bacteria and air for 1200 years in a non-hermitically sealed environment is just as good as being exposed to the elements.

Not if preservative measures were taken.

StMichael wrote:
Exposure to ordinary air, bacteria, and contaminants. The presence of these on normal historical artifacts is a death-knell. However, that is not the case with the incorruptibles.

See above.

StMichael wrote:
Um, yes. Depending on the incorruptibles, many were buried in coffins in the ground, some were buried in the crypts of churches, others were placed in other various situtations. But no peat bogs were involved. You would have to prove that they were in all cases, which is insane. Also, it is not my burden of proof in either of these circumstances. If you want to disprove all the incorruptibles, you would have to show that they were artificially preserved somehow.

Which is conveniently impossible due to church hoarding. I wonder why.

StMichael wrote:
But that is likewise irrelevant. The incorruptibles were not embalmed, which shows marks, nor pickled, which likewise is obvious, nor preserved in an Egyptian way with salt, which is likewise obvious. Further, their corpses are in displays that are open to the air and, in many cases, open to many contaminants. Naturally speaking, even a mummy cannot sustain treatement for years.

You haven't proved they were preserved naturally, so this is merely a suggestion.
And what are you talking about? There are plenty of mummies that are open to contaminants and don't decompose further. That's the whole point of mummification in the first place. *Shakes head*

StMichael wrote:
It depends on the specific circumstances.

Like what?

StMichael wrote:
Embalming was sporadically practiced sometimes during the Middle Ages and became more popular during the Renaissance. After that point, it waned in popularity until the American Civil War.

Preservation techniques existed 5300 years ago.

Quote:
The earliest known "mummified" individual dates back to approximately 3300 BC, although it is not an internationally renowned mummy, such as, Rameses II or Seti I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy
.
Proving conclusively that they could have been unnaturally preserved. The only way to prove they weren't was to do an autopsy. Which has conveniently never been done.

StMichael wrote:

Further, no incorruptible has been embalmed.

Still no proof.

StMichael wrote:
Further, even if they had been, such embalming merely forestalls decay, and does not prevent it entirely, as is the case with the incorrupts.

Embalming alone maybe. I'm not a mummification expert. But I know that a corpse can be perfectly preserved unnaturally. Therefore you must prove it was natural. Which the church refuses to do.

StMichael wrote:
Chemical efforts to stop decomposition is not perfect.

Which would explain why not every corpse is incorruptible.

StMichael wrote:

Decay would still occur.

What? Lol. Prove it.

StMichael wrote:
But there aren't. There are no "church doctors" or "chuch scientists.

Technically, any theist who is a scientist or a doctor is a church scientist or doctor for their corresponding religion. If the pope were to ask a christian to do something, they would. Whether or not the church has an actual official branch of such or not is irrelevant, and interestingly hard to find out. The church has monopolized the uses of the terms doctor and scientist for other uses. So even if they do have said departments they'd have to be called something else. Go figure.

StMichael wrote:
That is just inability to face facts.

On your part, sure.

StMichael wrote:
I gave you a medical journal and you rejected it.

Not quite. I rejected an obviously biased article in a medical journal. I'm not even going to bother mentioning how many times the word god was spoken, or the horrible lack of diagnosis.

StMichael wrote:
The medical community agreed that such an action could not have occured naturally.

The medical community has to operate differently than standard scientists. If they can't figure something out, then they can't. There's no point theorizing on things, it's off to the next patient. Technology will reveal it in time.

StMichael wrote:
Let's see, scientific journals for the case of two miracles,

Lies. You haven't given a single scientific journal. You gave medical ones. Try again.

StMichael wrote:
and scientific reports on 1300 year-old blood and tissue,

You didn't even provide an english documentation, let alone a scientific journal. Try again.

StMichael wrote:
combined with evidence for any number of incorruptible saints.

You've provided nothing concrete, merely speculation on unexamined artifacts.

StMichael wrote:
Oh no, I just keep dodging your request for evidence.

Yes, you do. You're still doing it.

StMichael wrote:
It did not.

It did to.

StMichael wrote:
The Vatican city-state is not equivalent to the Catholic Church.

Irrelevant. The vatican is merely one of the two split factions. Where they settled doesn't matter.

StMichael wrote:
The Vatican began in the early 1900s, whereas the Catholic Church has existed since Christ founded it.

And split multiple times in the process.

StMichael wrote:
Because Christ did not establish Jerusalem as the Church, but gave the leadership of the Church to Peter. Peter's See was Rome, which is why it continues to be such.

Proof?

StMichael wrote:
The Catholic Church never split.

Your continued denial is merely amusing. It did. Thousands of times. Accept it, move on.

StMichael wrote:
There have been schisms and heresies, but the unity of the Catholic Church has never been rent as you claim.

Yes, it has. East and West with the split of Rome. Try again.

StMichael wrote:
I don't know what you mean by that phrase, so please clarify.

You assume a natural event or a lie is an impossible scenario that actually happened without credible and peer reviewed evidence.

StMichael wrote:
Nonsense. People cannot be revived after "millenia" of clinical death.

You're so full of shit I can smell it from here. Go learn about cryogenics.

StMichael wrote:
Further, clinical death is not equivalent to death.

Any doctor would disagree with you. Clinical death is death. Period. No heartbeat. No brain activity. Nothing. Death.

StMichael wrote:
Further, I have not heard of a man revived after days of clinical death.

I have.

StMichael wrote:
The longest possible period in which a man has been revived after clinical death is one hour, where it occured under very controlled conditions in a laboratory setting.

Nope.

StMichael wrote:

In under 10 minutes without blood flow, brain cells become irremediably damaged. There is no way to revive a person after clinical death for 3 hours, let alone 3 days.

Depends on the circumstances. You'd be surprised what cold can do.

StMichael wrote:
They occasionally do so. For example, Saint John Vianney's incorrupt heart was in the USA this past year. I don' know that Lanciano has ever been taken elsewhere, but that is a different story.

Not good enough.

StMichael wrote:
It is not irrational.

Yes it is.

StMichael wrote:
You must pay for my trip to the moon and back until I acknowledge that such is not the case.

Bull. You can see the moon from where you are. It's obviously not green. I can't even see Italy from here, let alone some artifact in a building. I most certainly can't see a god. Beyond that, I don't really care if you believe the moon is green cheese or not. I don't care if you believe in god or not. What I care about is that you're wandering the world spouting lies without evidence. That you're trying to convert people to a mindless disorder. That you and people like you are detrimental to the future of our species. If all of you would shut up and pray to your sun gods in the privacy of your homes without shoving it down my throat at every opportunity I'd leave you alone. But you can't, or won't. So I won't.

StMichael wrote:
And even then, how do I know I am really on the moon and you have not been tricking me?

You seem to have a rather irrationally high expectation for current human technological capabilities. If you really think we are capable of such a deception, I don't see why you can't arrange for a hologram of jesus to tap my shoulder and convert me to christianity on the spot.

StMichael wrote:
And even if the entire scientific community agrees, they must be atheist propagandists working against me!

Most atheists aren't propogandists(at least not when coming to religion). No sane person would want to wipe out theism itself. Your imagination is a wonderful thing. If you want to dedicate it to a god that's your choice. Removing that choice would be removing freedom. Strangely enough every theist religion is dedicated to removing all others on one level or another. Which is even more reason to fight it, and embrace the only tolerant and rational philosophy.

StMichael wrote:
 And you call me irrational.

You've certainly done nothing to prove me wrong yet.

StMichael wrote:
I've already told you about your misconceptions about energy and matter.

And these are...what?

Already covered this above.

StMichael wrote:
Now you're just making things up.

Bull.

StMichael wrote:
The universe is not an infinite system.

First of all, I didn't say it was. Second of all, prove your claim.

StMichael wrote:
It does increase the limit when the universe is expanding, but it will also inevitably contract. I encourage you to read those articles on heat-death and what Stephen Hawking said again. The second law clearly applies to the universe, and you own personal scientific theories are not in line with reality.

Obviously you didn't read what I said, and don't know what you're talking about. So I'll wait for you to figure it out, or you can just continue being irrational.

StMichael wrote:
 Then we cannot say nothing exists in that context, according to your words.

Doesn't follow.

StMichael wrote:
A lack of motion is a merely negative term indicating an absence of motion. If there is nothing, then there is no motion; ergo, a lack of motion.

There is no motion OR lack of motion. Period. Accept it, move on, or drop it. You're wrong, that's all there is to it.

StMichael wrote:
Nothing positive can be said of nothingness, but all negative terms are clearly applicable.

No. That's saying double negatives are logical. Irrational notion.

StMichael wrote:
There is no heat, there is no space, there is no John, there is no Socrates.

There is no movement, there is no lack of movement. There is nothing.

StMichael wrote:
I don't need to prove a point at which motion did not exist.

Yes, you do.

StMichael wrote:
I only need to prove that motion only exists because of movers and that things are in motion. I have done both.

Yes and no in that order to your first sentence. And no, you haven't to your second.

StMichael wrote:
God is not existence,

You said he was. Either you're lying now, or you lied before.

StMichael wrote:
as the existence of all things. God is a subsistent existence, not the existence of you and me.

Existance is existance. There's only one kind.

StMichael wrote:
He is the cause of the existence of all things, but you and I cannot enter into composition with God.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

StMichael wrote:
This would likewise disqualify this thing as both subsistent existence (and we would not exist) and the cause of all things (because the cause of all things cannot enter into compostion with any other thing, but must be absolutely simple).

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't see how this

I don't see how this statement [ No net forces acting upon X -> X is at rest ] could be wrong if taken in a general context. But at least we agree that the statement is not incorrect. I woud, again, argue that this statement is perfectly supported. A thing at rest tends to stay at rest unless a net force acts upon it. A thing in motion likewise tends to stay in motion unless a net force acts upon it.

In general, that statement [re-quoted in brackets] is not true, since an object acted on by zero net force can just as easily be in motion as at rest.

Re order:

Regardless of the status of your MEP, the fact that order can spontaneously arise is, of course, explicit proof that a designing intelligence is NOT REQUIRED. It points out exactly what it says, order can arise spontaneously.

We have many computer analyses which show how all sorts of simple 'rules' can lead to the spontaneous generation of complex orrdered structure. For example, consider Conway's 'Life' game. (google it if you aren't familiar with it). No other assumptions required.

Any other assumptions about an ordering principle behind the universe are simply unnecessary. Especially when the Universe CLEARLY displays at least as much disorder than order. For example, the solar planets display no simple pattern in their sizes, composition, orbits, etc. There are some broad trends in some factors, of course, such as the larger planets all located at the median orbits, etc. But nothing presenting any particular difficulty to the idea of such structure arising from relatively simple physical interactions.

EDIT: IOW, if both order and disorder can arise spontaneously, no more need of an ordering principle than a disordering principle...

Now if they were all exactly in the same orbital plane, with orbital periods exact multiple of their rotation periods, axes of rotations all at consistent tilt angles, etc, then we might be tempted to take the idea of an intelligence at work more seriously. But not all that seriously.

PS - In addition, we haven't even talked about the Prime Mover argument yet

Dude, if you still think there's life left in that argument, you are really in a sorry logical state Cool

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Again, sorry, but it might

Again, sorry, but it might be a while before I respond. Other engagements... I am sure you know how that is.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Again,

StMichael wrote:

Again, sorry, but it might be a while before I respond. Other engagements... I am sure you know how that is.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Unless you respond in the next hour or so I probably won't be able to respond to your response until Friday. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Where are you getting you information?

Skeptics. I wasn't able to find anything from your church, even after trying for 30 odd mins. If you can provide a credible source for me to read, please do so. Right now all I have is their information. And it certainly looks valid. They presented more than you have. They even talked about it's last testing in 1989, after the one you've claimed. And how it was no different from the one in the early early 1900s.

http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101014.htm

Oh yeah, they're even Italian. heh.

This is a different thing. Still in my opinion a miracle (the Church it open to debate, however), but a different thing that the one I was presenting.

Quote:

You still have yet to prove it's been opened ever. Let alone multiple times. Saying it has isn't proving it has.

I told you it was. It was for the studies on Lanciano. You are reading an article about a miracle in Naples, not Lanciano. The miraculous host at Lanciano was sampled and analyzed.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Just for fun, because I found them, here is the final page of the reports of 1970 and 1971 from Lanciano which validate the Eucharistic Miracle, as it is found in the shrine itself.

Kind of makes me wish I could read Italian. But it's just a paper on a wall. I can take a picture of a paper on a wall.

Yes, it is a picture of a paper on a wall. But it is a picture of a paper on a wall that indicates what you wanted me to indicate. Namely, that tests had been performed, samples taken, that indicated that Lanciano was real human blood and flesh over 1200 years old that was unexplainable by medical science.

 

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Anyway, the testing on the blood sample taken from Lanciano confirmed that it was blood of type AB. Further, the miracle, by my mistake, is not 800 years old, but actually began in 700 AD, making it a bit older at 1300 years. 1300 years for blood and cardiovascular tissue to be around is a long time.

Yes it is. If it's blood.

You cannot confirm that the blood was type AB if it was not blood in the first place.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

But exposed to ordinary bacteria and air for 1200 years in a non-hermitically sealed environment is just as good as being exposed to the elements.

Not if preservative measures were taken.

Preservative measures don’t exist for that. Which is why blood banks constantly need donations.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Um, yes. Depending on the incorruptibles, many were buried in coffins in the ground, some were buried in the crypts of churches, others were placed in other various situtations. But no peat bogs were involved. You would have to prove that they were in all cases, which is insane. Also, it is not my burden of proof in either of these circumstances. If you want to disprove all the incorruptibles, you would have to show that they were artificially preserved somehow.

Which is conveniently impossible due to church hoarding. I wonder why.

It is not impossible. Scientific teams examine them all the time.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

But that is likewise irrelevant. The incorruptibles were not embalmed, which shows marks, nor pickled, which likewise is obvious, nor preserved in an Egyptian way with salt, which is likewise obvious. Further, their corpses are in displays that are open to the air and, in many cases, open to many contaminants. Naturally speaking, even a mummy cannot sustain treatement for years.

You haven't proved they were preserved naturally, so this is merely a suggestion.
And what are you talking about? There are plenty of mummies that are open to contaminants and don't decompose further. That's the whole point of mummification in the first place. *Shakes head*

Mummies are destroyed by free contact with the air. Not immediately. But it is like any other historical artifact. They deteriorate according to their exposure.

Quote:

Quote:

The earliest known "mummified" individual dates back to approximately 3300 BC, although it is not an internationally renowned mummy, such as, Rameses II or Seti I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy

.
Proving conclusively that they could have been unnaturally preserved. The only way to prove they weren't was to do an autopsy. Which has conveniently never been done.

Actually, they have. Many of the churches in Italy which have incorruptibles allowed scientists to autopsy them. I have not found a report of those on the internet yet, but not everything is on the Internet, of course.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Further, even if they had been, such embalming merely forestalls decay, and does not prevent it entirely, as is the case with the incorrupts.

Embalming alone maybe. I'm not a mummification expert. But I know that a corpse can be perfectly preserved unnaturally. Therefore you must prove it was natural. Which the church refuses to do.

The Church does not refuse to do so. The Church allows scientists to examine the bodies all the time.

Quote:

If the pope were to ask a christian to do something, they would. Whether or not the church has an actual official branch of such or not is irrelevant, and interestingly hard to find out.

It is not hard to find out. There is a Pontifical Academy of Science, but these are not involved with these sort of investigations, but with ordinary affairs with the scientific community. There are no “Church” doctors at all, other than Catholic doctors. But Catholic doctors are not the exclusive or even majority group investigating these miracles.

Quote:

The church has monopolized the uses of the terms doctor and scientist for other uses.

Prove that crazy claim before you make it.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

I gave you a medical journal and you rejected it.

Not quite. I rejected an obviously biased article in a medical journal. I'm not even going to bother mentioning how many times the word god was spoken, or the horrible lack of diagnosis.

Too bad. ‘Cause it was published in a reputably peer-reviewed medical journal like you wanted. Don’t stick to your original standards for evidence or anything.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

The medical community agreed that such an action could not have occured naturally.

The medical community has to operate differently than standard scientists. If they can't figure something out, then they can't. There's no point theorizing on things, it's off to the next patient. Technology will reveal it in time.

Not true.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Let's see, scientific journals for the case of two miracles,

Lies. You haven't given a single scientific journal. You gave medical ones. Try again.

Now you are manifestly shifting your position.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

and scientific reports on 1300 year-old blood and tissue,

You didn't even provide an english documentation, let alone a scientific journal. Try again.

And English is now a requirement as well? Let’s not stay in the same place for a sentence….

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

The Vatican city-state is not equivalent to the Catholic Church.

Irrelevant. The vatican is merely one of the two split factions. Where they settled doesn't matter.

I don’t know what you mean. The Catholic Church has been solidly the same. Other groups have split away, but the Catholic Church itself has not split.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Because Christ did not establish Jerusalem as the Church, but gave the leadership of the Church to Peter. Peter's See was Rome, which is why it continues to be such.

Proof?

History, the records of early Christians, the attestation of the Gospels and the book of Acts of the Apostles, ect.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

There have been schisms and heresies, but the unity of the Catholic Church has never been rent as you claim.

Yes, it has. East and West with the split of Rome. Try again.

I never denied that some factions broke off. But the Catholic Church itself has remained throughout the centuries from Christ’s founding of it.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

I don't know what you mean by that phrase, so please clarify.

You assume a natural event or a lie is an impossible scenario that actually happened without credible and peer reviewed evidence.

I presented peer-reviewed medical journals. Get over it.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Nonsense. People cannot be revived after "millenia" of clinical death.

You're so full of shit I can smell it from here. Go learn about cryogenics.

Guess what? Cryogenics has not been satisfactorily applied yet outside of sci-fi movies.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Further, I have not heard of a man revived after days of clinical death.

I have.

I know many in the medical profession. Give me a good example with references if you want to say that.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

In under 10 minutes without blood flow, brain cells become irremediably damaged. There is no way to revive a person after clinical death for 3 hours, let alone 3 days.

Depends on the circumstances. You'd be surprised what cold can do.

The hour was under induced hypothermia.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

It is not irrational.

Yes it is.

You have not proven why it is such. I seem to have at least something of good evidence in peer reviewed medical journals which establishes the case that miracles could be at least argued to have happened in a verifiable way. Even if they have not, these sources exist and my belief in miracles is not irrational or contrary to the evidence.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

You must pay for my trip to the moon and back until I acknowledge that such is not the case.

Bull. You can see the moon from where you are. It's obviously not green.

It is often green. And it depends on the circumstances. It could be merely reflecting the light in a strange fashion making it look a different color. But I see no reason to believe your claim that the moon is not made of green cheese unless you pay for my ticket there. Otherwise, you have no way to prove it to me.

 

Quote:

I can't even see Italy from here, let alone some artifact in a building.

How can peer-reviewed journals then satisfy you? You rejected them earlier, and I am beginning to think that it will do no good to further supply your false need for evidence.

Quote:

I most certainly can't see a god.

I never claimed you could. But miracles support truths of the Catholic faith that are inaccessible to human reason (like transubstantiation in the Eucharist) rather than naturally known truths. The existence of God is a natural truth that you don’t need faith to know.

Quote:

Beyond that, I don't really care if you believe the moon is green cheese or not. I don't care if you believe in god or not. What I care about is that you're wandering the world spouting lies without evidence.

I provide clear evidence for my beliefs. Even if you were spreading lies with a pamphlet on how God doesn’t exist, and it seemed that the evidence you had would support this position, I do not fault you for being an irrational zombie who spreads a disease. Your position is wrong but you think it is rational. Which is perfectly acceptable. It is wrong, but you have sufficient reason to hold it. You are not acting on an irrational belief. You are acting on a wrong one. However, your condemnation of me is exactly the opposite.

Quote:

That you're trying to convert people to a mindless disorder. That you and people like you are detrimental to the future of our species. If all of you would shut up and pray to your sun gods in the privacy of your homes without shoving it down my throat at every opportunity I'd leave you alone. But you can't, or won't. So I won't.

I don’t shove it down your throat and I see no reason why we are either a mindless disorder or detrimental to the “future of our species.”

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

And even then, how do I know I am really on the moon and you have not been tricking me?

You seem to have a rather irrationally high expectation for current human technological capabilities. If you really think we are capable of such a deception, I don't see why you can't arrange for a hologram of jesus to tap my shoulder and convert me to christianity on the spot.

You seem to have a rather high expectation for human technology; I recall, “technology will reveal it in time.”

Quote:

 Strangely enough every theist religion is dedicated to removing all others on one level or another. Which is even more reason to fight it, and embrace the only tolerant and rational philosophy.

I think you are wrong, but not necessarily irrational. The more you shift your positions, however, the less honest I think you to be.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

A lack of motion is a merely negative term indicating an absence of motion. If there is nothing, then there is no motion; ergo, a lack of motion.

There is no motion OR lack of motion. Period. Accept it, move on, or drop it. You're wrong, that's all there is to it.

Both are the same.

Quote:

Existance is existance. There's only one kind.

Existence in God is the cause of existence in things.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I don't see how this statement [ No net forces acting upon X -> X is at rest ] could be wrong if taken in a general context. But at least we agree that the statement is not incorrect. I woud, again, argue that this statement is perfectly supported. A thing at rest tends to stay at rest unless a net force acts upon it. A thing in motion likewise tends to stay in motion unless a net force acts upon it.

In general, that statement [re-quoted in brackets] is not true, since an object acted on by zero net force can just as easily be in motion as at rest.

Yes, but I obviously meant by “no net forces” “never having had a net force act upon object X.” This is true; X would be at rest. It would have no velocity or acceleration at all.

Quote:

Regardless of the status of your MEP, the fact that order can spontaneously arise is, of course, explicit proof that a designing intelligence is NOT REQUIRED. It points out exactly what it says, order can arise spontaneously.

But why does order arise spontaneously? Order implies an orderer. Something cannot come from nothing.

Quote:

Any other assumptions about an ordering principle behind the universe are simply unnecessary. Especially when the Universe CLEARLY displays at least as much disorder than order. For example, the solar planets display no simple pattern in their sizes, composition, orbits, etc. There are some broad trends in some factors, of course, such as the larger planets all located at the median orbits, etc. But nothing presenting any particular difficulty to the idea of such structure arising from relatively simple physical interactions.

Now if they were all exactly in the same orbital plane, with orbital periods exact multiple of their rotation periods, axes of rotations all at consistent tilt angles, etc, then we might be tempted to take the idea of an intelligence at work more seriously. But not all that seriously.

I see no such rampant disorder in the universe. And disorder does not imply the lack of an orderer. Order can only exist with an orderer. If there is order, at all, there must be some cause of the order which orders it.

Quote:

Dude, if you still think there's life left in that argument, you are really in a sorry logical state

I see no reason so far presented that shows it to be false.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
I am not going to join the

I am not going to join the continued parsing of the Lanciano story - I'll leave that to Vastet. I would simply like to say that the entire concept of miracles is shortsighted. Scientific discovery can (and has) revealed many perceived miracles (catholic or otherwise) to be forgeries. Consider that it took until 1988 and the applicaiton of radiocarbon testing reveal that the Shroud of Turin was fake, up until which timemany were of the belief that it held the actual image of jesus (read: miracle). You incessantly trumpet the 1970 study as ironclad certification of the miraculous nature of the blood in Lanciano. I have not as of yet perused the 1970 study, neither do I know the credentials or credibility of those who conducted the study. Honestly, it is irrelevant. It is also a non-issue that we have no way to prove it was originally bread and wine, as you so adamantly protest it was. Consider if the "scientific" study of the blood had been conducted in the 18th century, or even the 19th. Would you point to the study just as proudly as proof of the miracle? In any case, let's take 1970. That was nearly 40 years ago. Is it too unreasonable to think our ability to analyze blood has progressed in the time since your exalted study? Or that it won't in the next 40, or even 100 years? To be satisfied with what was done in 1970 and hang slavishly to that as proof of your god is unscientific. If those who conducted the study were truly objective, impartial scientists, they would object to your misuse of their study, for they would know their findings could be revised, or falsified, by future studies. The claim of miracles is simply a claim of perpetual ignorance - that we can't explain it, and that we will never be able to explain it.

 

StMichael wrote:
I don’t know what you mean. The Catholic Church has been solidly the same. Other groups have split away, but the Catholic Church itself has not split.

What semantic distinction do you draw between "other groups" splitting away, and the church splitting itself? There have been several dozen "antipopes". What was the Western Schism if not a split? Or the Anglican Reformation, where Henry VIII with one flick of the pen decreed that the english church was no longer part of the roman? We're pretty much "splitting hairs" at this point.

 

StMichael wrote:

I see no such rampant disorder in the universe. And disorder does not imply the lack of an orderer. Order can only exist with an orderer. If there is order, at all, there must be some cause of the order which orders it.

How so? Is it not the same to say "Disorder can only exist with a disorderer. If there is disorder, at all, there must be some cause of the disorder which disorders it..."?

I'm not sure how much disorder there would have to be for you to regard it as "rampant". One yet has to wonder why there is any disorder at all, if your guy is supposed to be so good at his job.

 

As Pink Floyd said in The Wall, "Go on, do it again!"

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Science cannot prove every

Science cannot prove every miracle false. You put a great deal too much faith in science. Further, the Shroud of Turin, which you reference, was not an approved miracle, but open to investigation freely. There are many other approved miracles which have not been disproven. I point to the miraculous tilma of Our Lady of Guadelupe, or to the eucharistic miracles at Lanciano.

 The miracle at Lanciano was not just the fact that the bread and wine became literally body and blood, but the fact that the biological materials have survived without preservation for a thousand years. They have even survived past 1970 until the present day, which is by itself far beyond the natural conditions of blood and flesh. Also, we know quite enough about blood and flesh to know that this is not possible.

 As to schism, I think we might be at an impasse. The issue is rather irrelevant at this point.

 As to order, disorder implies no orderer and no disorderer. Disorder is a lack of order. Order requires intelligent agency. As to why disorder exists in the universe, I tend to believe that such is much less than we can suppose. Chaos theory in mathematics shows the spontaneous rise of orderly patterns in apparently chaotic systems. Even if there is real chaos, it does not argue against the fact that God orders creation. God creates, by definition, limited beings. Their very seperation from Him leads to a form of imperfection. 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
StMichael wrote: Science

StMichael wrote:
Science cannot prove every miracle false.

Not every miracle? But some?

I cannot say that miracles don't exist, but neither can I (nor you) say that miracles do exist, with only the argument that we (currently) lack an explanation for this or that.

StMichael wrote:
You put a great deal too much faith in science.

I put no faith in science. Science does not admit faith. Science is an ongoing process of discovery. That which was hard science yesterday could be falsified tomorrow. The 1988 study of the Shroud may very well one day be found to be faulty. So also your exalted 1970 study of the Lanciano blood. I put no faith in science. You put too much faith in everything.

StMichael wrote:
Also, we know quite enough about blood and flesh to know that this is not possible.

"Quite enough"? We never know "quite enough" about anything. To say "quite enough" is to be satisfied with ignorance. Can't have that. Not in my house.

StMichael wrote:
As to schism, I think we might be at an impasse. The issue is rather irrelevant at this point.

As long as you have a chastened view of your church and its place in history, I quite agree.

StMichael wrote:

As to order, disorder implies no orderer and no disorderer. Disorder is a lack of order. Order requires intelligent agency. As to why disorder exists in the universe, I tend to believe that such is much less than we can suppose. Chaos theory in mathematics shows the spontaneous rise of orderly patterns in apparently chaotic systems. Even if there is real chaos, it does not argue against the fact that God orders creation. God creates, by definition, limited beings. Their very seperation from Him leads to a form of imperfection.

"...I tend to believe that such is much less than we can suppose..."

I tend to believe I have no idea what that means. As long as you're "tending to believe", you really haven't much of an argument.

How do you conclude that order requires intelligent agency, other than you need that to support your argument?

"..Even if there is real chaos..."

As opposed to what? Chaos substitute? I can't believe it's not chaos!

By whose definition does god create limited beings? Oh yeah. Yours.

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush.  Again.  Undecided

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††