Ask a Catholic
Offline Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
This thread is for anyone here to ask me any question about the Catholic Faith they wish to ask. Questions about the Catholic faith can be about anything from Catholic history, teachings, and/or the Bible. I only have a few rules/guidelines.
1. Serious questions please. Please refrain from odd or insulting questions.
2. Questions about the Church sex scandal are fine but please see guideline 3.
3. Please keep it civil and polite, i.e. please do not refer to the Pope as the fuhrer, a pedophile, kiddy fiddler, and etc. This also applies to the clergy in general.
4. Stay on topic. Obviously I’ll do this myself too.
5. Please refrain from insulting me, i.e. “Why don’t you jump off a cliff” or “do yourself a favor and kill yourself”, and etc. The screen name refers to Cliffjumper the heroic Autobot from the Transformers series and toy line. Great show, movies, and toys by the way 
I will try my best to be prompt and as detailed as possible. I am working on my thesis. So I may be busy sometimes. Also I will try to answer each person’s question in the order in which I see them.
Thank you.People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek wrote:all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.No empirical reason. Okay. I was not aware science and reason had disproven these things. Can you name a specific empirical example that disproves theses "axioms"? I'd love to see it, because if it existed science sure would cease to function as it kinda relies on the cause and effect thing.
no, no, no. basic logic tells us that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. it's not up to me to disprove your axioms. it's up to you to prove them. if you can't, just be a good lad and say, "i can't." no shame in your game. as for cause and effect, no, science does not depend on cause and effect. science depends on empirical observation: this and nothing more. one of the pillars of science is the idea that, yes, the universe can at any time just say, "fuck it," and start behaving differently. but until that happens, we rely on the best (i.e. most predictive) information we have. "cause and effect" are terms relative to our perception and inference.
I provided proof. These axioms are logical proofs, backed up by scientific and empirical evidence. For, "nothing greater comes from something lesser" how about the observable and varifible fact that the separate ingredients for pancakes, flour, butter, milk, vanilla extract, and sugar do not spontaneously come together to form the batter much less a completely cooked pancake. It takes something great, i.e. ordered intelligence, to mix them together and cook them to form the more complex pancake(s). For, "a finite universe needs an infinite creator" see the previous demonstable fact. Infinity is objectively greater than finity, thus finity must come from something infinte.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline zarathustra wrote:1. Yes I beleive in papal infallibility. You are misunderstanding papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impecability which is what you are confusing it with. The popes are not protected from personal sin, or from the sins of others. Infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals and the Church's teachings on them.
- Do you believe in papal infallibility? If so...
- Why did god not advise better the last two popes (Wojtyła and Ratzinger) in regard to priestly sex abuse? By any standard, their handling of those crimes was quite fallible.
And I am addressing the church's morality. When the pope was informed that priests were abusing chidlren, would not the most moral thing be to turn them into the police immediately, rather than dealing with the problem internally as an attempt to keep it secret -- which resulted in more children being abused?
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline My question for the alleged catholic is: "Did you not get the memo about the word 'Yahweh'?"
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek wrote:all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.No empirical reason. Okay. I was not aware science and reason had disproven these things. Can you name a specific empirical example that disproves theses "axioms"? I'd love to see it, because if it existed science sure would cease to function as it kinda relies on the cause and effect thing.
no, no, no. basic logic tells us that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. it's not up to me to disprove your axioms. it's up to you to prove them. if you can't, just be a good lad and say, "i can't." no shame in your game. as for cause and effect, no, science does not depend on cause and effect. science depends on empirical observation: this and nothing more. one of the pillars of science is the idea that, yes, the universe can at any time just say, "fuck it," and start behaving differently. but until that happens, we rely on the best (i.e. most predictive) information we have. "cause and effect" are terms relative to our perception and inference.
I provided proof. These axioms are logical proofs, backed up by scientific and empirical evidence. For, "nothing greater comes from something lesser" how about the observable and varifible fact that the separate ingredients for pancakes, flour, butter, milk, vanilla extract, and sugar do not spontaneously come together to form the batter much less a completely cooked pancake. It takes something great, i.e. ordered intelligence, to mix them together and cook them to form the more complex pancake(s). For, "a finite universe needs an infinite creator" see the previous demonstable fact. Infinity is objectively greater than finity, thus finity must come from something infinte.
an axiom cannot be a "proof." "proof" has to relate to axioms. axioms are not testable things. they're either accepted or not. even science works from an axiom, i.e. that empirical observation is the only admissible evidence for determining knowledge. if you don't accept that axiom, your statements will not be scientific, by definition.
infinity has never been proved to exist, therefore to use the term "objectively" with infinity is fallacious. as for your pancake analogy, it's just that: an analogy. analogies might be useful teaching tools SOMETIMES (i for one avoid them like the plague), but they are certainly not "proof" of anything in any scientific sense. sorry.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline RE :: Haunting - could love blossom?
I am sorry for the lateness of my replies. My hard drive crashed and as a result I have not been able to use my computer. Hopefully that won't happen again for a while anyway
Thanks for taking the time at all (really). There is no set window of opportunity, with this anyway. Whenever you can get back to it is fine, as long as you bother to follow-up that is. No one is penalized too much for ever taking their time (not that I know of),. Get yourself together; when you can follow-up!! I know it is easy to be misunderstood though, with the ambiguity of language. Common words can have vastly different meanings (ex. v=ShL4rK6T4_s),. Or Like with a T-Shirt I had made many many days ago. Due to the ambiguity of the statement, it was taken to have the opposite meaning of what was intended. Follow-ups do not spontaneously come together to form a reply. So instead of saying good-bye, or ignore certain questions to favor only the one's you'd like to speak to. Instead it pays off to re-engage, you'd be deeply surprised how appreciated it is when you go that extra mile and show that extra kindness.
There is no time-limit for any Catholics that ever came here, there's not one real time-limit, period, Thank Heaven 
Thanks for getting back to anyone at all. People appreciate engagement , even if it only initially simulate the behavior, dynamics, or other characteristics what you'd find in the norm. Best to follow-up; Even if you're not that interested in answering, do so anyway, K?
0 f f s i te . . .
Beautiful beautiful song . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlZK1vwQFNk {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlZK1vwQFNk}
- Login to post comments
Offline RE :: Haunting - could love blossom?
Yes, yes it could...
I claim this site in the name of tumblr. Deal with it, bitches.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Now, that is your graphic image for the word ''sweet'', not-obvious emphasis of 'sweet' or one I'd ever want/risk. But, For the most part, See, I still know everybody makes their own fun (big smile) 
Less to deal with in this YouTube . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_KOqyzXZU {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_KOqyzXZU}
- Login to post comments
Offline Now, that is your graphic image for the word ''sweet'', not-obvious emphasis of 'sweet' or one I'd ever want/risk. But, For the most part, See, I still know everybody makes their own fun (big smile)
Love ya, sweetie. Keep doing your thing.
- Login to post comments
Offline ↑ My future fiancee will be deeply confused by this (I just know it).
Maybe think outside the box (I like to think)
Johnny Z And The Sprites ---
There’s nobody quite like me
There isn’t a sprite like me
There’s no one who looks like you or me do
Worth comparing you or I to
Oh, I bet there aren’t any other curl antennae
Come to far . . what comes around goes around.
Don’t tell me I’m unique, that’s absurd
But you’re one of a kind, I give you my word
There’s nobody quite like you
No no .. no no (Go Figure)
----
Cyber-Security, THANK-YOU VERY MUCH, may play a real-life role in this and much less THIS being some sign(s) of a hidden inner/hidden-secret world, I would/should be highly embarrassed by (honest),.
See/View Image (Image Upload part of remark) ::
http://www.retailfraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Cyber-3-570x378.jpg
p.s. -- Amazing this, Can one be too unconcerned ? As always, it's almost never a good idea to not keep 'em guessing. Talking is good though.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:And on what grounds do you claim it must have been created? Do you have a few examples of universes that you created in your pocket? Noone knows anything about what happened or didn't happen before the big bang. Noone can ever know. The best anyone can do is recreate the beginning, but even that would only prove that it could have happened that way. It wouldn't prove it did. Also, there is no conclusive evidence that the universe is finite. The event of the big bang overshadowed anything that was before, if there was anything. Just because we can't see beyond the results of the big bang event doesn't mean there isn't anything beyond.Are you saying that something finite does not require a beginning when you say, "The one doesn't necessarily imply the other"? All of this universe is finite. There is an eternal existence, Heaven and Hell but they are not part of this finite universe.Cliff Jumper wrote:Now you're completely redefining your terminology. Are you saying that a star is neither finite nor infinite? What is it then? And a material becoming a different material is a prerequisite for something becoming greater. Or lesser for that matter. Evolution and astronomy have in fact proven that something can become something greater.Evolution and astronomy have proved no such thing. They have proven that a material thing or things can become another material thing or things. Evolution and astronomy have never shown a material thing creating infinity or finity.Cliff Jumper wrote:No. Logic and mathematics only prove the concept of infinity, not its actual existence.We know infinity exists from logic and mathematics.Cliff Jumper wrote:Numbers are concepts. You can show me four of something, but you can't show me four itself. So the fact that there is no largest number is irrelevant to whether or not infinity exists."There's no largest number. If anybody gives you a candidate largest number you can always just add the number one to it." What is greater finity? There is no such thing. Even if there was then it is still finite.Cliff Jumper wrote:An infinite being explains nothing either. Using infinity at all, in any context, is a fallacy. Infinite regression is just as plausible as an infinite being.Infinite regression is not a plausible explanation as it explains nothing, hence it is a fallacy.Cliff Jumper wrote:No it isn't. That's nothing more than theistic philosophical claptrap. Nothing that describes things inside the observable universe necessarily applies to the universe itself. Everything inside the universe 'began' with the big bang. Just because a car must be assembled doesn't mean the universe must also be. You've fallen prey to multiple fallacies.It is simply a fact that a finite thing has a beginning.Cliff Jumper wrote:Prove it.So something without a beginning, infinite, had to bring about finity. Infinity has no beginning as it is infinite, always is.Cliff Jumper wrote:Prove intelligence is greater than non-intelligence. You can't, but it'll be interesting to see you try. Unfortunately your attempt will be completely subjective.Is there a case where non-intelligence is greate than intelligence.Cliff Jumper wrote:Evolution and astronomy have proven you wrong yet again. Unless you think a few random elements floating through space have intelligence. That would be interesting.There is no case where something non-intelligent created something intelligent.Cliff Jumper wrote:No evidence to support that claim, while there's lots of evidence supporting the opposite.Intelligence is necessary when the creation contains intelligence as I said.Cliff Jumper wrote:Technically, we still don't understand intelligence sufficiently to create a test for it, so we only assume we are intelligent. There's really no proof either way.Are you saying science has now disproven that there are intelligent beings on this planet?Cliff Jumper wrote:If you created the cars and the people driving them with full knowledge that they would collide, then yes you made them crash into each other. You had the ability to give the drivers sufficient capability in driving skills so they wouldn't collide. You could have made the people who built the cars or designed the traffic system smart enough to devise a system so the cars couldn't collide. You're omnipotent. You chose to make all the people involved sufficiently stupid or lazy or whatever so that the cars could crash, knowing far in advance exactly what was going to happen. The crash is 100% your fault.So if I'm in a hot air balloon floating over a city, town, what have you, and I see two cars about to collide and then collide I made them crash into each other?Cliff Jumper wrote:Impossible. If an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal god created everything absolutely perfectly, then no stupid mortal could possibly have screwed anything up. Your argument defeats itself. You cannot blame a entity for doing something wrong when you created the entity. If I write a computer programme for a video game, and all the enemies in the game constantly suicide themselves instead of attacking the player, it isn't the games fault, nor the enemies in the game; it's my fault. Either I screwed up the code, or I wanted the enemies to suicide themselves instead of attacking the player. Either your god is flawed, or your god is evil, or your god doesn't exist. Either way, it isn't worthy of anyone's worship.The same goes for God. He created everything perfect. We sinned, brought death into the world.
1. "And on what grounds do you claim it must have been created? Do you have a few examples of universes that you created in your pocket?
Noone knows anything about what happened or didn't happen before the big bang. Noone can ever know. The best anyone can do is recreate the beginning, but even that would only prove that it could have happened that way. It wouldn't prove it did.
Also, there is no conclusive evidence that the universe is finite. The event of the big bang overshadowed anything that was before, if there was anything. Just because we can't see beyond the results of the big bang event doesn't mean there isn't anything beyond."
My Response: Okay let's step back here. Do we agree that a finite thing requires a beginning? I need to know so that I can know whether or not we are on the same footing here. I'm not psychic and you know what they say about assuming
2. "Now you're completely redefining your terminology. Are you saying that a star is neither finite nor infinite? What is it then?
And a material becoming a different material is a prerequisite for something becoming greater. Or lesser for that matter.
Evolution and astronomy have in fact proven that something can become something greater."
My Response: I am not redefining my terms at all. I am saying that a finite thing, a star, is formed by other finite things. When it burns out it's finite materials are dispersed. Through natural processes and other aids the material items possibly along with other material items form another finite thing(s). This is not something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature. It is simply a finite thing(s) becoming another finite thing(s).
3. "No. Logic and mathematics only prove the concept of infinity, not its actual existence. "
4. "Numbers are concepts. You can show me four of something, but you can't show me four itself. So the fact that there is no largest number is irrelevant to whether or not infinity exists."
My Response: True, I cannot show you fourness or for that matter infinity. That does not however mean it does not exist. Your statement simply proves that immateriality exists, which is a quality of infinity. So some more evidence for infinity.
5. "An infinite being explains nothing either. Using infinity at all, in any context, is a fallacy. Infinite regression is just as plausible as an infinite being."
So infinite regression, which is a use of infinity, is plausible and non-fallacious, but the use of infinity as it pertains to an infinite being in the creation/beginning of finity is implausible and fallacious? Okay. Infinite regression explains nothing in regards to the beginning of finity. It is the vary lack of an explanation for it. That's one main reason it is a fallacious explanation. The creation of finity requires something greater than itself, i.e. something that does not have a beginning or an end. That can only be infinity.
6. "No it isn't. That's nothing more than theistic philosophical claptrap. Nothing that describes things inside the observable universe necessarily applies to the universe itself. Everything inside the universe 'began' with the big bang. Just because a car must be assembled doesn't mean the universe must also be. You've fallen prey to multiple fallacies."
My Response: How can a demonstrable fact be "nothing more than theistic philosophical claptrap"? Again I must ask, Do we agree that a finite thing requires a beginning? It is demonstrably true. You demonstrated this with your car example. It must be assembled. In other words, at a certain point in the past the car did not exist, then it was bulit, came into existence, and will eventually cease to exist. As to, "Nothing that describes things inside the observable universe necessarily applies to the universe itself" does this mean that just because the universe contains finite/assembled things does not mean the universe is finite/assembled?
7. "Prove it."
My response: Proof that infinity brought about finity? Or proof that infinity has no beginnging or end? For the first, how about the fact that something finite has a beginning. It is not always in existence. It is a demonstrable fact that if something began something caused it to begin. So for the car, it began to be when it was assembled. So something assembled it, say factory workers and machines. Something created the machines and people, and on and on and on, until you reach a point where something that always existed created the first finite thing, finity. Positing infinte beginnings does not explain where finity came from. For the second, that is the nature of infinity. If it has a beginning/end it is not infinite.
8. "Prove intelligence is greater than non-intelligence.
You can't, but it'll be interesting to see you try. Unfortunately your attempt will be completely subjective."
My response: Seriously? Is this a serious question? We are on the Rational Response Squad website. A website dedicated to increaseing the intelligence of the so-called less intelligent, brainwashed, ignorant, less informed, etc. theists. A website which promotes the pursuit of knowledge and increasing one's intelligence If you seriously think intelligence and non-intelligence are equal or one is not greater than the other why post to this forum? Why would this site even exist? Clearly, intelligence is greater than non-intelligence. Your comment is laughably irrational.
9. "Evolution and astronomy have proven you wrong yet again. Unless you think a few random elements floating through space have intelligence. That would be interesting."
"No evidence to support that claim, while there's lots of evidence supporting the opposite."
My Response: I never said everything in the universe was intelligent. I said intelligence existed in the universe. Evolution has not disproven the fact that intelligence comes from intelligence. Evolutionary theory does not include the creation of intelligent life. It "picks up" after that. If this has changed then I'd like to know how Neo-Darwinism gets around the Law of Biogenesis. There is only evidence that natural selection has acted on pre-existing intelligent creatures.
10. "Technically, we still don't understand intelligence sufficiently to create a test for it, so we only assume we are intelligent. There's really no proof either way."
Again, seriously? Your statment here is ludicrous. If there is no such thing as intelligence how can we even invent a test to measure a part of it? Even more ludicrous is the implication that just because we do not fully understand something than that something may not exist.
11. "If you created the cars and the people driving them with full knowledge that they would collide, then yes you made them crash into each other. You had the ability to give the drivers sufficient capability in driving skills so they wouldn't collide. You could have made the people who built the cars or designed the traffic system smart enough to devise a system so the cars couldn't collide. You're omnipotent. You chose to make all the people involved sufficiently stupid or lazy or whatever so that the cars could crash, knowing far in advance exactly what was going to happen. The crash is 100% your fault."
My Response: So from your line of reasoning the following is also true: anyone who makes/sells a knife is potentially guilty of murder/assualt? After all someone made/sold one, they knew it could stab, pierce, and potentially kill someone, and they made it or sold it anyway.
Just because you know something is going to happen does not mean you cause it to happen. You are completely neglecting free will. Also please note God made a perfect system and gave us a system to keep it perfect. We chose non-perfection.
12. "Impossible. If an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal god created everything absolutely perfectly, then no stupid mortal could possibly have screwed anything up. Your argument defeats itself. You cannot blame a entity for doing something wrong when you created the entity. If I write a computer programme for a video game, and all the enemies in the game constantly suicide themselves instead of attacking the player, it isn't the games fault, nor the enemies in the game; it's my fault. Either I screwed up the code, or I wanted the enemies to suicide themselves instead of attacking the player.
Either your god is flawed, or your god is evil, or your god doesn't exist. Either way, it isn't worthy of anyone's worship."
My Response: Neglecting free will again here.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline Re :: Hearing IS Believing (smile)
In honor of this year's last Mother's Day
Gospel of Saint John Chapter 20 :: ''So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I WILL NOT BELIEVE."
So you are believing ( and so you are believing -- double meaning ) ::
She says
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from here
She says
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from you.
Once a child and now I've grown within. Yes, grown within
So I'm packing all these years,
I let them go without many more tears."
I let them go and this is what she said.
She says to me:
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from here
She says
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from you.
Circle round this fire-light.
I guess this pack of wolves will pass for friends.
Who's that coming up to me?
Hope and oppertunity. You better grab it fast, grab it fast, and
hope it never ends.
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from here
She says
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from you.
(inaudible)
1 Samuel 15:23
New King James Version (NKJV)
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
.. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
Book of Proverbs
New King James Version (NKJV)
"The eye that mocks a father, that scorns an aged mother, will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley, will be eaten by the ravens and young eagles''
0ff-site :: Hey, Always pays to review passages FOR YOURSELF the true ''Sweetness''. Try to look at Scriptural passage, by yourself, and for yourself, THAT IS : FOR YOURSELF
As long as you don't speak the Devil or the Devils gets all the wiggle room necessary, oh then people get to falsely characterize you at will (apparently). The Marian Vaishno Devi, also known as Mata Rani and Vaishnavi
0 f f s i t e
p.s. -- In honor of this year's last Mother's Day, the group has has many far long and expected ones. Name those verses in which Gospel do you find them ?? 0 f f - s i t e
''In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, ..'' ''..But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. For, Behold lo, as soon as the sound of thy salutation and greeting came in mine ears . . [Being asked the baby's name] And his mother spoke up and answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.
these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.
the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...
Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline Re:: History, early on, not his strong suit
iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.
these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.
the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...
Capricious our Cliff Jumper. This presents a problem for Cliff Jumper. He will hardly even read this let alone take a necessary moment to get your point.
Cliff Jumper wrote:which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith over the otherPerhaps because I am not feeling well and am so under the weather but my initial response to this guy would be to remind him of his history. Roman Catholism starts with Helena, Whether for good or for ill, for she was the consort of the Roman emperor Constantius Chlorus, it was she who gave birth to the future emperor Constantine the Great, it was with emperor Constantine and his mother so history buffs look to Emperor Constantine the Great who has received much attention throughout history. Fore it was with his conversion to Christianity and the sweeping changes it brought to the church and the empire instituted a new era in history, one that would change ''the church'' within Christendom forever. There was a period before though, THAT EARLY ON Period SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED!!
===================================================================================================================
the Op wrote:..the Church sex scandalLet you Yes be Yes and your No be No, For whatever is more than these is from evil
No time, therefore no real comment on this. I acknowledge The Roman Catholic Church does not and never forbids marriage – married Catholics far outnumber non-married ones. Fine! Be they bishops, priests, monks, nuns or laity. The candidates for priesthood are fully aware of celibacy discipline before and during their seminary times – they have ample time to consider whether this vocation is for them or not. Granted! But, perhaps these traditions should no longer exist if they're producing such extremely tragic RESULTS to take up such vows in the first place.
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to be heartbroken
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and A TIME TO SPEAK,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
0 f f s i t e --
Crossing 't's and dotting 'i's Off Site ... (Wink) www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34414#comment-409691 http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34414 Nu 3
Love the Dana Carvey avatar. We're going to pump you up! Good stuff.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline 1: No we don't. I have seen no evidence to suggest the term is applicable to the universe, and it's highly unlikely I ever will. Is there a finite number of grains of sand in a cup? Sure. Is the universe finite? Noone knows. But the grains of sand in a cup didn't have a creator. Erosion isn't an entity at all, let alone an intelligent one, yet it created the sand. Did the sand have a beginning? Technically no it didn't. It was ground up from rock, it already existed.
Who is anyone to say the universe was created when we don't even know how big it is or how much is in it? Or outside it?!
In essence, you are trying to use terminology to describe the universe, that wasn't created to describe the universe. It doesn't apply. Finite and infinite are mathematical concepts. There is no mathematical equation describing the universe, so you can't apply mathematical concepts to describe it.
2:When looking back I see I missed a sentence in a previous post, and thus the entire focus of your statement. So I'll drop this angle. Except:
"This is not something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature."
A cloud of gas forming into a star isn't something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature? On what grounds can you possibly make this claim? In every sense of the word "greater", a star is greater than a cloud of gas. The only angle out is mass. But if you take it, then a black hole is perfection, and nothing else we know of (life included) can compare in greatness.
So what exactly do you mean by greater intrinsic nature?
3/4: "True, I cannot show you fourness or for that matter infinity. That does not however mean it does not exist."
No, but it certainly doesn't mean that it DOES exist. Your argument is based on an unproven assumption.
"Your statement simply proves that immateriality exists, which is a quality of infinity. So some more evidence for infinity. "
Immaterial doesn't exist, and infinity is most certainly not a quality of it.
Any concept that ever existed was written into the mind, and the mind is material. It is much like saving software on a hard drive. Without the material, there would be no media to write concepts, and by default no concepts could then exist. So we're back to having to prove a concept is more than a concept. We suddenly have to prove whether or not the term infinity has any real value. To do this you'll have to prove infinity. But you're not a god, so you can't.
5: "So infinite regression, which is a use of infinity, is plausible and non-fallacious, but the use of infinity as it pertains to an infinite being in the creation/beginning of finity is implausible and fallacious?"
NOOOOOOO!!!!! You totally missed my point. NEITHER of the uses is logical. My point is that if you say finity must be created by infinity, then it makes just as much sense to throw infinite regression into the mix. If you say infinity caused finity, then I can say finity caused finity, infinitely. Neither of them explains anything. In my response I fail to give a beginning, and in your response you fail to give a beginning. There is no beginning in anything involving infinity. That's what makes it infinity. The moment you use infinity AT ALL, you have left logic behind forever.
6: " How can a demonstrable fact be "nothing more than theistic philosophical claptrap"?"
It can because you have no demonstrable facts. Only assumptions. When you work only with assumptions, you are only presenting philosophical claptrap.
" Again I must ask, Do we agree that a finite thing requires a beginning? It is demonstrably true."
No, it isn't. You can prove that some finite things had a 'beginning', at least theoretically. But you can't prove they all do. And you can't prove the universe is finite anyway, so even if you could prove that all finite things had a beginning, it would still mean absolutely nothing to the universe itself.
" As to, "Nothing that describes things inside the observable universe necessarily applies to the universe itself" does this mean that just because the universe contains finite/assembled things does not mean the universe is finite/assembled?"
Basically, yes.
7: "Proof that infinity brought about finity? Or proof that infinity has no beginnging or end?"
Both. And remember, conceptual mathematics is not proof.
"For the first, how about the fact that something finite has a beginning. It is not always in existence. It is a demonstrable fact that if something began something caused it to begin. So for the car, it began to be when it was assembled."
But it already existed. It simply had a different form. You yourself admitted matter can become a different form. The car didn't magically appear, it was made from things that already existed. Like a star is made from gas clouds. The car has no creator. It has a moulder. Same goes for the machines. And the people. Much like gravity moulds gas into a star, evolution moulded life into intelligent beings. None of it was created, it was already there. It just had a different form.
Perhaps now you can understand why the creation of a universe is completely incomparable to building a car.
8: "My response: Seriously? Is this a serious question?"
Yes.
"We are on the Rational Response Squad website. A website dedicated to increaseing the intelligence of the so-called less intelligent, brainwashed, ignorant, less informed, etc. theists."
No. Coming here cannot make you more or less intelligent. That's a quality you were born with. Only something that changes your brain fairly significantly can alter your intelligence.
What we do here is teach people how to USE their intelligence. We don't alter their intelligence in the slightest. Being an atheist isn't more intelligent than being a theist. It is simply more rational.
"If you seriously think intelligence and non-intelligence are equal or one is not greater than the other why post to this forum?"
I don't necessarily think intelligence is equal or greater or lesser than non-intelligence. Frankly I think the question is absurd. It is inherently biased. Of course an intelligent being is likely to prefer being intelligent, but then noone can ask a rock what it thinks so it's irrelevant. Maybe the rock is far better off. I don't know. You don't know. Noone CAN know. THAT is my point. How can you say intelligence is greater than non-intelligence when you have no recollection of being unintelligent? Why is intelligence greater?
9: " Evolution has not disproven the fact that intelligence comes from intelligence."
Yes it has. Or are you going to argue that bacteria are intelligent? In their own way I suppose they could be considered so, but not really when compared to a human. What about organic molecules, the building blocks of life? Is dna intelligent? Amino acids? Is oxygen and carbon and hydrogen intelligent? Because those are the primary elements that make us up. We don't need to actually witness abiogenesis to know it is possible. The very fact that we are made of basic elements found everywhere, without anything unique to separate us, is proof that unintelligent matter can become intelligent matter.
10: "Again, seriously? Your statment here is ludicrous."
No, it is factual.
" If there is no such thing as intelligence how can we even invent a test to measure a part of it?"
Good question. Maybe it answers why we haven't been able to create a test. Or maybe not. All that really matters is that we can't.
"Even more ludicrous is the implication that just because we do not fully understand something than that something may not exist."
And even more ludicrous is assuming something when we don't understand it. That's how gods were first invented you know. All the gods you, doubtless, ridicule like the sun and volcanoes and tree spirits. All invented because someone decided to make assumptions about things they didn't understand. What makes you any different?
11: "So from your line of reasoning the following is also true: anyone who makes/sells a knife is potentially guilty of murder/assualt?"
Uh uh. I'm merely a mortal, and I cannot see the future. I cannot be held responsible for things I'm not in control of.
Your god is supposed to be in complete control, so nothing can happen unless he lets it happen, or makes it happen. By creating us as flawed creatures, or by allowing us to become flawed creatures, he is responsible.
"You are completely neglecting free will. "
Your god neglects free will. I'm just explaining it to you.
12: "Neglecting free will again here."
Your god neglects free will again here
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Online Response to Brian37:
Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is. I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h.
Ok you agree all this IS finite, great. Hurricanes also have a cause and are finite, but you do not put the cognition of the god Posideon in as the starting point.
Sorry, you are making the same mistake Muslims and Jews and polythiests have throughout our species history, when you cant find an answer to something you stupidly make the starting point the cause of a fictional sky hero.
Yahweh was a character in the Canaanite polytheistic pantheon before Hebrews stole it and made him a monotheistic god, but I am sure you knew that didn't you?
Here is the reality you and believers of all of human history do not want to face. WE are finite. "All this" is a product of natural processes, not any polytheistic or monotheisitic human concocted sky hero. Humans make up god claims because it comforts them, but it is a false comfort and does not do anything but act as a sugar pill.
Now here is the reality. In the future humans will morph your religion into something completly different, or it will die out completely and humans will believe in new bullshit. Eventually though, just like most species did not survive the planet's 5 mass extinctions, humans will go extinct as well. Our planet's core will die, all life will go extinct, and our sun will die as well. The universe will continue on with no record of our existence or even care we no longer exist.
You are NOT special to us because of the particular god claim you make. We know all god claims are products of human imagination. You merely have yet to face that reality. We hope someday you do.
It made sense back then when humans didn't know any better. But to me in 2014 valuing an ancient comic book which is not a science textbook, makes you look silly. Just like you'd find it silly if someone believed still today Thor making lightening. Do not blame skeptics for the bullshit they were not around to write. If you want to blame anyone for our blasphemy and criticism, blame the ignorance of the people who wrote 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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline ok, i'm going to chime in on this thread purely in the hopes that the same posts, edited and re-edited countless times for god knows what reasons, will not keep making this thread show up in the feed as having new posts.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:
Okay so do you now want me to deal with the other truths...which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith over the other the faiths?
I know the Catholic Church places special emphasis on maintaining religious tradition. I hope that doesn't mean you'll be employing some of the "tradional" methods to help persuade us that we are wrong about the "ONE TRUE FAITH™"
Cliff Jumper wrote:Or do I need to continuing proving why God is omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, and etc? The other Protestant denomenations and Judaism agree that Yaw-h, the Father, is all those things.
Do you see the laughable irony of an allegegly omipotent, omnipresent, infinite, God who relies upon someone like you to prove how omnipotent, omnipresent and infinite he is ? Let him prove it himself if he is all these things. If he doesn't then perhaps he is just too busy ?
Your OMNI God wasn't bashful about strutting his stuff to prove himself in 1 Kings 18: 30-38. In fact, at Elijah's request, he put on quite a show. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18&vrsion=NIV
Care to place a bet that your all-powerful god will bother to demonstrate even a tiny fraction of his awesome OMNI powers like he did before...or will he be like the pagan god Baal in 1 Kings 18 and fail to show up ?
( Should I anticipate the typical equivocation ?... ie, Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, etc )
You know implying that I may torture you does not really follow the rule of do not insult. You are also off topic. Please, do not keep going off topic. If you want to discuss these historical inaccuracies I am more then willing to do so. However, you must pick one topic or the other. Let me know.
As to your other fallacious points...
First of all in order for God to be omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, immaterial, and etc does not mean He must be a braggert constantly showing off to everyone who demands it. One can come to know these things about God, as well as other things, through the use of reasoned thought.
Secondly, your Bibical quotations are taken way out of context. 1 Kings 18: 30-38 does not have Elijah putting God to the test. It has God demonstrating His power and full authority to His people. The Hebrews under Ahab and Jezebel are directly diobeying His covenant and murdering the prophets God is sending to them. These prophets and punishemnts are sent by God as a means of guiding His people/children back to Him. God after trying to show mercy exercises His full authority as God the Father. This is actually a good example of God as Father. A father gives his child/children warnings about their misbehavior several times before exercising his full authority. God as Father in this case provides His people (His children) with many warnings in the forms of prophets and small punishments, then He exercises His full power to get their attention, so to speak.
Obviously you should not put God to the test as the Hebrews did in Massah. Deuteronomy 6:16 is referencing Exodus 17:1-7 where the Hebrews were promised water to drink then kept testing God's promise by asking, "Is God with us?". This event was preceeded by many events where the Hewbrews tested God to produce things that were already promised to them food, guidance, and the like. A similar situation is seen in Matthew 4:7 where Satan is testing Jesus Christ to see if He will follow God the Father's will. Generally, testing God requires one to fall into a deadly sin, hubris. There is nothing so good about any of us that we can demand God do something for us. It is similar to a child demanding something from his/her parents because he/she feels he/she deserves it. This is arrogant, disrespectful, and unloving.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline No Subject
Hmmm, not the greatest fictional god. I would choose Primus. Come on he transforms into a planet and has a sweet toy of himself.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline It would bother me if the actual word used in the Aramaic meant brother as biological brother. It does not mean this. Two meanings can be taken from this portion of the text both are acceptable and fit within the text nicely. One, the brothers were not biological brothers but cousins, tribesmen, and/or close family friends. It is well known that in the Semitic communities of the ancient world and even now that brother or sister can be applied to a cousin, close friend, or tribesmen. Even western cultures do this. For instance I call my cousin my sister, because we are close. Second, Joesph was a widower, which tradition supports, thus he may have a had children from a previous marriage. So they are step-brothers which are even now commonly referred to a just brothers/sisters. If the passage or other passages read that the brothers were Mary's children, then you might have something. As it is though this heritical claim is false.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm still waiting for a response to my question.
I answered your questions as follows,
"Response to digitalbeachbum and iwbiek: I ask this question because God requires certain characteristics or traits (best terms I can think of at the moment) in order to be God. I have encountered many atheists who see God merely as Superman or a super-duper human, which He is not. Thus, I like to know where you are coming from when you ask for proof of God. If I ask for proof of evolution, and I think evolution means I evolved from monkeys in a billion trillion years then I doubt scientific evidence or any evidence would be helpful. We are not even on the same "footing" so diving right in creates confusion. God must be supernatural, infinite, immaterial, and omnipotent. There are other qualities/traits to God but these are the main ones. God must have these traits for several reasons. Number one, is that if God is just material and temporal he/she is just a finite being with no ability to create finity or the universe (universe here is defined in general as space, time, and the whole natural universe). I think we can all at least agree that this is a basic concept of God. Second, God must be infinite, omnipotent, and etc because something greater cannot come from something lesser. In other words you cannot have finity creating finity. Finite things can certainly bring forth more finite things with aid, but it cannot bring forth infinity or finity. Third, if this God is infinite, he/she cannot be material, because something material is by definition confined, limited, or finite. Obviously there are more reasons. These are just a few to demonstrate that only Yahw-h has these traits. Thus, only the "catholic" God, or just God is the one true God. The other gods like, Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Ganesh, etc are all finite "super heroes" not God. Polytheism itself does not permit anything like God just meta-humans to use a Marvel term."
Your response was a direct misquote of my statement above, "Cliff Jumper wrote:
blah blah blah...
Then you said,
"Troll.
Bandwidth is valuable and you are wasting it."
Now if you would like to disagree with my statement, then by all means do. Let's discuss. But do not lie and accuse me of not answering you.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline Jabberwocky wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:Response to Jabberwocky:
First we'll deal with Allah, the Muslim God. The short and sweet of it is that if Allah is God (infinite, omnipotent, immaterial...) then he must meet all these criteria. Allah does not. Let's look at just one example. Allah accrording to the Koran and all Islamic theology and tradition states that Allah is not absolute on his actions and teachings. Allah, according to these same beliefs is perfect. So we have a logical and philosophical inconsistency here. Allah is perfect and everything he says and does is perfect. Yet, nothing he says and does is absolute, it can be changed either by Allah or by Satan. This is not perfection, omnipotence, and etc it is evidence of a imperfect and limited being.
Your god, Yahweh, is also not omnipotent. Judges 1:19:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Of course Judges 4:13-16 shows god taking out 900 iron chariots. However that simply shows that the bible is incoherent. Also, the very beginning of your book has god creating a perfect world and perfect humans.
Cliff Jumper wrote:I am not sure what you mean by " the non-Catholic Christian god." Are you saying that Catholicism is not Christian? Or are you asking about the Protestant Christian denominations? There is no conflict in the Christian understanding and belief in God. Disputes arise in what something means in the Bible. There are several reasons for this.
Judaism and Christianity both believe in Yahw-h. There is no difference here. The main difference (there are others) between Judaism and Christianity is the acceptance/non-acceptance of the divinty of Jesus Christ. Judaism and Protestants share in the Faith of the One True God but they lack the fullness of the Truth of God. For Jews this generally means the disbelief of Christ's divinity and the fullfillment of His Covenant through the Catholic Church. For Protestants its the disagreement on the Catholic Church being the only Church established by Jesus Christ.
I know the theological differences between these religions. What you stated was that all of the other gods (Thor, Zeus, etc.) are wrong because they're more like superheroes that live in the sky and are talked about as if they were material, rather than your immaterial god. In that sense, how do you know that you're right as a Catholic, and the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and the Mormons are wrong? You failed to answer the question.
The first verse in Judges you are citing is not saying God failed to destory the iron chairots. It says that Judah falied to do it. The he in "...but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." is referimg to Judah not God. The Hebrew used here is refering to a third person singular not God. Also if you read a little more after that you will find that the reason Judah could not do it was not because of a lack of power of God but a lack of faith on Judah's part which led to a lack of courage and fortitude. Your next quotation from Judges proves this point. If you read these quotations in context you will see that the Hebrews under Judah do not obey the covenantal laws, God's law, and were punished by the oppression of Jabin. In Judges 4:1-16 you will see that the Hebrews after 20 years of rule under Jabin plead to the Lord for mercy, delieverence and forgiveness. Deborah was then commanded by God to have Barak lead an army against Jabin and his general Sisera. Barak will only go if Deborah goes thus fullfilling the Lord's word that he would not receive full glory for the battle as Sisera will fall at the hands of a woman. They win against the chariots. because they had faith in the Lord God honoring the covenantal laws.
Ok, fair enough on point 1. Upon a closer reading, I found that the version I was reading was more ambiguous, and other versions were more clear and seemed to imply exactly what you mean. At which point, though, does it imply that it was due to insufficient belief, and the later attack featuring Deborah and Barak was successful due to full belief? I didn't find any such suggestion.
That said, there are 2 other verses easy to find that suggest that god can't do anything. Mark 6:5 suggests Jesus was powerless to do some things, and Hebrews 6:18 says that it's impossible for god to lie (which is a problem when considering Ezekiel 14:9 saying that god can and does).
What you have here are two common themes in Hebrew scriptural literature. One is that God, Yahw-h, is the cause for all things, in a literary or figurative sense, i.e. a way for humans to kind of describe omnipotence. Thus, rather than writing every intermediatry cause between God and man they ascribe it to the will of God. This is similar to us ascribing the freeing of the slaves to Abraham Lincoln. Obviously, Lincoln himself did not free the slaves. This is simply a concise way of saying that because of his ideas and the following through of his ideas slavery was abolished. The second theme is the covenantal theme which runs through out the whole Bible. The Hebrews are under a covenant from Yahw-h, if they follow the covenant they are rewarded by God, because of their faith and righteous actions. If they do not follow the covenant they are punished by God, because of their lack of faith and evil/unrighteous actions. So when they disobeyed as Judah did in Judges 1:19 they suffer the consequences from God. Again their are intermediary reasons but overall God is omnipotent, in charge, thus in a literary sense He did it.
There is a problem with this. You could read history to find out how Abraham Lincoln became the person deemed most responsible for freeing the slaves. You can read of what he did, and you can read of what others did. I seriously do not know enough about the history to say much, but I'm sure much insight could be had reading about it. So while it's appropriate to say that "Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves" in a casual conversation, in a history class or a history club, you would probably delve into more detail. So why, then, would you say that when we're discussing religion, theology, and god, that "Yahweh is the cause for all things" is sufficient to explain anything? Your book may assert that, but for those that don't accept the authority of the book (especially with its internal contradictions, one of which I've just highlighted), we demand far more explanation if we are to believe that this has anything to do with truth.
Okay so do you now want me to deal with the other truths (divinity of Christ, dcotrine of the Trinity, transubstantiation, and etc) which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith over the other the faiths? Or do I need to continuing proving why God is omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, and etc? The other Protestant denomenations and Judaism agree that Yaw-h, the Father, is all those things.
In reverse order: Judaism, Protestants, Coptic Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Eastern European Catholics, Muslims, Calvinists, and Jehovah's witnesses all do agree that Yahweh (despite alternate names like Jehovah or Allah) is all of those things. I agree with that. Even though that is a sizeable chunk of the world population, it doesn't mean a thing. That many people can be wrong, and I contend that they are.
You have started this thread to talk of Catholicism specifically, so I'll leave the second point, and would like to speak further on the "truths which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith". There is typically a lot more discussion with Protestants on these boards it seems, so I wouldn't mind getting to a specific denomination (especially since it's the one I was raised in).
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:Response to Brian37:
Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is. I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h.
Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to cause it? Does lightening need Thor to cause it?
I know it may make you feel good to want a god, but no. There never has been or ever will be such a thing. God/s are products of human immagination, yours included.
BTW you really want to claim a god that allows 50 million deaths per year worldwide?
Oh and I am sure you are aware that El, Elohim and Yahweh are all names plucked from the divine family of the Canaanite pantheon, right?
I believe you are misunderstanding my point. I am not some how doing away with natural laws like gravity, motion, thermodynamics, climatic laws, and etc. I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite. Again I am not saying God directly causes hurricanes, the tides, the rotation of the moon, and etc. However, God created the laws that govern the universe and the finite universe itself.
As to the 50 million deaths a year worldwide. Where does this number come from? What does it entail? Secondly,what's your point? Are you trying to say God is responsible for all those deaths? I'm guessing you are? God has allowed death to enter the world through our choosing, free will. God did not create death.
The last comment is off topic too much. Getting into cultural translertations of words and cultural writing styles is a different conversation entirely. I am happy to have it but only after we can move on from this topic.
No I am not missunderstanding your point. One has to let their brains fall out to justify fantastic claims in all holy books and myths, then when called on those fantastic claims they move the goal posts and cop out to metaphore when science doesn't match their book. Take heart though, you are not the only one and not even the only religion who makes this error in logic. You simply like the god you swallowed so mentally you work backwards to justify it in your head anyway you can.
Men do not magically pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. The sun and moon are not the same source of light. Donkeys and bushes do not talk. It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.
How is stating the fact of 50 million deaths worldwide off topic? Pointing this fact of natural reality is in direct conflict with the concept(as an idea, as a claim) of "omni" in "all powerful" and "all loving". How could such a claimed being be deemed "all powerful" if this is the spotty record? Would you hire someone to run a factory with such lousy output? And if you were a god yourself would you allow all that death? In no way am I saying that to be mean to you. It is attacking the idea as being a broken concept that does not work logically speaking.
First, I was saying the transletarions of El, Elohim, and Yahw-h were too far off topic. That is a fallacious idea, which I am happy to discuss after the current conversation on why Yahw-h is the one true God. If you wish to drop that subject, agree to disagree, or agree for the sake of argument then I will discuss a new topic. Until then I will not discuss two completely seperate topics.
"No I am not missunderstanding your point. One has to let their brains fall out to justify fantastic claims in all holy books and myths, then when called on those fantastic claims they move the goal posts and cop out to metaphore when science doesn't match their book. Take heart though, you are not the only one and not even the only religion who makes this error in logic. You simply like the god you swallowed so mentally you work backwards to justify it in your head anyway you can.
Men do not magically pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. The sun and moon are not the same source of light. Donkeys and bushes do not talk. It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis."
I have not used any Biblical proofs for proving Yahw-h as the true God. I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.
You are changing the topic by listing Biblical misunderstandings. If you want to discuss your misunderstandings of Bibical passages I am more than willing to do that as well. However, I will discuss only one topic. We can continue the copy of Yahw-h as God, or you can choose, to move onto one of the other two topics.
Now onto the topic at hand. Fifty million deaths a year and natural disasters having nothing to do with God the Father. God the Father created a perfect universe, we (humans) sinned. This original sin made the imperfections we see and experience. You cannot blame God for our choices.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:zarathustra wrote:1. Yes I beleive in papal infallibility. You are misunderstanding papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impecability which is what you are confusing it with. The popes are not protected from personal sin, or from the sins of others. Infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals and the Church's teachings on them.
- Do you believe in papal infallibility? If so...
- Why did god not advise better the last two popes (Wojtyła and Ratzinger) in regard to priestly sex abuse? By any standard, their handling of those crimes was quite fallible.
And I am addressing the church's morality. When the pope was informed that priests were abusing chidlren, would not the most moral thing be to turn them into the police immediately, rather than dealing with the problem internally as an attempt to keep it secret -- which resulted in more children being abused?
You are addressing two individual men's moral decisions. Both of whom upheld the Church's moral teaching on these issues of homosexuality (the main problem in the Church sex abuse scandal) and pedophilia. The Pope is not infallible in his moral actions only in the dogmatic teachings of faith and morals. Perhaps I did not state that clearly enough. I apologize for any confusion.
Both Wojtyła and Ratzinger fought against these problems quite well. They punished the priests, bishops, and etc, who were still living. Many were dead and/or dealt with already. They could not stop it entirely as there were some poor quality Bishops, mostly militant homosexual or very homosexually leaning, covering it up in some places. There is no way the Pope can know something if it is kept from him. There is no evidence that either Pope was actively covering anything up. There is evidence that a few bishops were. The sex abuse was horrible I completely agree, but it does not detract from the truth of papal infallibility.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline You know implying that I may torture you does not really follow the rule of do not insult.
You are apparently excessively thin skinned. The atheists on this board frequently tear into each other over differences of opinion, debate among ourselves is often vigorous and invective is sometimes employed. No one has died yet.
If you want to discuss these historical inaccuracies I am more then willing to do so.
Ah, so I am dealing with a Catholic revisionist ? I was once friends with a very intelligent, college educated fellow who joined the white supremist denomination known as Christian Identity. He was a holocaust denier. He was quite talented at defending his POV , ....eloquence doesn't change history, though.
First of all in order for God to be omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, immaterial, and etc does not mean He must be a braggert constantly showing off to everyone who demands it.
God, being omni-everything, should have anticipated that when his modern-day followers make such ridiculously over-reaching claims regarding his omni qualities that huge swaths of humanity are rightly skeptical of such claims. Funny that God was so willing to put on a display to impress the relatively few inhabitants of a small desert region but now that the Earth is teeming with literally billions of souls he can't be bothered to show up.
One can come to know these things about God, as well as other things, through the use of reasoned thought.
Don't tell me, tell it to all the people who allegedly got witness the amazing miracles.
Secondly, your Bibical quotations are taken way out of context.
Wow, I never anticipated that reply, LOL.
1 Kings 18: 30-38 does not have Elijah putting God to the test. It has God demonstrating His power and full authority to His people.
...by performing miracles.
These prophets and punishemnts are sent by God as a means of guiding His people/children back to Him. God after trying to show mercy exercises His full authority as God the Father. This is actually a good example of God as Father. A father gives his child/children warnings about their misbehavior several times before exercising his full authority. God as Father in this case provides His people (His children) with many warnings in the forms of prophets and small punishments, then He exercises His full power to get their attention, so to speak.
Ah, so in past ages God was more than willing to supernaturally intervene ( more miracles ) to try and persuade his Chosen People™ to return to him. Since only a minute number of his Chosen People™ actually follow the One True Faith™ in the modern era, one can only assume by the total lack of "God demonstrating His power" ( ie, miracles ) that God has lost interest in that project. By rejecting God his Chosen People ™ have condemned themselves to destruction. I guess God will finish what Hitler started.
Obviously you should not put God to the test...
Ridiculous. You put God to the test every time you get on your knees and ask him to intervene in your life.
...A similar situation is seen in Matthew 4:7 where Satan is testing Jesus Christ to see if He will follow God the Father's will.
Satan was testing Jesus ? Was there ever any doubt about the outcome ?
Generally, testing God requires one to fall into a deadly sin, hubris. There is nothing so good about any of us that we can demand God do something for us. It is similar to a child demanding something from his/her parents because he/she feels he/she deserves it. This is arrogant, disrespectful, and unloving.
....except when it goes to establishing one's credibility and fidelity to past demonstrations of Godly intervention. I guess the value of some people's souls lacks sufficient merit for your capricious God's intervention. Figures.
- Login to post comments
Online Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:Response to Brian37:
Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is. I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h.
Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to cause it? Does lightening need Thor to cause it?
I know it may make you feel good to want a god, but no. There never has been or ever will be such a thing. God/s are products of human immagination, yours included.
BTW you really want to claim a god that allows 50 million deaths per year worldwide?
Oh and I am sure you are aware that El, Elohim and Yahweh are all names plucked from the divine family of the Canaanite pantheon, right?
I believe you are misunderstanding my point. I am not some how doing away with natural laws like gravity, motion, thermodynamics, climatic laws, and etc. I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite. Again I am not saying God directly causes hurricanes, the tides, the rotation of the moon, and etc. However, God created the laws that govern the universe and the finite universe itself.
As to the 50 million deaths a year worldwide. Where does this number come from? What does it entail? Secondly,what's your point? Are you trying to say God is responsible for all those deaths? I'm guessing you are? God has allowed death to enter the world through our choosing, free will. God did not create death.
The last comment is off topic too much. Getting into cultural translertations of words and cultural writing styles is a different conversation entirely. I am happy to have it but only after we can move on from this topic.
No I am not missunderstanding your point. One has to let their brains fall out to justify fantastic claims in all holy books and myths, then when called on those fantastic claims they move the goal posts and cop out to metaphore when science doesn't match their book. Take heart though, you are not the only one and not even the only religion who makes this error in logic. You simply like the god you swallowed so mentally you work backwards to justify it in your head anyway you can.
Men do not magically pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. The sun and moon are not the same source of light. Donkeys and bushes do not talk. It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.
How is stating the fact of 50 million deaths worldwide off topic? Pointing this fact of natural reality is in direct conflict with the concept(as an idea, as a claim) of "omni" in "all powerful" and "all loving". How could such a claimed being be deemed "all powerful" if this is the spotty record? Would you hire someone to run a factory with such lousy output? And if you were a god yourself would you allow all that death? In no way am I saying that to be mean to you. It is attacking the idea as being a broken concept that does not work logically speaking.
First, I was saying the transletarions of El, Elohim, and Yahw-h were too far off topic. That is a fallacious idea, which I am happy to discuss after the current conversation on why Yahw-h is the one true God. If you wish to drop that subject, agree to disagree, or agree for the sake of argument then I will discuss a new topic. Until then I will not discuss two completely seperate topics.
"No I am not missunderstanding your point. One has to let their brains fall out to justify fantastic claims in all holy books and myths, then when called on those fantastic claims they move the goal posts and cop out to metaphore when science doesn't match their book. Take heart though, you are not the only one and not even the only religion who makes this error in logic. You simply like the god you swallowed so mentally you work backwards to justify it in your head anyway you can.
Men do not magically pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. The sun and moon are not the same source of light. Donkeys and bushes do not talk. It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis."
I have not used any Biblical proofs for proving Yahw-h as the true God. I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.
You are changing the topic by listing Biblical misunderstandings. If you want to discuss your misunderstandings of Bibical passages I am more than willing to do that as well. However, I will discuss only one topic. We can continue the copy of Yahw-h as God, or you can choose, to move onto one of the other two topics.
Now onto the topic at hand. Fifty million deaths a year and natural disasters having nothing to do with God the Father. God the Father created a perfect universe, we (humans) sinned. This original sin made the imperfections we see and experience. You cannot blame God for our choices.
Yes the Canaanite names ARE ON TOPIC, that is where they got the name Yahweh from. Point is that neither the Hebrew religion OR the Chrisitanity that became a spin off are original. Point being HUMANS pull their ideas from prior and surrounding cultures. Invisible sky hero claims are ALL products of the human imagination, YOURS and every single one claimed in human history. We could care less if you were claiming ALLAH or Isis or Vishnu. It is still your own wishful thinking.
You cannot blame God for our choices.
See if you can spot the pattern.
"You cannot blame Allah for our choices"
"You cannot blame Vishnu for our choices"
"You cannot blame Apollo for our choices"
Sorry dude, but you are in the same boat as every other human with ANY invisible sky hero claim. Your pet god claim is NOT special to us.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.
no, you have not. empirical evidence for something as unique as a personal god would be seeing god. you can analogize all you want about tables needing carpenters or what have you, but analogies are just that: analogies. they do not qualify as perception, not in the logical world and not in the scientific world. the existence of god cannot be determined scientifically anyway, as it is not a falsifiable claim.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Online I am sorry for the lateness of my replies. My hard drive crashed and as a result I have not been able to use my computer. Hopefully that won't happen again for a while anyway
Funny how reality gets in the way of fantasy. Why didn't you simply pray for your sky hero to magically fix it? Made the earth in 6 days. Magically popped a man out of dirt. Made a baby without a second set of DNA.
I've had to fix crashed computers too, gut one for parts to revive another. But I don't pray to a fictional computer god to do 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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Old Seer wrote:First of all to understand your territory/Habitat, Define Christianity.
Response to Old Seer
Christianity is Catholicism. In other words the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed:
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
according to a Pope and religioious leaders in general. I know what you believe. The question was/is, what is your definition of Christianity. What's it for, how is it supposed to do what it's for, and how is it that what it was to accomplish hasn't happened yet, that is, if you say it's supposed to bring about a world of peace. If so--what happened that it hasn't come about. OR, what other goals is it supposed to accomplish, and can you explain "why" that hasn't happened as yet. And,What has Christianity done for the world so far when the world the same today as BC. What is Christianity;s purpose?
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
- Login to post comments
Offline My question for the alleged catholic is: "Did you not get the memo about the word 'Yahweh'?"
You'll have to be more specific. That it is supposedly derived from pagan sources? That it means something different than I am Who am?
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek wrote:all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.No empirical reason. Okay. I was not aware science and reason had disproven these things. Can you name a specific empirical example that disproves theses "axioms"? I'd love to see it, because if it existed science sure would cease to function as it kinda relies on the cause and effect thing.
no, no, no. basic logic tells us that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. it's not up to me to disprove your axioms. it's up to you to prove them. if you can't, just be a good lad and say, "i can't." no shame in your game. as for cause and effect, no, science does not depend on cause and effect. science depends on empirical observation: this and nothing more. one of the pillars of science is the idea that, yes, the universe can at any time just say, "fuck it," and start behaving differently. but until that happens, we rely on the best (i.e. most predictive) information we have. "cause and effect" are terms relative to our perception and inference.
I provided proof. These axioms are logical proofs, backed up by scientific and empirical evidence. For, "nothing greater comes from something lesser" how about the observable and varifible fact that the separate ingredients for pancakes, flour, butter, milk, vanilla extract, and sugar do not spontaneously come together to form the batter much less a completely cooked pancake. It takes something great, i.e. ordered intelligence, to mix them together and cook them to form the more complex pancake(s). For, "a finite universe needs an infinite creator" see the previous demonstable fact. Infinity is objectively greater than finity, thus finity must come from something infinte.
an axiom cannot be a "proof." "proof" has to relate to axioms. axioms are not testable things. they're either accepted or not. even science works from an axiom, i.e. that empirical observation is the only admissible evidence for determining knowledge. if you don't accept that axiom, your statements will not be scientific, by definition.
infinity has never been proved to exist, therefore to use the term "objectively" with infinity is fallacious. as for your pancake analogy, it's just that: an analogy. analogies might be useful teaching tools SOMETIMES (i for one avoid them like the plague), but they are certainly not "proof" of anything in any scientific sense. sorry.
Would you accept scientific evidence for God or infinity for that matter? Do you accept science at all? Do you accept only some axioms as opposed to others? Why accept the axioms which support science? Your statement is some what confusing as you do away with axioms yet some how rely on them for science. Is it just the axioms which support science that you accept?
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline RE :: Haunting - could love blossom?
Cliff Jumper wrote:I am sorry for the lateness of my replies. My hard drive crashed and as a result I have not been able to use my computer. Hopefully that won't happen again for a while anyway
Thanks for taking the time at all (really). There is no set window of opportunity, with this anyway. Whenever you can get back to it is fine, as long as you bother to follow-up that is. No one is penalized too much for ever taking their time (not that I know of),. Get yourself together; when you can follow-up!! I know it is easy to be misunderstood though, with the ambiguity of language. Common words can have vastly different meanings (ex. v=ShL4rK6T4_s),. Or Like with a T-Shirt I had made many many days ago. Due to the ambiguity of the statement, it was taken to have the opposite meaning of what was intended. Follow-ups do not spontaneously come together to form a reply. So instead of saying good-bye, or ignore certain questions to favor only the one's you'd like to speak to. Instead it pays off to re-engage, you'd be deeply surprised how appreciated it is when you go that extra mile and show that extra kindness.
There is no time-limit for any Catholics that ever came here, there's not one real time-limit, period, Thank Heaven
0 f f s i te . . .
Beautiful beautiful song . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlZK1vwQFNk {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlZK1vwQFNk}
Thank you for being patient.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline danatemporary wrote:RE :: Haunting - could love blossom?
Yes, yes it could...
I claim this site in the name of tumblr. Deal with it, bitches.
The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek wrote:all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.No empirical reason. Okay. I was not aware science and reason had disproven these things. Can you name a specific empirical example that disproves theses "axioms"? I'd love to see it, because if it existed science sure would cease to function as it kinda relies on the cause and effect thing.
no, no, no. basic logic tells us that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. it's not up to me to disprove your axioms. it's up to you to prove them. if you can't, just be a good lad and say, "i can't." no shame in your game. as for cause and effect, no, science does not depend on cause and effect. science depends on empirical observation: this and nothing more. one of the pillars of science is the idea that, yes, the universe can at any time just say, "fuck it," and start behaving differently. but until that happens, we rely on the best (i.e. most predictive) information we have. "cause and effect" are terms relative to our perception and inference.
I provided proof. These axioms are logical proofs, backed up by scientific and empirical evidence. For, "nothing greater comes from something lesser" how about the observable and varifible fact that the separate ingredients for pancakes, flour, butter, milk, vanilla extract, and sugar do not spontaneously come together to form the batter much less a completely cooked pancake. It takes something great, i.e. ordered intelligence, to mix them together and cook them to form the more complex pancake(s). For, "a finite universe needs an infinite creator" see the previous demonstable fact. Infinity is objectively greater than finity, thus finity must come from something infinte.
an axiom cannot be a "proof." "proof" has to relate to axioms. axioms are not testable things. they're either accepted or not. even science works from an axiom, i.e. that empirical observation is the only admissible evidence for determining knowledge. if you don't accept that axiom, your statements will not be scientific, by definition.
infinity has never been proved to exist, therefore to use the term "objectively" with infinity is fallacious. as for your pancake analogy, it's just that: an analogy. analogies might be useful teaching tools SOMETIMES (i for one avoid them like the plague), but they are certainly not "proof" of anything in any scientific sense. sorry.
Would you accept scientific evidence for God or infinity for that matter? Do you accept science at all? Do you accept only some axioms as opposed to others? Why accept the axioms which support science? Your statement is some what confusing as you do away with axioms yet some how rely on them for science. Is it just the axioms which support science that you accept?
if you'll look closely, you'll see that i haven't once said what i personally accept and do not accept. i'm merely pointing out why your "evidence" or "proofs" are not scientific and therefore are not going to be compelling for most people on this site. and for the 50th time, no, "infinity" is not scientific proof of anything because "infinity" has never been proved to exist. it's purely a theoretical concept.
on an unrelated note, i don't understand how you can have been posting here so long and not realized that no one ever gets censored here, outside the kill 'em with kindness forum, unless they make specific, consistent threats or unless they just blatantly troll. so chiding dana for using gifs that some people "might consider offensive" is not going to go down well with anyone here. on the contrary, if your precious feelings are hurt so easily, you just need to leave. there are plenty of forums on the web--theologyweb, for example--where your kind of limp-wristed comment-policing is alive and well. you're welcome to it.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline Due to sensativities & indecorous thoughts don't misinterpret
TheologyWeb I haven't popped over and visited that site in a Coon's age, Southern idiom
About the idiom .. Sorry! My highly inappropriate sense of humor. One of the lovest and consistently merciful creatures on the planet, I ever witnessed, is rather dark complexioned. And, I eat at Punjabi Dhaba, I get to frequent about every eleven days on average; futhermore, I can honestly say I prefer it there.
Off-site ::
Url/Link -- Http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=15 Nu 788 {www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=15 Nu 788} Direct link :: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=15#comment-407791
Something for EVERYONE off-site to take the necessary moment to read
Link > Home » Forums » Religion and Irrationalities » Atheist vs. Theist » Nothing but Jesus http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34191 About JLY (a User on this website) Whose dear wife gave birth in August 2013 to his (JLY) little baby girl who was born, but 8 weeks premature.
- Login to post comments
Offline The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.
Dafuck ? Seriously ?
Also, might want to reconsider your definition of the word "offensive" :
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/10/st-louis-archbishop-claims-he-wasnt-sure-it-was-illegal-for-priests-to-have-sex-with-kids/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4110268.ece
- Login to post comments
Offline
> Gladys 'Knight' .. that midnight train to Georgia headed along ???
View YouTube song . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v78-ftcqpNw&feature=kp {www.youtube.com/watch?v=v78-ftcqpNw&feature=kp} If stalls out too much
or even broken link do try an alternative www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdfZnWsps34 {www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdfZnWsps34}
Highly Unrelated to thread .. 0ff-site ::
[Need not look hopelessly disheartening, ever ..]
In the NT Book, The Epistle to the Galatians, ''Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children (~ Epistle to the Galatians),''
Hagar .. puzzling. You know.. during coupling, a rail worker had to stand between the cars as they came together and guide the link into the coupler pocket
- Login to post comments
Offline
The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.
More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
- Login to post comments
Offline darth_josh wrote:My question for the alleged catholic is: "Did you not get the memo about the word 'Yahweh'?"
You'll have to be more specific. That it is supposedly derived from pagan sources? That it means something different than I am Who am?
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804119.htm
http://www.americancatholicpress.org/Father_Gilligan_Yahweh.html
Old sources, but the first ones that popped up. The tetragrammaton isn't to be used in ministering.
Unless I missed a newer memo... which of course is yet another reason why I have so much time spent trying to discern which denomination of which faith whichever theist actually wants to try to adhere to whenever.
So you'll need to pardon my skepticism about your catholicism because you use an anachronism to preach your theism.
Oh and you have a Doctor Who quote in your sig.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline 1: No we don't. I have seen no evidence to suggest the term is applicable to the universe, and it's highly unlikely I ever will. Is there a finite number of grains of sand in a cup? Sure. Is the universe finite? Noone knows. But the grains of sand in a cup didn't have a creator. Erosion isn't an entity at all, let alone an intelligent one, yet it created the sand. Did the sand have a beginning? Technically no it didn't. It was ground up from rock, it already existed. Who is anyone to say the universe was created when we don't even know how big it is or how much is in it? Or outside it?! In essence, you are trying to use terminology to describe the universe, that wasn't created to describe the universe. It doesn't apply. Finite and infinite are mathematical concepts. There is no mathematical equation describing the universe, so you can't apply mathematical concepts to describe it.
Where did the rock come from? Where did erosion come from? Both of these examples are finite things. They need to begin. As to the universe being created/beginning we know from scientific evidences like the cosmic background radiation and the red shift that this universe that we are living in now had a beginning. At one point in the finite past, approximately 13.7 billion years ago the universe as we know it came into being.
2:When looking back I see I missed a sentence in a previous post, and thus the entire focus of your statement. So I'll drop this angle. Except: "This is not something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature." A cloud of gas forming into a star isn't something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature? On what grounds can you possibly make this claim? In every sense of the word "greater", a star is greater than a cloud of gas. The only angle out is mass. But if you take it, then a black hole is perfection, and nothing else we know of (life included) can compare in greatness. So what exactly do you mean by greater intrinsic nature?
In regards to the cloud of gas forming (or any of the natural processes we see and study) into a star it is becoming something different, more compressed, more energized, and etc, but it is not something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature. It is simply something of the same inherent nature (material, finite, x elements, and etc) forming through other finite processes something else of the same inherent nature. If the cloud of gas formed into an intelligent creature or became infinite then that would be something of a greater intrinsic nature coming from something of a lesser intrinsic nature.
So simply put what you have here is a finite thing with the aid of other finite things becoming another finite thing.
3/4: "True, I cannot show you fourness or for that matter infinity. That does not however mean it does not exist." No, but it certainly doesn't mean that it DOES exist. Your argument is based on an unproven assumption. "Your statement simply proves that immateriality exists, which is a quality of infinity. So some more evidence for infinity. " Immaterial doesn't exist, and infinity is most certainly not a quality of it. Any concept that ever existed was written into the mind, and the mind is material. It is much like saving software on a hard drive. Without the material, there would be no media to write concepts, and by default no concepts could then exist. So we're back to having to prove a concept is more than a concept. We suddenly have to prove whether or not the term infinity has any real value. To do this you'll have to prove infinity. But you're not a god, so you can't.
So fourness is a concept we can understand, grasp, and use. However it does not exist? So your argument apparently boils down to, "I cannot directly see it/experience it; therefore, it does not exist."
There are a lot of things we cannot directly see but we can reason and know they exist. Empiricism is not the only means of learning about the universe. Empirical reductionism is a fallicious philosophy.
5: "So infinite regression, which is a use of infinity, is plausible and non-fallacious, but the use of infinity as it pertains to an infinite being in the creation/beginning of finity is implausible and fallacious?" NOOOOOOO!!!!! You totally missed my point. NEITHER of the uses is logical. My point is that if you say finity must be created by infinity, then it makes just as much sense to throw infinite regression into the mix. If you say infinity caused finity, then I can say finity caused finity, infinitely. Neither of them explains anything. In my response I fail to give a beginning, and in your response you fail to give a beginning. There is no beginning in anything involving infinity. That's what makes it infinity. The moment you use infinity AT ALL, you have left logic behind forever.
Infinte regression as an explanation for the creation/beginning of finity is not even remotely on par with infinity as the explanation for the creation/beginning of finity. One, infinite regression is not even an explantion. An infinte thing is an explanation. Two, infinte regression is unreasonable and illogical, but an infinte thing is reasonable and logical. Let's look at your computer program example. If you write a computer program can the program then go on to make/program something greater than itself like an infinte universe?
6: " How can a demonstrable fact be "nothing more than theistic philosophical claptrap"?" It can because you have no demonstrable facts. Only assumptions. When you work only with assumptions, you are only presenting philosophical claptrap. " Again I must ask, Do we agree that a finite thing requires a beginning? It is demonstrably true." No, it isn't. You can prove that some finite things had a 'beginning', at least theoretically. But you can't prove they all do. And you can't prove the universe is finite anyway, so even if you could prove that all finite things had a beginning, it would still mean absolutely nothing to the universe itself. " As to, "Nothing that describes things inside the observable universe necessarily applies to the universe itself" does this mean that just because the universe contains finite/assembled things does not mean the universe is finite/assembled?" Basically, yes.
It is the intrinsic nature of something finite to have a beginning. It is impossible, logically, reasonably, and scientifically for something finite to sometimes have a beginning and sometimes not. "You can prove that some finite things had a 'beginning', at least theoretically. But you can't prove they all do." is exactly the same as saying, "Did you know that theoretically electrons are negatively charged but not all of them?" It is totally fallacious. Everything we see in this universe, i.e., that exists as a result of the Big Bang, is finite. This is demonstrably and scientifically true.
7: "Proof that infinity brought about finity? Or proof that infinity has no beginnging or end?" Both. And remember, conceptual mathematics is not proof. "For the first, how about the fact that something finite has a beginning. It is not always in existence. It is a demonstrable fact that if something began something caused it to begin. So for the car, it began to be when it was assembled." But it already existed. It simply had a different form. You yourself admitted matter can become a different form. The car didn't magically appear, it was made from things that already existed. Like a star is made from gas clouds. The car has no creator. It has a moulder. Same goes for the machines. And the people. Much like gravity moulds gas into a star, evolution moulded life into intelligent beings. None of it was created, it was already there. It just had a different form. Perhaps now you can understand why the creation of a universe is completely incomparable to building a car.
How did the car already exist before it was assembled? How did the base materials exist before they were formed? Yes, material finite things can form into other material finite things. This does not negate the need for a beginning for those finite material things. You seem to putting forth the idea that because something finite existed before x finite thing then that does away with the need for a beginning. It does not logically or scientifically follow.
8: "My response: Seriously? Is this a serious question?" Yes. "We are on the Rational Response Squad website. A website dedicated to increaseing the intelligence of the so-called less intelligent, brainwashed, ignorant, less informed, etc. theists." No. Coming here cannot make you more or less intelligent. That's a quality you were born with. Only something that changes your brain fairly significantly can alter your intelligence. What we do here is teach people how to USE their intelligence. We don't alter their intelligence in the slightest. Being an atheist isn't more intelligent than being a theist. It is simply more rational. "If you seriously think intelligence and non-intelligence are equal or one is not greater than the other why post to this forum?" I don't necessarily think intelligence is equal or greater or lesser than non-intelligence. Frankly I think the question is absurd. It is inherently biased. Of course an intelligent being is likely to prefer being intelligent, but then noone can ask a rock what it thinks so it's irrelevant. Maybe the rock is far better off. I don't know. You don't know. Noone CAN know. THAT is my point. How can you say intelligence is greater than non-intelligence when you have no recollection of being unintelligent? Why is intelligence greater?
So intelligence can be altered? Can it be altered i.e. improved?
A rock has no intelligence. It has never been observed and has never been found to exist in a rock or inanimate object. The statement, "intelligence is greater than non-intelligence" is not to say that one state is better, subjectively, than the other. It means that one has a greater intrinsic nature then the other.
9: " Evolution has not disproven the fact that intelligence comes from intelligence." Yes it has. Or are you going to argue that bacteria are intelligent? In their own way I suppose they could be considered so, but not really when compared to a human. What about organic molecules, the building blocks of life? Is dna intelligent? Amino acids? Is oxygen and carbon and hydrogen intelligent? Because those are the primary elements that make us up. We don't need to actually witness abiogenesis to know it is possible. The very fact that we are made of basic elements found everywhere, without anything unique to separate us, is proof that unintelligent matter can become intelligent matter.
Again I never said everything in the universe was intelligent. Intelligence comes from intelligence. Again evolution (neo-dawrinian evolution in this case) has not shown intelligence coming from non-intelligence. Bacteria, DNA, and molecules contain information, and just as before information does not come from non-information. Evolution (neo-dawrinian evolution in this case) has not shown information coming from non-information. Evolution has simply shown that natural selection acts upon pre existing intelligent or information containing things.
"We don't need to actually witness abiogenesis to know it is possible. The very fact that we are made of basic elements found everywhere, without anything unique to separate us, is proof that unintelligent matter can become intelligent matter."
So now empirical (observational) evidence is not needed because you can reason this?
Also there are major unique characteristics that separate us from non-intelligent things.
10: "Again, seriously? Your statment here is ludicrous." No, it is factual. " If there is no such thing as intelligence how can we even invent a test to measure a part of it?" Good question. Maybe it answers why we haven't been able to create a test. Or maybe not. All that really matters is that we can't. "Even more ludicrous is the implication that just because we do not fully understand something than that something may not exist." And even more ludicrous is assuming something when we don't understand it. That's how gods were first invented you know. All the gods you, doubtless, ridicule like the sun and volcanoes and tree spirits. All invented because someone decided to make assumptions about things they didn't understand. What makes you any different?
So again we cannot directly observe intelligence therefore it does not exist? Okay, well you have already admitted that we do not have to directly observe something to know it exists. We can know it exists through reason i.e. your pro abiogensis argument. So, we can know intelligence exists because we are conceptualizing, self-conscious, judging, reasoning, and reflecting.
11: "So from your line of reasoning the following is also true: anyone who makes/sells a knife is potentially guilty of murder/assualt?" Uh uh. I'm merely a mortal, and I cannot see the future. I cannot be held responsible for things I'm not in control of. Your god is supposed to be in complete control, so nothing can happen unless he lets it happen, or makes it happen. By creating us as flawed creatures, or by allowing us to become flawed creatures, he is responsible. "You are completely neglecting free will. " Your god neglects free will. I'm just explaining it to you.
Again God created us perfect. He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way. We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.
God is not in charge of our choices. That would be in contracidtion to his all loving nature. You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.
We choose to do evil, not God. He knows our choices, and He allows us to make them. However, He is not responsible for our actions.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Offline
Again God created us perfect. He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way.
I love how Christians redefine terms like "perfection." Considers God's "perfection", a being who allegedly exercises absolute free will yet is incapable of sinning. Adam and Eve were also created with free will ...and perfect ...yet those two amazing attributes in humans inexplicably fall apart given just a slight nudge from "sin™" I guess in the world of Catholic fairy tales there is "perfect", and then there is perfectly perfect.
God has a problem with quality control, apparently.
- Login to post comments
Online iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.
these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.
the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...
Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so.
Former Catholic myself FYI.
Your pet god claim and your personal comic book do not impress us. If you were arguing for the Koran or Reg Vedas as being the magic books that give you a cosmic Bat phone to your super hero in the sky, our arguments would be the same.
That book, from the OT to the NT took over 1,000 years to write, with books left out, and none of the NT was written during the alleged life of the Jesus character. The earth was not made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. There is no such thing as a magic baby born without a second set of DNA. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Do not blame us for the crap written by scientifically ignorant humans who had no way of knowing. It was understandable back then when they didn't know better. We know better now.
Humans make up gods, and that is the truth. Yours and every religion in human history, from the dead myths you rightfuly reject to your own you falsely believe now. We do not play favorites to any god claim.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so.
Wrong. Beauty, art, and love can be measured in some ways. Beauty can be polled, but it's also known that different people find different things beautiful, even though there are many commonalities in what we do find beautiful. That makes beauty subjective. However, I'm sure there are things that you can say you find beautiful but others don't, and you know that to be the case without polling anybody else. I'm sure that there are things you find beautiful that you think people would agree with you on, and you also know that going in. Just because it's subjective doesn't mean that it can't be proven to exist. That is a preposterous claim.
Art is also subjective (and one may call art beautiful, so it's weird that you chose those 3 words specifically). What humans find beautiful is known to be subjective, and the only way to even sort of measure beauty is by majority opinion.
Love on the other hand, is something we can measure. Oxytocin and dopamine basically. It may seem reductionist and crude, but it's true. It doesn't mean that it doesn't feel amazing just because we've uncovered the brain chemicals that cause the feeling.
You claim that it is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. You are wrong. It is our ONLY reliable method of verifying anything that we do know.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
- Login to post comments
Offline We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.
A.) WE chose ? I didn't take a bite of the forbidden fruit, did you ? I chose no such thing.
B. ) Having Adam and Eve's guilt of disobedience laid at the feet of later generations was entirely God's decision. There is no logic ( or justice ) in transferring guilt based upon lineage.
God is not in charge of our choices.
Because of God's foreknowledge he is utterly reponsible. Knowing the future with absolute certaintly adds a layer of responsibilty that no mortal could ever be held accountable for.
Even in the legal world individuals are held responsible for the actions of others if they had reason to believe that a particular person was prone to commit some criminal act yet they failed to take proper action to prevent it. If you are a healthcare worker or a teacher and fail to report even suspected child abuse and are found out, you will find yourself facing prosecution despite the free will of the abuser. Your guilt will be based upon your failure to act based upon even partial knowledge. In a court of law the issue of the abuser's free will be no defense for your failure to act.
Your "perfect" God has no defense, whether he causes evil or simply permits it, his divine qualities ( omniscience + omnipotence ) are the very things that make him responsible for the actions of his created beings.
You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.
"Love" that is based upon coercion ( rewards or punishment ) is a superficial, meaningless love. The process becomes tainted by appeal to self interest. Would you rather go to Heaven ( reward ) or burn in Hell ( punishment ) ? These are literally the terms that God offers himself to humanity ..."Love me or I'll burn you alive."
The only scenario that would be a true and honest expression of loving God without regard to selfish interest would be for God to eliminate his carrot on a stick approach. If God removed the threat of Hell and the reward of Heaven, only then could it be an honest, genuine expression love.
- Login to post comments
Online Cliff Jumper wrote:We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.
A.) WE chose ? I didn't take a bite of the forbidden fruit, did you ? I chose no such thing.
B. ) Having Adam and Eve's guilt of disobedience laid at the feet of later generations was entirely God's decision. There is no logic ( or justice ) in transferring guilt based upon lineage.
Cliff Jumper wrote:God is not in charge of our choices.
Because of God's foreknowledge he is utterly reponsible. Knowing the future with absolute certaintly adds a layer of responsibilty that no mortal could ever be held accountable for.
Even in the legal world individuals are held responsible for the actions of others if they had reason to believe that a particular person was prone to commit some criminal act yet they failed to take proper action to prevent it. If you are a healthcare worker or a teacher and fail to report even suspected child abuse and are found out, you will find yourself facing prosecution despite the free will of the abuser. Your guilt will be based upon your failure to act based upon even partial knowledge. In a court of law the issue of the abuser's free will be no defense for your failure to act.
Your "perfect" God has no defense, whether he causes evil or simply permits it, his divine qualities ( omniscience + omnipotence ) are the very things that make him responsible for the actions of his created beings.
Cliff Jumper wrote:You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.
"Love" that is based upon coercion ( rewards or punishment ) is a superficial, meaningless love. The process becomes tainted by appeal to self interest. Would you rather go to Heaven ( reward ) or burn in Hell ( punishment ) ? These are literally the terms that God offers himself to humanity ..."Love me or I'll burn you alive."
The only scenario that would be a true and honest expression of loving God without regard to selfish interest would be for God to eliminate his carrot on a stick approach. If God removed the threat of Hell and the reward of Heaven, only then could it be an honest, genuine expression love.
If someone cannot force you to love them, and I agree, then why the retrobution? I had the best 6 years of my life with my X-wife. Meeting her for the first time was exciting. She was the first person to look beyond my looks and dorkness and saw me for me. But after 3 years of dating and 3 years of marriage she got tired. Would have it been right for me to expect her to stay in a relationship she was not happy in? It seems that the Gods of Abraham expect that. No matter what you personally want the oath is submission.
There can be no concept of "love" much less "all loving" if it does not envovle changing your mind. My x left me because we were not on the same page. She does not owe me an explination other than to be herself and be happy. I find no god concept that mature. The gods people sell hate it when you change your mind or when you dissent.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Where did the rock come from?
Magma. Which came from inside Earth. Which came from inside a star. Which came from inside another star. Which came from a big gas cloud.
Where matter and energy itself came from, we don't know. And unless we learn to travel backwards in time or some god shows up to take credit, it'll stay that way. We can theorise, but we can't know.
Both of these examples are finite things.
Wrong. The rock took billions of years to become a rock from a massive gas cloud to a tiny rock (well, trillions of trillions of tiny rocks). But erosion exists as long as it can exist. If we don't know if the universe is finite, we certainly can't know if the forces within the universe are finite.
As to the universe being created/beginning we know from scientific evidences like the cosmic background radiation and the red shift that this universe that we are living in now had a beginning.
No. The CMB merely shows a massive explosion occurred billions of years ago, and that all matter and energy known to exist lies within the radius of the shockwave of that explosion. We don't know that all matter and energy was created in that explosion. In fact, most theories I've seen suggest that said matter and energy were compacted into a singularity that became unstable. There are a few quantum theories that suggest an instability in nothingness spawned that singularity, but unless someone goes back to film it we won't know if that actually happened. We'll never know if the universe was actually created then, because the explosion erased any evidence of anything before it. There might have already been a universe before the big bang,
The evidence of the big bang doesn't prove the universe began to exist.
In regards to the cloud of gas forming (or any of the natural processes we see and study) into a star it is becoming something different, more compressed, more energized, and etc, but it is not something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature. It is simply something of the same inherent nature (material, finite, x elements, and etc) forming through other finite processes something else of the same inherent nature. If the cloud of gas formed into an intelligent creature or became infinite then that would be something of a greater intrinsic nature coming from something of a lesser intrinsic nature.
So simply put what you have here is a finite thing with the aid of other finite things becoming another finite thing.
No. What we have here is you failing to answer my question, and instead going on an irrelevant and pointless diatribe. I ask again: So what exactly do you mean by greater intrinsic nature?
So fourness is a concept we can understand, grasp, and use. However it does not exist? So your argument apparently boils down to, "I cannot directly see it/experience it; therefore, it does not exist."There are a lot of things we cannot directly see but we can reason and know they exist. Empiricism is not the only means of learning about the universe. Empirical reductionism is a fallicious philosophy.
There isn't one single thing that we can't directly see that we know for certain exists. Empiricism is the only means of knowing the universe. You are the only one operating under fallacies here, I'm afraid.
Infinte regression as an explanation for the creation/beginning of finity is not even remotely on par with infinity as the explanation for the creation/beginning of finity.
It most certainly is. Which is why you can't demonstrate otherwise.
"One, infinite regression is not even an explantion."
Infinite beings aren't an explanation either.
"An infinte thing is an explanation."
Then an infinite incident is also an explanation.
"Two, infinte regression is unreasonable and illogical, but an infinte thing is reasonable and logical."
Nope. They are both unreasonable and illogical.
"Let's look at your computer program example. If you write a computer program can the program then go on to make/program something greater than itself like an infinte universe?"
Unlikely. I can't say whether or not it's actually possible, because noones tried it. But logically, the programme would have to be running infinitely to create infinity. Of course, getting a programme to run for even a few years is beyond our current capabilities; so I doubt an answer to that question is forthcoming. But if you could get a programme to run infinitely, then yes. It most certainly could create an infinite universe. The programming part would actually be easy. It's the system that would run it that would be the problem to solve.
It is the intrinsic nature of something finite to have a beginning.
Says you. But you still haven't proved it.
It is impossible, logically, reasonably, and scientifically for something finite to sometimes have a beginning and sometimes not.
More irrelevant philosophy. You haven't proved that anything finite has a true 'beginning', so there's no value in your argument.
"You can prove that some finite things had a 'beginning', at least theoretically. But you can't prove they all do." is exactly the same as saying, "Did you know that theoretically electrons are negatively charged but not all of them?"
Bullshit. The definition of the term 'electron' REQUIRES the object to have a negative charge. If it doesn't have a negative charge, it can't be an electron. That is a linguistic issue, not a scientific one. We have defined and proved electrons very well. We haven't defined and proved the universe in anything like the same capacity.
Everything we see in this universe, i.e., that exists as a result of the Big Bang, is finite. This is demonstrably and scientifically true.
No, it isn't. And yet again, even if it were, it is inapplicable to the universe itself. The universe isn't an object, the universe is all objects. You suffer primarily from the biased sample and composition fallacies, but you also dabble in begging the question, confusing cause and effect, false dilemma, genetic, and probably a whole bunch more fallacies as well. Your argument is so full of fallacy that it's incredible you can even speak of logic at all.
How did the car already exist before it was assembled?
How did it not? If I take a car apart, it's still a car. It's just in pieces. Nothing was created to assemble a car. Every single component already existed. Before it was a car, the pieces were linguistically defined as a collection of other objects, but then a car is composed of objects linguistically defined as something other than a car. A car isn't an object, it's an assembly of objects. A vague assembly actually, since no two cars are identical. So a car is nothing more than a collection of objects that allows one to define the collection as a single object, even though it isn't a single object.
It seems to me that, aside from fallacies, your greatest flaw is the English language and assuming definitions are axioms instead of definitions that facilitate communication.
So intelligence can be altered? Can it be altered i.e. improved?
There are no examples of an entity becoming more intelligent. There are examples of an entity becoming less intelligent, presupposing of course the existence of intelligence in the first place. But none of an entity becoming more intelligent. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen, but if it can it has yet to be observed.
A rock has no intelligence.
You keep digging your hole deeper. Technically we can't prove a rock isn't intelligent.
It has never been observed and has never been found to exist in a rock or inanimate object.
There's no such thing as a truly inanimate object. An object may appear to be inanimate simply because we don't live long enough to observe the animation, or because our perceptions are directly tied to our sense of spacetime, but no object that was studied is truly inanimate. The Earth and everything on it whiz through space at inconceiveably huge speeds. Everything succumbs to entropy, constantly falling apart, becoming something else. Everything changes constantly. Even the definition of inanimate includes the statement that inanimate objects are merely perceived as being inanimate.
The statement, "intelligence is greater than non-intelligence" is not to say that one state is better, subjectively, than the other. It means that one has a greater intrinsic nature then the other.
It seems to me that your definition of 'greater intrinsic nature' is entirely subjective. And thus entirely worthless. You still haven't described what you mean when you say it, so I have no choice but to categorise it as such.
Again I never said everything in the universe was intelligent.
I never said you did. I asked questions about what you said because they made no logical, objective sense.
Intelligence comes from intelligence.
You sure do like presenting unproved assertions as if they were facts.
Again evolution (neo-dawrinian evolution in this case) has not shown intelligence coming from non-intelligence.
Yes it has, providing we accept intelligence exists and that particles aren't intelligent. Since we both operate under those assumptions, there can be no denying that evolution brought intelligence into being from non-intelligence.
Bacteria, DNA, and molecules contain information, and just as before information does not come from non-information.
Rocks contain information too. So intelligent life could be descended from unintelligent rocks, as per your own argument.
Evolution (neo-dawrinian evolution in this case) has not shown information coming from non-information.
And just as you do not comprehend the car example, neither do you comprehend information or evolution. You can't show me non-information, because everything that exists contains information. Evolution doesn't claim to create information. If you knew what evolution was you wouldn't even make such a ridiculous statement. In fact, on the genetic level, all evolution operates by copying (sometimes with flaws) or discarding information. Not by generating it.
So now empirical (observational) evidence is not needed because you can reason this?
It is impirical observation that proves this. So no.
Also there are major unique characteristics that separate us from non-intelligent things.
All of which are inherently biased and thus inapplicable.
Again God created us perfect.
Then my being an atheist is exactly what god wants, and I am perfect.
He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way. We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.
Perfection cannot become imperfect. It is perfection. The epitome of everything it should be, and nothing it should not be. If we could choose to be imperfect, then we were never perfect.
God is not in charge of our choices. That would be in contracidtion to his all loving nature. You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.
Love first requires the acceptance of a beings existence. I can't love something that doesn't exist. Your god denies me the free will to love him by denying me evidence of his/her/its existence. Love requires choice, yes. But first it requires existence.
We choose to do evil, not God. He knows our choices, and He allows us to make them. However, He is not responsible for our actions.
He created us with the full knowledge we would turn to evil. So he must want us to be evil. So he must be evil. Everything is gods responsibility. Everything.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cliff Jumper wrote:Response to Brian37:
Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is. I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h.
Ok you agree all this IS finite, great. Hurricanes also have a cause and are finite, but you do not put the cognition of the god Posideon in as the starting point.
Sorry, you are making the same mistake Muslims and Jews and polythiests have throughout our species history, when you cant find an answer to something you stupidly make the starting point the cause of a fictional sky hero.
Yahweh was a character in the Canaanite polytheistic pantheon before Hebrews stole it and made him a monotheistic god, but I am sure you knew that didn't you?
Here is the reality you and believers of all of human history do not want to face. WE are finite. "All this" is a product of natural processes, not any polytheistic or monotheisitic human concocted sky hero. Humans make up god claims because it comforts them, but it is a false comfort and does not do anything but act as a sugar pill.
Now here is the reality. In the future humans will morph your religion into something completly different, or it will die out completely and humans will believe in new bullshit. Eventually though, just like most species did not survive the planet's 5 mass extinctions, humans will go extinct as well. Our planet's core will die, all life will go extinct, and our sun will die as well. The universe will continue on with no record of our existence or even care we no longer exist.
You are NOT special to us because of the particular god claim you make. We know all god claims are products of human imagination. You merely have yet to face that reality. We hope someday you do.
It made sense back then when humans didn't know any better. But to me in 2014 valuing an ancient comic book which is not a science textbook, makes you look silly. Just like you'd find it silly if someone believed still today Thor making lightening. Do not blame skeptics for the bullshit they were not around to write. If you want to blame anyone for our blasphemy and criticism, blame the ignorance of the people who wrote it.
Brian37 said- "Ok you agree all this IS finite, great. Hurricanes also have a cause and are finite, but you do not put the cognition of the god Posideon in as the starting point.
Sorry, you are making the same mistake Muslims and Jews and polythiests have throughout our species history, when you cant find an answer to something you stupidly make the starting point the cause of a fictional sky hero."
1. My response- Again I never said God directly caused hurricanes, nor does the Catholic Church. Hurricanes as a result of natural processes does not detract from the existence of Yahw-h. Where did those natural processes come from? If you want we can place in the next intermediary cause(s), and the next, and the next, and on and on and on. Until of course we reach the point of what started all that. Why not Posideon, Neptune, etc? They are finite fictional super humans. From their own mythology they began to exist at a finite point in time. All Posideon can do is manipulate the natural processes already in existence (which he didn't create), and cause a hurricane. Again the question must be asked, where did it come from? In short you cannot posit one finite cause for the existence of finity (all things finite).
Brian37 said- "Yahweh was a character in the Canaanite polytheistic pantheon before Hebrews stole it and made him a monotheistic god, but I am sure you knew that didn't you?"
2. My response- Off topic.
Brian37 said-"Here is the reality you and believers of all of human history do not want to face. WE are finite. "All this" is a product of natural processes, not any polytheistic or monotheisitic human concocted sky hero. Humans make up god claims because it comforts them, but it is a false comfort and does not do anything but act as a sugar pill."
3. My response- I agree we are finite. Great common ground 
Where did the natural processes come from? Natural processes are finite they started at a certain point. Belief in the existence of God, Yahw-h, is comforting, and truthful as all signs, scientific, logical, empirical, and philosophical point to Him.
Brian37 said- "Now here is the reality. In the future humans will morph your religion into something completly different, or it will die out completely and humans will believe in new bullshit. Eventually though, just like most species did not survive the planet's 5 mass extinctions, humans will go extinct as well. Our planet's core will die, all life will go extinct, and our sun will die as well. The universe will continue on with no record of our existence or even care we no longer exist.
You are NOT special to us because of the particular god claim you make. We know all god claims are products of human imagination. You merely have yet to face that reality. We hope someday you do."
4. My response- Seeing as how humans have tried to morph my religion and failed repeatedly for going on 2000+ years, I doubt Catholicism will change in another 1000 years, million years, or ever.
Brian37 said-"It made sense back then when humans didn't know any better. But to me in 2014 valuing an ancient comic book which is not a science textbook, makes you look silly. Just like you'd find it silly if someone believed still today Thor making lightening. Do not blame skeptics for the bullshit they were not around to write. If you want to blame anyone for our blasphemy and criticism, blame the ignorance of the people who wrote it."
5. My response- The Bible is not a science textbook. We agree on something else. Sweet I do not blame skeptics for writing the Bible. When did I say that? The Bible is God's perfect word. Misunderstandings of the Bible and the teachings of God lie on those who either incidentally or deliberately do not teach His word and teachings properly.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Online Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper wrote:Response to Brian37:
Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is. I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h.
Ok you agree all this IS finite, great. Hurricanes also have a cause and are finite, but you do not put the cognition of the god Posideon in as the starting point.
Sorry, you are making the same mistake Muslims and Jews and polythiests have throughout our species history, when you cant find an answer to something you stupidly make the starting point the cause of a fictional sky hero.
Yahweh was a character in the Canaanite polytheistic pantheon before Hebrews stole it and made him a monotheistic god, but I am sure you knew that didn't you?
Here is the reality you and believers of all of human history do not want to face. WE are finite. "All this" is a product of natural processes, not any polytheistic or monotheisitic human concocted sky hero. Humans make up god claims because it comforts them, but it is a false comfort and does not do anything but act as a sugar pill.
Now here is the reality. In the future humans will morph your religion into something completly different, or it will die out completely and humans will believe in new bullshit. Eventually though, just like most species did not survive the planet's 5 mass extinctions, humans will go extinct as well. Our planet's core will die, all life will go extinct, and our sun will die as well. The universe will continue on with no record of our existence or even care we no longer exist.
You are NOT special to us because of the particular god claim you make. We know all god claims are products of human imagination. You merely have yet to face that reality. We hope someday you do.
It made sense back then when humans didn't know any better. But to me in 2014 valuing an ancient comic book which is not a science textbook, makes you look silly. Just like you'd find it silly if someone believed still today Thor making lightening. Do not blame skeptics for the bullshit they were not around to write. If you want to blame anyone for our blasphemy and criticism, blame the ignorance of the people who wrote it.
Brian37 said- "Ok you agree all this IS finite, great. Hurricanes also have a cause and are finite, but you do not put the cognition of the god Posideon in as the starting point.
Sorry, you are making the same mistake Muslims and Jews and polythiests have throughout our species history, when you cant find an answer to something you stupidly make the starting point the cause of a fictional sky hero."
1. My response- Again I never said God directly caused hurricanes, nor does the Catholic Church. Hurricanes as a result of natural processes does not detract from the existence of Yahw-h. Where did those natural processes come from? If you want we can place in the next intermediary cause(s), and the next, and the next, and on and on and on. Until of course we reach the point of what started all that. Why not Posideon, Neptune, etc? They are finite fictional super humans. From their own mythology they began to exist at a finite point in time. All Posideon can do is manipulate the natural processes already in existence (which he didn't create), and cause a hurricane. Again the question must be asked, where did it come from? In short you cannot posit one finite cause for the existence of finity (all things finite).
Brian37 said- "Yahweh was a character in the Canaanite polytheistic pantheon before Hebrews stole it and made him a monotheistic god, but I am sure you knew that didn't you?"
2. My response- Off topic.
Brian37 said-"Here is the reality you and believers of all of human history do not want to face. WE are finite. "All this" is a product of natural processes, not any polytheistic or monotheisitic human concocted sky hero. Humans make up god claims because it comforts them, but it is a false comfort and does not do anything but act as a sugar pill."
3. My response- I agree we are finite. Great common ground
Brian37 said- "Now here is the reality. In the future humans will morph your religion into something completly different, or it will die out completely and humans will believe in new bullshit. Eventually though, just like most species did not survive the planet's 5 mass extinctions, humans will go extinct as well. Our planet's core will die, all life will go extinct, and our sun will die as well. The universe will continue on with no record of our existence or even care we no longer exist.
You are NOT special to us because of the particular god claim you make. We know all god claims are products of human imagination. You merely have yet to face that reality. We hope someday you do."
4. My response- Seeing as how humans have tried to morph my religion and failed repeatedly for going on 2000+ years, I doubt Catholicism will change in another 1000 years, million years, or ever.
Brian37 said-"It made sense back then when humans didn't know any better. But to me in 2014 valuing an ancient comic book which is not a science textbook, makes you look silly. Just like you'd find it silly if someone believed still today Thor making lightening. Do not blame skeptics for the bullshit they were not around to write. If you want to blame anyone for our blasphemy and criticism, blame the ignorance of the people who wrote it."
5. My response- The Bible is not a science textbook. We agree on something else. Sweet
Lets try again.
"I never said Allah directly caused hurricanes"
"I never said Thor directly caused lightening"
"I never said Poseidon directly caused Hurricanes".
Do any of those sentances above make any sense to you? No? I didn't think so. Congratulations, now you know why I reject your pet god claim as well.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Ok, fair enough on point 1. Upon a closer reading, I found that the version I was reading was more ambiguous, and other versions were more clear and seemed to imply exactly what you mean. At which point, though, does it imply that it was due to insufficient belief, and the later attack featuring Deborah and Barak was successful due to full belief? I didn't find any such suggestion.
That said, there are 2 other verses easy to find that suggest that god can't do anything. Mark 6:5 suggests Jesus was powerless to do some things, and Hebrews 6:18 says that it's impossible for god to lie (which is a problem when considering Ezekiel 14:9 saying that god can and does).
Okay first let me deal with Mark 6:5. It does not say Jesus Christ was/is powerless but that he could not heal the people of Nazareth. This has nothing to do with having or not having the power to do so. It has to do with the faith of the people there. It says before this that the people disbeleived not just that he was Jesus the Christ but also in what all that entails, i.e. that he is God, and all powerful. When they disbelieved they simply did not want any miracles or miraculous signs, and they did not ask for them. This is supported in two ways. Number one in that same verse Mark 6:5 it says, "And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." So he did do miraculous deeds, just very few of them because there were very few who beleived. Second, notice that all the miracles Jesus did in the Gospels were done when an act of faith was done either directly or implicitly. In other words faith requires works. You cannot just say you believe and that's that. If you believe there are certain things you will do to express this belief. For example, I believe that an antibotic (a cure) exists for strep throat. However, unless I actively get the antibiotic from the doctor I will not be cured. Just like I believe Jesus is the Christ and can do all things. Thus I will ask Him for a cure, or whatever.
This extends to the verses in Judges with Judah, Deborah, and Barak. Judah does not have complete faith in the Lord and thus does not do everything required to fulfill that faith. Notice that Deborah beleives in what God says then does the work required to fulfill that belief. Barak however beleives but does not do everything required to fulfill that belief. In these cases God is not powerless but they lacked the faith and thus did not do the required works to perfrom said actions. Where specifically in those verses is this found? Easy. With Judah it's more implicit. The lack of faith means a lack of works. Deborah believes then does all that is required to believe. Barak however, believes only in part and as a result does only in part what needs to be done. This theme of faith and works is found through out the entire Bible.
Ezekiel 14:9 does not have God lying. Ezekiel 14:9 says that God will allow false prophets to lie about him and will allow Isrealities and Gentiles to accept the lies or the truth. Again this is a common Hebrew literary device. They see all things as the will of God. Thus those who choose against Him is known to God and is in His will. This is not say however that God wants us to or makes us lie about Him to others, simply that He will allow it. because
There is a problem with this. You could read history to find out how Abraham Lincoln became the person deemed most responsible for freeing the slaves. You can read of what he did, and you can read of what others did. I seriously do not know enough about the history to say much, but I'm sure much insight could be had reading about it. So while it's appropriate to say that "Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves" in a casual conversation, in a history class or a history club, you would probably delve into more detail. So why, then, would you say that when we're discussing religion, theology, and god, that "Yahweh is the cause for all things" is sufficient to explain anything? Your book may assert that, but for those that don't accept the authority of the book (especially with its internal contradictions, one of which I've just highlighted), we demand far more explanation if we are to believe that this has anything to do with truth.
The Bible is not the sole source of authority and/or teaching on God as the cause for all things. God has given us His Catholic Church, the Deposit of the Faith, the writings of the doctors and father's of the Church, and much more. So when reading the Bible we read it not in isolation but with other resources. This is similar to when English classes read Shakespeare or Dickens with other aides like Elizabethian dicticonaires, a study of history, etc.
In reverse order: Judaism, Protestants, Coptic Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Eastern European Catholics, Muslims, Calvinists, and Jehovah's witnesses all do agree that Yahweh (despite alternate names like Jehovah or Allah) is all of those things. I agree with that. Even though that is a sizeable chunk of the world population, it doesn't mean a thing. That many people can be wrong, and I contend that they are.You have started this thread to talk of Catholicism specifically, so I'll leave the second point, and would like to speak further on the "truths which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith". There is typically a lot more discussion with Protestants on these boards it seems, so I wouldn't mind getting to a specific denomination (especially since it's the one I was raised in).
What do you want to know about the Catholic faith? Ask away on a topic, Crusades, contraception, abortion, scriptural cannon, Inquisitions...
Discussing these issues will help show the differences and logical fallacies between the other faiths, and why the Catholic faith is the One True Faith.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
Pick one topic please. Three separate topics are hard enough to deal with, with one person not to mention multiple people. I will provide a short answer to the three questions so you know I am not ignorning them. However please ask only one follow up question. It makes for easier discussion between multiple people.
1. Yes I beleive in papal infallibility. You are misunderstanding papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impecability which is what you are confusing it with. The popes are not protected from personal sin, or from the sins of others. Infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals and the Church's teachings on them.
2. I believe in transubstantion. It is not magic. It is a miracle, big difference. They do not collect money to perfrom the miracle. The collection is for charities. Ask your local parish for a breakdown of it's chartiable donations from the collections.
3. Yes, Mary, perfect in her humanity, was assumed body and soul into Heaven. We imperfect humans do not have bodies because they are imperfect (result of personal and original sin). In the fullness of time all those in Heaven will recieve perfect bodies.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Actually I said, "Judaism and Christianity both believe in Yahw-h. There is no difference here." Yahw-h refers to God the Father. So again Judaism and Chrsitianity agree on the qualities of God the Father, Yahw-h.
The Crusades and the supposed Church persecution of the Jews and their datails can be talked about later. We are off topic. If you would like to drop the topic on Yahw-h as the One the True God and focus on the Crusades I am happy to do so. Again having multiple conversations with multiple people is difficult enough adding in multiple topics of conversation just makes everything more difficult for everyone.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor