To Deny God is to deny life
Offline Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.
- Login to post comments
Offline
But the question was not to prove a particular miracle, but to prove that miracles are possible. I did the latter.
No you haven't. All any theist has done is prove that there are things we don't know and can't explain. That is not proof of anything save our own ignorance.
OK, but you are asking for evidence and I clearly am presenting it with a phone number and references. Just rejecting it because it is a miracle approved by the Catholic Church is no argument, nor is it terribly rational.
You are not giving evidence, you are giving church propoganda.
Except that this does not prove that God exists. It proves the articles of faith we believe in, such as for example the supernatural miracle involved in the Eucharist.
It does no such thing. Show me an IV removing pure wine from someones veins. Show me blood turning into wine even. The best you can do is show me is wine that is claimed to have once been blood. That claim is unsubstantiated.
It was opened multiple times, the most recent being in 1970,as I said. A portion of the blood was subjected to an spectometrical analysis, confirming its nature as blood, as well as a seperate test to determine blood type, which was found to be AB.
The spectrometer you speak of was an improper one, that did not take advantage of the technology of the day, and the results of the scan could easily be mistaken and or lies. As for it being opened and scientifically examined, feel free to prove this. Everything I've seen contradicts your claim.
Because it is Christ's Body and Blood. That's why.
That is only a reason to open it, not to keep it sealed.
Not in a state of resisting decay, or without rigor mortis.
The corpses you refer to are protected from the elements and from decay, and so they are not comparable, and proof of nothing.
Likewise, point some of these out. In all of the cases I know of natural mummies, this occured in peat bogs or at sub-zero temperatures, which is not true in any event with the incorruptible bodies of saints.
A bog isn't natural? How amusing.
Yes I can. These methods to preserve people with embalming or even with an Egyptian method were unknown at the time of most of these saints' death.
Unsubstantiable and contradictory. There are plenty of Egyptian mummies dating before christs supposed time. Beyond that, embalming techniques even predate the Egyptians. They just didn't do it as well.
You can shake Saint Bernadette's or Saint Vincent de Paul's hand. Their bodies still have no rigor.
That proves nothing. The muscles relax again about 24 hours after rigor has set in(or somewhere around there). A medical autopsy would be all you could point to as proof of rigor not setting in.
The Church allows research teams to investigate the bodies periodically.
Church research teams.
Of course, open investigation would be bad on two levels: it would impair the veneration of the saints'
It would do the opposite.
relics by the faithful and it would not be respectful of the saints to be prying about their corpses all day.
Says you. There's no respect to pay, they are dead. They don't even have family members. I say respecting them would be proving them. It's not like you need to bring them out every ten minutes. While not a doctor, you probably wouldn't even need to open them up on an operating table. One comprehensive, open, and unbiased examination would be enough.
Who's faith is being disputed now?
Still yours. I have no faith.
Saint Gregory Nazianzen has some incorrupt relics that would be about 1600 years old. I suppose Saint Agatha and Saint Cecilia still have their relics in some churches, which are incorrupt from the year 100-200 or so. Many incorrupt relics were destroyed during the Protestant Reformation, but many from before that time period survive in partial form (a hand, a foot, ect.). The oldest other one I know of is about 800 years old.
That isn't nearly old enough to predate embalming and other forms of preservation.
Well, none of these scientists works for the Catholic Church. Also, scientific studies continue on these miracles; it is not just from 200 years ago.
Since they don't get published, they aren't scientific. I can guarantee that proof of a miracle would hit headlines everywhere. Even solid cooincidental evidence would be enough to get right wing media to blare it around the world.
People do not want to be decieved. Especially in Christianity, which claims to produce miracles. It would make no sense to believe in Christian doctrine unless miracles were produced. There have been people with inquiring minds far before you or I showed up.
Your claim might have substance if the belief taught didn't remove some very natural fears. If religion didn't claim to let you live forever in heaven, then it wouldn't have gone anywhere like it did. People love to be decieved if it makes them feel good.
I don't see what this has to do with it. My Church did not splinter. My Church has remained unified throughout the centuries.
Nope. Your church has split more than any religion in recorded history. Your claims that all the splits are not from your church is contrary to history. Even the Moslems and the Jews religions are to some extent spawned of the same events. There are not many religions in practice today that do not come from those times. You think your church has it right. Well so do all the other churches. You have no more valid claim than they.
Except that is not what the definition said.
That's exactly what it said.
The definiton said that something which cannot be explained naturally is a miracle. It does not mean, "something we don't know the answer to today,"
That's exactly what it means, since time answers all.
; but it means something that is naturally impossible, regardless of degree of scientific or technological prowess. Nobody can resuscitate a corpse naturally
Sure you can. It's done all the time. I've even watched it happen. God had no hand in it though.
nor can one transform naturally bread into flesh and wine into blood,
Theoretically one could. But that's neither here nor there. There's no evidence it happened in the first place.
nor can one preserve blood and cardiovascular tissue in open air for 500 years
No evidence it's been done.
, nor can one instantaneously heal a mortal wound,
Same.
nor can one regrow a limb spontaneously,
Same.
nor can one levitate naturally and without exterior aid.
Same.
Science cannot explain it, ever.
Science can explain anything.
It proceeds from an superior source.
There is no such thing as a superior source. More advanced maybe, but not superior.
God's existence is not proved by miracles, except indirectly.
Which is good, because miracles are speculation in ignorance.
God's existence is known without miracles by reason alone.
And yet reason says there isn't a god.
It is attributing that which is naturally impossible to God, not just that which is unknown.
No, it's the unknown. And in some cases the unsubstantiated myth.
What does this have to do with anything? You claimed that sin never affects other people. Sin can and does affect others.
And yet I showed how you can be immune to it. So therefore it does not always.
But God did not build our decisions. God built the soul as able to determine itself.
Our decisions have nothing to do with our obvious imperfections. Though I could make a case on decisions too, since so many of them are based on physical imperfection.
The proof that exists seems adequate for a reasonable person.
No, it is adequate for an irrational person.
We don't need to put it on our night table to investigate it.
I do.
Anyway, "it's" not locked up in an Italian vault. It is out in the open.
It might as well be in a vault for all the access I have.
So let's just make up definitions, then.
Well that's what you've been doing anyway.
And knowledge is a reality as well. Knowledge is the habitual possession of truth.
So you have no knowledge then. That explains your belief.
And if we naturally have never observed an inert object, all things are in motion, requiring a mover.
False assumption based on misconception.
It has nothing to do with things having to be proved non-moving, but only to show that motion cannot exist without a mover.
More of the same.
Entropy is more than possible in a closed system.
No it isn't.
This is why physics speaks of the "heat-death" of the universe.
You're failing to understand what the whole situation is. The universe is expanding at what appears to be an accelerated rate. Entropy is a result of this. But it is not applicable to the universe itself. Nothing is leaving the universe. It's just getting farther apart. If it should one day contract instead of expand, then entropy will reverse itself. It doesn't affect the universe, just what's inside it.
With entropy occurring and no outside energy source to reinvigorate the system, the system inevitably declines in order. Closed system entropy is a readily available topic.
See above.
Not perfectly orderly, as in static, but it possesses order.
Imperfect order is chaotic order by definition.
Anyway, this doesn't argue against MEP order, but only for the presence of chaos. If order exists in ordering things toward ends, there must be an orderer.
Unless the order and chaos is natural, which to all appearances and evidence it is.
If we want to assume "chaos theory," what seems as chaos spontaneously produces order.
Order can degenerate into chaos just as quickly.
There was no motion, period. Saying there is not motion nor non-motion is a contradiction (and a double negative)
Incorrect. There cannot be motion or a lack of motion if there is nothing to move.
you say motion exists and doesn't exist. There was NO MOTION at all. No matter, no energy.
No god.
Even if the universe existed eternally, God would still be logically necessary as the eternal cause of the universe.
False assumption. An eternal universe needs no cause. Any argument you make against it applies to your own god as well.
However, I think science tends to show that this is not the case, as the universe arose some 13.7 billion years ago.
Not quite. We see the universe as we know it started about then. That does not translate to knowing there was nothing before that.
God is Himself subsistent existing, which you participate in. God cannot enter into composition with anything by His nature as Prime Mover/First Cause. We only participate in His existence.
So I don't exist then. Right....
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place.
And why not the opposite?
"Objects at rest require stoppers to be at rest in the first place..."
If a particle is created with an initial velocity (Big Bang) then it doesn't require a magical mover.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a little long, so my response will be a bit delayed.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a little long, so my response will be a bit delayed.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Take your time. I must admit that you are opening my mind to even further evidence against god, though it's obviously not your intent, and I find this topic stimulating.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline StMichael wrote: Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place. Okay, let's try again. It makes as much sense to say that an object at rest needs to be put to rest. We can go back and forth with this until you take a physics class, I don't care.
StMichael wrote: From the Church's beginnings with Christ, the Catholic Church has always taught that God is the creator of the universe and first cause of the cosmos, without any accompanying cause. Then what was Aquinas' contribution to dogma with the Summa Theologica? If not for him, you wouldn't have your First Cause/Prime Mover security blanket.
Faith is not a matter of demonstration? Let's try this: Remove anything based on faith from your belief system and tell me what you're left with. So now you say you can "demonstrate" god's existence? Empirically, like we can demonstrate gravity or diffusion? Then please demonstrate. Just keep in mind, crying "First Cause/Prime Mover" over and over does not a demonstration make. If you're planning to try (for the 40th time) to prove god's existence through reason (only to spring faith/revelation when the ride gets bumpy), drop it. It hasn't worked yet.
StMichael wrote: Scripture has many senses and its interpretation is one of the most difficult sciences. I cite Scripture because you do. A difficult science? I agree. Finding truth in the scriptures is right up there with magnetic monopoles. You cite it because I do - but only you think it is a reliable historical source, and simultaneously a reliable basis for your faith. As you have just acknowledged it "has many senses", and is open to "interpretation", it ought not to be considered historically reliable. Let's spend a week citing the Iliad and meditating on its many senses, and see where it gets us.
StMichael wrote: I treat the historical parts of Scripture as history, of which the Gospels are clearly part of. They are not clearly a part (we've been through this). And (we've been through this too), the gospels differ in multiple details. They cannot all be historically accurate.
StMichael wrote: Because the Church determines the canon of Sacred Scripture and the false gospels were rejected, with good reason....Also, your use of the term "history" is ambiguous. By what "good reason" did the church determine this? And if the scriptures are so "clearly historical", why were they still debating what to include in the canon as late as the council of Trent (16th century)?
And by sheer coincidence, these myths which predate jesus (and begat their own cults) just happen to also include virgin births, miracles (like water to wine) and resurrection?
If the issue was important enough to land on Pilate's desk, I have to think something would have made it onto record at the time, or at least before the destruction of the Temple 40 years later.
StMichael wrote: "Probably assumed by the listeners of his letter," would be more what I meant. Paul's letters were mostly disciplinary in nature to address specific issues in the churches, and his catechesis was performed in person when he visited the churches. If Paul could write letters, he could write gospels. If the details of the gospels are important enough for you to mention, they should have been important enough for him to mention.
StMichael wrote: Quote: Let me know when the theory which you think rather supported is resurrected as a fact. I refrain from giving a definite answer because these things are debated by scholars. If they're still debating it, and you don't have a definite answer, how about refraining from believing in it?
StMichael wrote: One cannot do a "non-thing." It is absolutely impossible because the thing cannot exist. A god sacrificing himself to himself sounds like a contradiction to me, but hey, he pulled it off, didn't he?
StMichael wrote: But the question was not to prove a particular miracle, but to prove that miracles are possible. I did the latter. No you haven't. All any theist has done is prove that there are things we don't know and can't explain. That is not proof of anything save our own ignorance.
StMichael wrote: OK, but you are asking for evidence and I clearly am presenting it with a phone number and references. Just rejecting it because it is a miracle approved by the Catholic Church is no argument, nor is it terribly rational. You are not giving evidence, you are giving church propoganda.
StMichael wrote: Except that this does not prove that God exists. It proves the articles of faith we believe in, such as for example the supernatural miracle involved in the Eucharist. It does no such thing. Show me an IV removing pure wine from someones veins. Show me blood turning into wine even. The best you can do is show me is wine that is claimed to have once been blood. That claim is unsubstantiated.
StMichael wrote: It was opened multiple times, the most recent being in 1970,as I said. A portion of the blood was subjected to an spectometrical analysis, confirming its nature as blood, as well as a seperate test to determine blood type, which was found to be AB. The spectrometer you speak of was an improper one, that did not take advantage of the technology of the day, and the results of the scan could easily be mistaken and or lies. As for it being opened and scientifically examined, feel free to prove this. Everything I've seen contradicts your claim.
StMichael wrote: Because it is Christ's Body and Blood. That's why. That is only a reason to open it, not to keep it sealed.
StMichael wrote: Not in a state of resisting decay, or without rigor mortis. The corpses you refer to are protected from the elements and from decay, and so they are not comparable, and proof of nothing.
StMichael wrote: Likewise, point some of these out. In all of the cases I know of natural mummies, this occured in peat bogs or at sub-zero temperatures, which is not true in any event with the incorruptible bodies of saints. A bog isn't natural? How amusing.
StMichael wrote: Yes I can. These methods to preserve people with embalming or even with an Egyptian method were unknown at the time of most of these saints' death. Unsubstantiable and contradictory. There are plenty of Egyptian mummies dating before christs supposed time. Beyond that, embalming techniques even predate the Egyptians. They just didn't do it as well.
StMichael wrote: You can shake Saint Bernadette's or Saint Vincent de Paul's hand. Their bodies still have no rigor. That proves nothing. The muscles relax again about 24 hours after rigor has set in(or somewhere around there). A medical autopsy would be all you could point to as proof of rigor not setting in.
StMichael wrote: The Church allows research teams to investigate the bodies periodically. Church research teams.
StMichael wrote: relics by the faithful and it would not be respectful of the saints to be prying about their corpses all day. Says you. There's no respect to pay, they are dead. They don't even have family members. I say respecting them would be proving them. It's not like you need to bring them out every ten minutes. While not a doctor, you probably wouldn't even need to open them up on an operating table. One comprehensive, open, and unbiased examination would be enough.
StMichael wrote: Well, none of these scientists works for the Catholic Church. Also, scientific studies continue on these miracles; it is not just from 200 years ago. Since they don't get published, they aren't scientific. I can guarantee that proof of a miracle would hit headlines everywhere. Even solid cooincidental evidence would be enough to get right wing media to blare it around the world.
StMichael wrote: People do not want to be decieved. Especially in Christianity, which claims to produce miracles. It would make no sense to believe in Christian doctrine unless miracles were produced. There have been people with inquiring minds far before you or I showed up. Your claim might have substance if the belief taught didn't remove some very natural fears. If religion didn't claim to let you live forever in heaven, then it wouldn't have gone anywhere like it did. People love to be decieved if it makes them feel good.
StMichael wrote: I don't see what this has to do with it. My Church did not splinter. My Church has remained unified throughout the centuries. Nope. Your church has split more than any religion in recorded history. Your claims that all the splits are not from your church is contrary to history. Even the Moslems and the Jews religions are to some extent spawned of the same events. There are not many religions in practice today that do not come from those times. You think your church has it right. Well so do all the other churches. You have no more valid claim than they.
StMichael wrote: The definiton said that something which cannot be explained naturally is a miracle. It does not mean, "something we don't know the answer to today," That's exactly what it means, since time answers all.
StMichael wrote: ; but it means something that is naturally impossible, regardless of degree of scientific or technological prowess. Nobody can resuscitate a corpse naturally Sure you can. It's done all the time. I've even watched it happen. God had no hand in it though.
StMichael wrote: nor can one transform naturally bread into flesh and wine into blood, Theoretically one could. But that's neither here nor there. There's no evidence it happened in the first place.
StMichael wrote: nor can one preserve blood and cardiovascular tissue in open air for 500 years No evidence it's been done.
Science can explain anything.
StMichael wrote: What does this have to do with anything? You claimed that sin never affects other people. Sin can and does affect others. And yet I showed how you can be immune to it. So therefore it does not always.
Our decisions have nothing to do with our obvious imperfections. Though I could make a case on decisions too, since so many of them are based on physical imperfection.
StMichael wrote: Anyway, "it's" not locked up in an Italian vault. It is out in the open. It might as well be in a vault for all the access I have.
StMichael wrote: And if we naturally have never observed an inert object, all things are in motion, requiring a mover. False assumption based on misconception.
StMichael wrote: This is why physics speaks of the "heat-death" of the universe. You're failing to understand what the whole situation is. The universe is expanding at what appears to be an accelerated rate. Entropy is a result of this. But it is not applicable to the universe itself. Nothing is leaving the universe. It's just getting farther apart. If it should one day contract instead of expand, then entropy will reverse itself. It doesn't affect the universe, just what's inside it.
StMichael wrote: There was no motion, period. Saying there is not motion nor non-motion is a contradiction (and a double negative) Incorrect. There cannot be motion or a lack of motion if there is nothing to move.
False assumption. An eternal universe needs no cause. Any argument you make against it applies to your own god as well.
StMichael wrote: However, I think science tends to show that this is not the case, as the universe arose some 13.7 billion years ago. Not quite. We see the universe as we know it started about then. That does not translate to knowing there was nothing before that.
StMichael wrote: God is Himself subsistent existing, which you participate in. God cannot enter into composition with anything by His nature as Prime Mover/First Cause. We only participate in His existence. So I don't exist then. Right....
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline OK - one more time:
Matter and energy are essentially interchangeable.
Whatever lead to the matter-energy constituting our known Universe existing, assuming it wasn't always existing in some sense, ie whatever lead to the Big Bang event, it had to start with both matter and energy, which meant motion was there from the beginning. To postulate some special 'prime mover', or 'un-moved mover' is utterly illogical. PERIOD.
There is absolutely no logical requirement that whatever triggerred the Big Bang was complex, let alone sentient, therefore no requirement whatsoever for anything corresponding to a God, let alone the Xian God. PERIOD. What we perceive as order, by any definition, can, in principle, arise 'spontaneously', subject only to the availability of a suitable energy input. In the case of life on earth, the Sun's light and heat, or internal heat from inside the earth in the case of thermal vents in the ocean, which have been proposed as a possible site of biogenesis.
This doesn't mean it is inevitable in any given location, but given the enormous number of planets which we now have every reason to believe exist throughout the universe, the chances of just the right conditions arising somewhere, even if very unlikely in any given case, cannot be dismissed as impossible.
Elementary examples of order from disorder are commonplace, from simple crystal growth, to the example of every living organism developing from an egg, or a seed, or a spore, all of which are clearly vastly simpler than the mature organism. Even the formation of the Solar system from a relatively amorphous cloud of matter shows the same thing, and has been modelled mathematically in remarkable detail.
Unsupported assertions cannot alter these FACTS.
Re ENTROPY:
Entropy in a closed system cannot decrease. That is the 2nd LoTD.
Decrease of entropy in a system requires a nett input of energy in a form that can increase the temperature of something within the system. IOW if it is in the form of thermal energy, it has to be hotter than at least some part of the system. Other forms of energy, such as radiation, or mechanical energy, or electrical energy, can do that intrinsically.
The total matter-energy content of a closed system cannot change, by definition.
The Big Bang event is in the quantum realm, therefore all bets are off with regard to simplistic applications of stuff like the 2nd LoTD. The current appropriate response is 'We Don't Know', but we are working on it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Matter and energy are essentially interchangeable.
I perfectly and utterly agree with this. No problem here.
Whatever lead to the matter-energy constituting our known Universe existing, assuming it wasn't always existing in some sense, ie whatever lead to the Big Bang event, it had to start with both matter and energy, which meant motion was there from the beginning. To postulate some special 'prime mover', or 'un-moved mover' is utterly illogical. PERIOD.
First, we do not postulate that the Prime Mover is that which started the Big Bang (though it might be the case). The Prime Mover needs no temporal priority to the universe, only a causal one.
Second, your only way to refute the notion that an unmoved mover exists is to claim that the universe must have started with an impetus from matter and energy...just because. This is further clearly unsupported by the physics of the Big Bang, where it is clear that matter and energy cannot exist prior to the Big Bang.
[ quote]
There is absolutely no logical requirement that whatever triggerred the Big Bang was complex, let alone sentient, therefore no requirement whatsoever for anything corresponding to a God, let alone the Xian God. PERIOD.
The Prime Mover must be purely in act. He cannot be caused by any other thing. He cannot have any potentiality for change, as the Prime Mover must be unchanging, otherwise it is in potency to something else (and, hence, not the PM). So, the PM must be immutable and eternal. He must further possess every perfection, as He is in pure act. In other words, He must be possessing every perfection found in creatures as their cause and exemplar. We could from here move to the notion of a sentient God (we could go further to prove this, but I think the step is justified for the time being) that such a Prime Mover, possessing every postive perfection found in created things would likewise possess the highest degree of life and intellect in comparison to those things which He created.
What we perceive as order, by any definition, can, in principle, arise 'spontaneously', subject only to the availability of a suitable energy input. In the case of life on earth, the Sun's light and heat, or internal heat from inside the earth in the case of thermal vents in the ocean, which have been proposed as a possible site of biogenesis.
Intelligent ordering of things clearly exists because things do not merely move in a happenchance manner, occasionally obtaining the best result. Rather, everywhere and almost always, things move in the universe according to a definite order in order to achieve the best end. For example, chemical reactions tend to stability. Or, maximum entropy production leads to the most efficent reaction in any scenario. Or, in evolution, species evolve for the betterment of the species and the increased survival of their kind.
This doesn't mean it is inevitable in any given location, but given the enormous number of planets which we now have every reason to believe exist throughout the universe, the chances of just the right conditions arising somewhere, even if very unlikely in any given case, cannot be dismissed as impossible.
I never make the claim that the existence of complex life is my proof for God's existence.
Elementary examples of order from disorder are commonplace, from simple crystal growth, to the example of every living organism developing from an egg, or a seed, or a spore, all of which are clearly vastly simpler than the mature organism. Even the formation of the Solar system from a relatively amorphous cloud of matter shows the same thing, and has been modelled mathematically in remarkable detail.
I find these all instances of clearly intelligent guiding of the universe's operation.
On entropy and the Second Law:
It is clear to me that you are not understanding the Second Law correctly. Science has been postulating the heat-death theory of the universe for quite some time. It is not a new theory. The entropy in any isolated, aka closed, system decreases over time. Which is why the universe, beginning with definite order at one point in time would inevitably lead to such a degredation of order at some point in the future. Stephen Hawking says as much in his lecture, "The Beginning of Time" with a specific application of the Second Law to the closed system of the universe. You cannot claim that I am misapplying the second law, as science would have been performing the same misappropriation for years. I refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe to find links to these particular scientists.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart.
Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve.
Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the "Rough" aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue
Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group.
Mikey
If I were to develop technology to create a sentient, intelligent, and conscious being (say, an android), and I were to give it the ability to choose it's actions, would I be responsible for it in any way?
I realize that there is a distinction between the android making the choice to kill someone and me programming it to kill someone, but since I was the one who wrote the code of it's ability to choose, don't I have some responsibility in creating a being with the freedom to harm?
I would not argue that God would be directly responsible for the actions I make, but he is responsible for the attributes I have. God could have created people that didn't have the imperfections (chemichal imbalances, phychosis, etc) that cause us to do harm. God, again, either created us intentionally with these imperfections or he's simply imcompetent.
I'm anticipating your reply that Adam was created differently and that his sin effects us, but let me continue the analogy;
If my first android was created as well as I intended but still, nonetheless, had something go wrong (let's say an unforseen conflict in programming that caused it to malfunction--but this analogy is inept because God, being perfect, would have to have anticipated any such flaw in design). Would I allow the android to make more of itself with this flaw and then continue to punish every subsequent android for that first flaw which I ultimately carry responsibility for because I designed poorly?
I would not hold a creation of mine responsible for a design flaw. That would be irresponsible of me.
God made us free, you say? Fine, but God still would have created Adam with some imperfection, otherwise no sin would have been possible. To continue to punish people because of this design flaw would be like me beating androids I designed for being poorly designed.
Shaun
...waiting for the day when Michael finally sees what we're saying...
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
And because I'm anticipating further points...
Yes, that darned snake told Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She sinned, you say?
Here is Eve's situation. She does not have the ability to distinguish right from wrong. In humans, part of our moral faculty is related to the ability to detect lies, deception, etc. So, unless you can tell me that Eve had reason to not believe the snake, her sin was unforseen. That is, it was an unintended and unforseen consequence of her action.
Would you punish a child for breaking a vase if they had no way to know that their action would have resulted in such a consequence?
All Eve knew was that she had two sets of instruction; 1) Don't eat the fruit or you will die and 2) Eat the fruit, you will not die. Upon what other information did she have to go on? If someone tells you that you can't go into that store because you'll die, then someone else tells you that you can go in and taht you will not die, whom are you to believe? Granted, you may decide to not go in just to be safe, but with no information to support either case, both claims have equal weight.
And without the experience with situations like this, the understanding of consequence (no knowledge of good or evil might be interpreted to mean that one is unaware of the concepts that ethics deals with, such as consequences), etc Eve had very little reason not to eat the fruit.
So, we are Fallen and deserve Hell (absence from God) because of this choice made between two contradictory and equally weighted choices by a woman (and later a man) thousands of years ago? That's flimsey.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
I don't believe I will have time to respond to this in the near future.
I'll see when I can get around to it.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
No, that's fine. Take all the time you need to rationalize an answer. I'm patient.
I did notice you had time to respond in other threads, which I found interesting.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Give me a sense of decency. As you may have noticed, the posts in this forum filled a good deal more space than the other forums did. At least half of the web page was filled with just answers to my column from about 4 different people all writing tracts as long as or slightly shorter than my own. I am only one person and am responding to MANY arguments. Give me the sense of common decency I would give you.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
You deserve some common decency. You have remained polite throughout the entire exchange, which is very much to your credit, and yes, you are currently one against many. The last few posts do contain some solid arguments, so you ought to take some time and care in responding.
Take care
There are no theists on operating tables.
ShaunPhilly
I thought that was an excellent point that Eve had nothing to base an informed decision on in that story. But beyond that wasn't the tree that they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? And the decision that she had in front of her was a moral decision on some level, eating the apple was bad not eating it was good, obeying god was good disobeying was bad. But without the knowledge of good and evil your not in a position to make any kind of moral decision. It's almost paradoxical she would have to eat the apple to know that she had done anything wrong by eating it.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
My response time was further complicated by not being able to access the website for a few days previous. I will answer these posts fairly shortly before or after this Monday (which is the March for Life and I will be attending the event with my fellow seminarians from around the USA - If you are in the area, drop on by).
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Hither comes an answer!!!!1
If God is the cause of all things and omnipotent respect to what He causes, there is no question that He would be able to intervene in a miraculous way. (We could prove this later, if that is necessary)
Further, I would argue that Scripture contains nothing contradictory to naturally known truths.
OK, but that is not an argument against the truth of the miracle.
You may mail your questions about Lanciano in general to:
Santuario del Miracolo Eucaristico
Frati Minori Conventuali
66034 Lanciano (CH), Italy
Telephone: (0872) 713189
The most recent scientific study was conducted in 1970 by Prof. Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
I would likewise point out that it has clearly been verified as real human blood, and the fact that it has not decayed for the past 800 years is a miracle on its own. There are some websites where you could find pictures of the cardiac tissue of the Host itself.
Intentionally preserved, and having rigour mortis. The incorruptibles have not been preserved naturally, and had no rigour mortis.
There are. I just gave examples of Saint Vincent and Bernadette, but there are older incorruptibles.
Further, they are only one example of these “perpetual” miracles that exist in the Catholic Church.
Again, I never claimed it proved its truth. It would just lend credibility to the belief that if Christianity claimed miracles and never produced them, it would not be believed.
Now, you must clarify what you are talking about here, rather than just assert that “the vast majority of miracles are simply natural phenomena” and further how science has disproven them. Lightning does not count, again, as nobody claimed it to be a miracle in the sense I intend, or according to the definition given above.
Except that the first miracle is a proper miracle because it cannot happen naturally. Lightning, however, is not of the same category. Nor is aurora borealis.
Clarification: it is not a proof that God exists. It is a proof that Christ was God and His Church exists according to God’s institution (and that, as such, its doctrines are true).
I do not disbelieve in evolution. Don’t be so condescending and patronizing.
But this doesn’t answer my question.
Further, it has nothing to do with why ordinary fundamentalist Protestants believe, but whether the Catholic religion has a reasonable ground for belief in miracles.
You suffer all the time from the action of other people. If someone lights your house on fire, I would call that easily a suffering that proceeds from someone else’s action. The effects of original sin were a depriving of grace and right ordering in human nature. It is not a personal punishment of sin. It is much more akin to the natural example of lighting your house on fire. Original sin is a defect in the soul of human beings, which makes our wills weak in resisting sin. It is not a personal sin.
Why is that true? It does not follow that God will give you all your proof so you don’t need to work for it. He gave visible signs that accompany His Church, not to accompany you in your toilet.
Except that your definition is clearly contrary to any adequate definition. Further, you never define what a “fact” is.
Have we thus agreed that an unmoved mover exists? If we have, we can move on.
Further, energy cannot be an unmoved mover mover because energy is in motion and has potency.
I see no reason why entropy would not apply to the universe as a whole. It is a closed system, which is all that is necessary. Further, scientists constantly speak in theoretical physics of the sum entropy of the universe. It is not like this is a new item in science.
For example, MEP always (ALWAYS) maximizes entropy production in the most efficient way. If there is no orderer of ends, this would be impossible.
That is like saying “my hand moves because it is passing through the air.” Where does the energy come from, pray tell? If there was no initial energy to move anything, there would be no motion at all.
You are just saying “things are in motion because they are in motion.” But that is not the question. The problem is that things are in motion only because they were moved (acquired energy). If no first mover exists, no energy.
But God remains the cause of the universe. Period.
Which modification?
Not a first beginning in time, but a Prime Mover. Motion requires a mover. No getting around it.
God is. God is not your existence. God is subsistent existing.
We speak of acts as entities all the time. But that doesn’t matter. We are referring to Aristotelian actuality, not action in the physical sense. God is pure action without any potency. He is subsistent existing, as I said above.
God is God. God’s essence is beyond our knowledge as to what it is in itself. Only Revelation can reveal that. We can merely come to the knowledge that God exists and certain properties which flow from what we know about His nature as cause of all things.
It does not entail a time before time. Such a statement is a contradiction. God created the world from outside of time. There was no “before.”
I quote Saint Augustine’s Confessions where the great Doctor answers this precise question (and because I know you agree with him):
14. Behold, I answer to him who asks, "What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?" I answer not, as a certain person is reported to have done facetiously (avoiding the pressure of the question), "He was preparing hell," says he, "for those who pry into mysteries." It is one thing to perceive, another to laugh,—these things I answer not. For more willingly would I have answered, "I know not what I know not," than that I should make him a laughing-stock who asks deep things, and gain praise as one who answers false things. But I say that Thou, our God, art the Creator of every creature; and if by the term "heaven and earth" every creature is understood, I boldly say, "That before God made heaven and earth, He made not anything. For if He did, what did He make unless the creature?" And would that I knew whatever I desire to know to my advantage, as I know that no creature was made before any creature was made.
15. But if the roving thought of any one should wander through the images of bygone time, and wonder that You, the God Almighty, and All-creating, and All-sustaining, the Architect of heaven and earth, for innumerable ages refrained from so great a work before You would make it, let him awake and consider that he wonders at false things. For whence could innumerable ages pass by which You did not make, since You are the Author and Creator of all ages? Or what times should those be which were not made by You? Or how should they pass by if they had not been? Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You refrained from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What were You doing then? For there was no "then" when time was not.
16. Nor dost Thou by time precede time; else wouldest not Thou precede all times. But in the excellency of an ever-present eternity, Thou precedest all times past, and survivest all future times, because they are future, and when they have come they will be past; but "You are the same, and Your years shall have no end." Your years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come, that all may come. All Your years stand at once since they do stand; nor were they when departing excluded by coming years, because they pass not away; but all these of ours shall be when all shall cease to be. Your years are one day, and Your day is not daily, but today; because Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begat the Co-eternal, to whom You said, "This day have I begotten You." You have made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time.
17. At no time, therefore, had Thou not made anything, because You had made time itself. And no times are co-eternal with You, because Thou remainest for ever; but should these continue, they would not be times. For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it? But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time? And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another. What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not. Yet I say with confidence, that I know that if nothing passed away, there would not be past time; and if nothing were coming, there would not be future time; and if nothing were, there would not be present time. Those two times, therefore, past and future, how are they, when even the past now is not; and the future is not as yet? But should the present be always present, and should it not pass into time past, time truly it could not be, but eternity. If, then, time present—if it be time—only comes into existence because it passes into time past, how do we say that even this is, whose cause of being is that it shall not be—namely, so that we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be?
It is not in a logically contradictory state, nor is there a reason why we should make the jump to say that God is lying to us. God created us with temporal minds and we know reality in a finite way. But we still know reality and not a figment.
“Perfect” is yes or no. “A perfection” is not yes and no. Perfection adds something to the subject. For me to wash my car would be to give it a perfection, namely, to make it clean. But I have not made my car “perfect.”
Just repeating, “God determined, God determined,” over and over again does not prove anything. There is no contradiction to be found in the proposition that “God created Adam and Eve free.”
Hell is the consequence of a choice, but the consequence was still chosen.
By choosing something other than God as their final end, this entails perfect unhappiness.
This does not work. The sinner might reject the pains of hell, but he still chooses his sin. The choosing of the created good over God is wherein the sin lies, not in the willing of “not hell” in general. In effect, the person still desires hell even when they reject its pains, because they are still rejecting God.
P1 is faulty because it confuses the senses of God’s will. God’s will, as I explained again and again, has different senses. God wills that all men be happy, following on the fact that they do this freely. If they choose something else, God does not will their happiness, except in the foregoing antecedent way.
It is the consequence of a choice.
Nobody created hell. Hell doesn’t properly exist as a thing. It is more a disposition of soul. The souls of the damned will wait for the Resurrection in some place made by God (and this is only hell in the sense that it is a place where the torments of hell happen in the souls of the damned). The souls, on the Resurrection, will be divided into virtuous and damned. The damned will be resigned in their resurrected bodies to a place of corporeal as well as spiritual punishment in something that could be called hell. This God made.
God does not define the axioms.
Yes.
I think you are making an unwarranted generalization. I doubt most folks come to religion because they are scared. I don’t think that is true of Christianity and that is most certainly not true of Catholicism.
God does not define any axioms. Axioms exist because of God’s own nature. They are axiomatic because they rest in God. God cannot change logic itself.
This is called shallow interpretation with minimal inquiry. Reading any Church Father for five minutes would easily show you that the Church never took these things literally. There is no literal 6 day creation, and the Bible does not intend to give us that impression. God created all at a moment, but the Bible divides it up allegorically. This is an old interpretation in Christianity, and the normative one.
A reason in the sense of “necessity.” We were created in freedom on God’s part out of His love for us.
Only indirectly. He created a person who became an atheist. God creates people free to choose, He does not create atheists and theists.
It has nothing to do with our “design” as if we were robots without free will. God created us free of external constraint.
I never make a claim about the temporal beginning of the universe. I only posit that an unmoved mover must exist in order for motion to exist. There is no other option, regardless of how the universe got started.
These are the same thing; a change in a thing.
Nevertheless, they are still in motion and require a mover regardless of how much they orbit.
Now that’s just so ignorant I won’t even begin to say how wrong you are. I want to finish answering this post tonight.
You are responsible for it in a different way than God is. Further, God’s justice compensates for any infractions His creatures commit against each other in this life.
But human beings in this life can only harm bodies. There is a difference. God, however, does create a just recompense for these infractions, both for the person abused and for the perp.
These imperfections are a result of original sin, not God’s intention for human beings. However, if you do have schizophrenia or psychosis, obviously you aren’t morally culpable in the same degree that I am as a normal person. God likewise judges according to the reality of your condition of moral rectitude.
Bad analogy because God does not punish those who possess this flaw. God sent His Son to accomplish the redemption of the human race because of this flaw and caused us to be made adopted sons of God. His whole purpose in the Incarnation was to fix this flaw.
No “imperfection” existed that caused Adam to sin. It was merely free choice on Adam’s part to pursue the apparent good over God.
She possessed full and complete moral knowledge due to her original justice that she and Adam were created in. The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” refers clearly to something else. The traditional interpretation is that the devil tempted them to be “like gods” in knowing evil personally, as having committed it. In other words, bad Scripture interpretation.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
I wouldn't recommend anyone to answer StMichael's post. I know I'm not going to. Go ahead if you want (not that you need my permission), but honestly? It's completely fruitless.
This person cleary did NOT come here to debate or discuss. Even if he knows something to be true, it is rather obvious he wills to remain in his comfortable position. No offense mate, but you're head is not really open. This is a guy who's admitted "God tolerates Hell" and mantains God is all-loving? That thought speaks for itself... He claims to know the nature of the Universe (closed system, in motion because of an unmoved mover), and he fails to understand the responsibility of God in the whole free will illusion. A talking snake "is not interpreted literally by the Church", but when it comes to Jesus dying for our sins, which can be traced back to Adam and Eve, the story is literally true! Science tells us the Earth is not 6k-10k years old. The fact that the original sin happened in the book of Genesis and is the cause for all sin and evil in the world; which is supposedly why Jesus came, and the fact that science tells us the Earth and humans are much more older than that should be enough for anyone. But he will try and argue that "Evolution and Christianity can co-exist too!". "A consequence is chosen", "A person chooses hell" oh and the best one: "I would argue that Scripture contains nothing contradictory to naturally known truths"--we all know whoever says that is beyond the power of logic and reason, even if 48 individuals are simultaneously showing him the obvious ... To think everyone chooses Christianity because they are fulfilled (of course NOT because of Hell, nobody fears eternal torment! Everyone stays for their personal relationship with their buddy Jebus) is just... I won't even bother. It's just evident: this person is not looking for debates or opinions, or other ways of looking at things. He just will not accept them. Not that he's not in his right to do so, but anyway...
It is impossible to reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into. We can only hope he thinks these things through one day.
I'm out of this topic. Peace!
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
I am debating my point. You must not have come here to debate or discuss because you are not a fervent Catholic at the moment.
All you have shown is that you lack the ability to discuss matters in an even way. I would further not accept my positions if I did not think them true. I cannot say the same about your blind faith and uncritical acceptance of your own opinions, sadly.
I like to keep my brains from running out onto the cassock. It keeps everything nice and neat for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Your laundry bills must be astronomical.
God lets His creatures choose themselves instead of Him. A mystery that God loves creatures enough to allow them to freely turn their backs on Him. I compare Him to a lover who rather wills the good of his beloved in allowing her to choose some other man than himself merely because she chooses it. It is a great and magnificent mystery of love. And He, the all-powerful Creator of the stars of night, died on the Cross to get our attention.
No argument apparently on your end.
I have sufficently explained why your contradictions were only apparent. You have no said why mine are not thus sufficent. You merely repeat your original point over and over again, that God created man and must have thus determined His will. But, again, this is not the case.
Actually, I quite enjoy the idea that the snake can talk. However, I would err on the side that such an image is merely allegorical to symbolize the fallen spirit Satan introducing a temptation into the mind of Eve. Whether Satan truly commandeered a snake to his nefarious purposes is irrelevant.
Which part? Jesus Christ literally died on the Cross. I have no problem maintaiing that. I likewise think that the history of sin can be traced back to Adam and Eve. No argument from you as to why this is irrational.
? And this has to do with my belief...how? I never espouse any young earth theory, as I find it likewise stupid/superficial interpretation of Scripture and dissonant with what science shows me. But, y'know, do what ever you need to mentally justify your irrational contempt of my religion. No pressure to be rational, or anything like that.
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Talking about requirements. All a multi-page thread with long-ass replies appearantly requires, is a petty argument from ignorance.
Can't explain, ergo goddidit. Yawn.
~Let us be reasonable~
You want to claim there's such a thing as "the supernatural"? Fine. I hereby declare you to be "paracorrect" in doing so.
God had no time to create time.
michael,
Congratulations on driving away a couple of opponents in frustration (at least for now), but sorry, no congrats on having defended your beliefs in any reasonable manner. As I've mentioned before, you simply play an ongoing game of cat and mouse, and have not brought to conclusion a single point. Let's try this again...
1) You take the truthfulness of the First Cause and Prime Mover arguments for granted, without having soundly argued their truthfulness even up until now. You argue that god exists because there has to be a First Cause/Prime Mover. Yet when taken to task on why there has to be a First Cause/Prime Mover, you have turned around and responded, because the First Cause/Prime Mover represent the attributes of god. The argument remains circular. Furthermore, the First Cause/Prime Mover arguments did not become part of the church's doctrine until the Renaissance when Plato and Aristotle were rediscovered (the same time as which the church's absolute authority was challenged for the first time, resulting in Protestantism). If this is what you offer as an argument for god's existence "through reason", what argument was the church relying on for the first two thirds of its existence? You have gone further to argue against other religions, because their god(s) do not have attributes of the First Cause, as if that alone suffices to dismiss them. All this means essentially is that other religions have not applied Aristotle to their creation myths, which would have aptly described Catholicism as well up until the Renaissance. You went as far as to assert Islam is wrong because it does not have an ex nihilo creation story, which you base on a Quranic reference of Allah creating from some primordial dust. I am unaware of any independent proof that affirms that only gods involved in ex nihilo creation can be true. Nonetheless, neither does the god in your hallowed gospel create ex nihilo. Genesis I mentions pre-existing water over which god was travelling; in Genesis II god creates man from the dust of the earth. So first cause or no first cause, there remains no way to extrapolate "through reason alone" that catholicism is the one true faith.
2) Speaking of scripture, you freely make references to it as a historical resource. Yet elsewhere you acknowledge (to your credit) that there are allegorical parts, which should not be taken literally, and therefore, not be taken as history. You have never explained by what criteria you determine which passages are literal and which are not, which you absolutely must do before treating anything about it historically. By what independent means do we determine that the Talking Snake story is allegorical, but not the Transfiguration or the 12 Baskets of Food? When asked for historical sources other than the Gospels corroborating jesus' life, you provided Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. Perhaps this is my fault for not specifying contemporary sources; by that I mean independent sources documenting Lazarus, or the feeding of the multitude or the resurrection, or the bodies that rose from graves, etc. Surely if any of these "miraculous" things happened for all to see, we would have multiple sources to refer to, and not just one. In the case of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, they were from the first century (therefore, not contemporary), and they were church apologists, so an inherent bias would taint any of their claims. Ignatius is said to be a disciple of John the Apostle, and you mention the fact that the apostles suffered for their beliefs as proof of their credibility. You did not respond to my assertion that they thought jesus was going to return in their lifetime, which would admittedly undermine their credibility. You also mention Josephus as a reference. There is much reason to believe that statements in his writings supporting the jesus story represent redactions by later christian apologists. Here's just one link to learn about that: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html. Surely you should have addressed such claims, or at least offered a caveat about possible christian revisions before quoting Josephus.
You have hitherto acknowledged that the gospel writings date to after 70 A.D. You maintain that the stories about Jesus are drawn from eyewitness accounts despite the 40 year hiatus from his supposed death. You further mention (correctly) that Paul's epistles date earlier than 70 A.D. Apart from the fact (as mentioned above), that there are no independent contemporary accounts corroborating these eyewitness events (why indeed would noone have seen the need to write down these divine occurrences for 40 years), it is an enduring mystery that Paul makes no reference in his letters to the majority of events in jesus life. Only his death and resurrection - nothing about his humble birth, miracle-laden ministry, etc. Also, do you acknowledge the "eyewitness accounts" of jesus must have undergone at least one word-of-mouth transfer prior to being recorded in written form, or were the eyewitness still alive in 70 A.D., when the pens hit the paper? If so, is it entirely unreasonable for me to suspect that anything might have changed in the retelling? Furthermore, address the fact that all four gospels differ on precise details, and as long as they do, their historical reliability is questionable.
3) More than once, when called to task on your assertions, you have pulled in something, which really ought to have been mentioned when you first made your assertion. One example is your claim that god can be known through reason (yes, this has been beat into the ground and back again). When further pressed, all of a sudden you mention "natural" reason distinct from some other form of reason. You have also brought in "faith" and "revelation". When you originally said god could be proven by reason, it was not contingent upon us to know whether you meant "natural" reason, or something else, or whether we had to make allowance for faith/revelation. At the point that you do this, the entire discussion is shot, because we pretty much have to start from the beginning. I am not saying this to be petulant or obstinate, it's simply that after so many countless exchanges, with a full willingness to hear your argument through, I still don't know how you argue god's existence from reason, and what type of reason, and where and how faith/revelation comes into it, and how the inclusion of faith/reason doesn't negate the original assertion, which I had thought to be an argument from pure reason.
Another example would be the the elusive argument regarding god's omnipotence, god's omniscience, and our free will. Here are two of your quotes:
"God could not change the conditions for happiness. It is "axiomatic"-ally corresponded with a free will and a mind."
"God's omnipotence is not an issue because free will is necessary for happiness to exist. God cannot change those parameters because they are axiomatic. "
If god "could not", "cannot"...then god is not omnipotent. If it is constrained by these axioms, then god not omnipotent. Who/what created these axioms, if not god? If god created them, god could have very well created different axioms. If god did not create them, then what did? Did the axioms always exist, just as god did? Or isn't god the first cause? I am mentioning nothing new here, you have simply dodged this very simple, very straightforward question, time and again. Plato addressed this in the Euthypro. You might find it interesting.
There is certainly more, but I know this is quite a bit here already. I'm not demanding a response, or claiming victory if you choose not to respond. It doesn't appear this exchange is progressing towards any sense of greater understanding, and I doubt anyone showing up now would have the ability (or desire) to trace the argument through the glut of forgoing posts. If we are to continue discussion, I imagine we should settle on some protocol (maybe separating some of the main points into threads of their own), and for identifying fallacious arguments (committed by either side). Anyone have suggestions? Otherwise, we can just continue on as before, until the server runs out of space...
Take care
There are no theists on operating tables.
I do not. I have been arguing that one exists for a long time now. People keep sidetracking into what the properties of the Prime Mover are and how I can call it God, but that was not the intent. Th existence of the Prime Mover is easily seen in the fact that things are in motion only because they were set in motion by another, and an infinite regress in movers is impossible because then no motion would exist.
Bah. Learn your history. Saint Augustine and other Church Fathers used many of the arguments for the existence of God, which is far before the Renaissance. In fact, the earliest argument for the Prime Mover could be said to be in the Book of Wisdom.
Even if we reject that the Church postulates that God is the Prime Mover, the Prime Mover still retains all qualities that would identify such with the Christian/Jewish God alone in exclusivity to all other gods, with the possible exception of Islam. But I would say this narrows things down considerably.
Because if anything existed prior to God, He would not be the Prime Mover. Hence, He must create purely from His will, without any prior matter.
First, I never claim I can prove or demonstrate rationally that Catholicism is the one true faith. I can only demonstrate that it is not self-contradictory and that it fits with what we know naturally, in combination with probable arguments from miracles.
Second, God does not create things from the water, but by His Word alone in Genesis. "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth," and matter from which He made the universe is not mentioned. The "waters" over which God moves is an allegory for the formless matter in the beginning which God created before the universe.
I would argue that context and type of work gives indication of how the literal sense of the passage is to be determined. For example, it is clear that the Psalms when mentioning God's "hand" are speaking allegorically (because God has no hand) and the context indicates this. The Gospels on a whole are obviously and clearly historical in character and the interpretative tradition of the Church confirms this character.
I highly doubt that any source other than the Gospels and St. Paul's letters exist for the basic reason that all of the folks who witnessed Christ's life were basically illiterate (with the exception of some scribes, the high priest, and Pilate himself). The Gospel was written down after the fact by Gentile educated converts who were informed by eyewitnesses. Further, I doubt many educated people really cared enough about the Galillean "prophet" to write anything at all about Him, let alone attend any of the famous miracles. Really, the Gospels and Saint Paul's letters are about the only historical evidence we would have.
I don't think that it is fair to say that they were biased merely because they were apologists. But it also doesn't discredit any and all claims they make about Christ.
Not necessarily on two levels. I think, as it seems clear to me from their recorded sermons, ect. in the Scriptures, that they did not think Christ was necessarily coming in their lifetime, but at least at an undetermined time which could have been during their lifetime. On another level, I don't think that this undermines their credibility, because they never taught that Christ would come during their lifetime; the most they ever did was to say that Christ could come.
I believed I did. I would say that while it is clear that there might be some interpolation, it at least represents some knowledge of Christ to Josephus (as most historical scholars would point out, it was interpolated, not made up).
I think it fairly simple to say that nobody probably cared about Christ other than the Jews, most of whom were illiterate. Judea was a backwater little Roman territory with hardly any importance. No surprise that there were not independent pagan accounts.
Well, I think that you overlook some references. I would point out that, for example, in his letter to the Galatians, Saint Paul does make reference to Christ's birth of a virgin. Also, elsewhere he makes a reference to Christ as the new Adam, born of a virgin. I don't recall him referencing any particular miracles of Christ, but I would not find that surprisingly odd, as Saint Paul is not explicating Christ's life, but His doctrine, ect. Further, the major event in Christ's life was His Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Go into any major church today and you could easily find someone who would not speak of anything more than these in a sermon.
I wouldn't hit right away on 70 AD as the time. I suspect, as the date is fairly variable, that the Gospel according to Matthew would have been written before this date. It is clear that, for example, in the case of the Gospel of Luke that Luke himself is not an eyewitness, but is investigating these events after the fact. I don't think that impairs the credibility of the testimony. In the case of Mark, Matthew, and John, these were probably most directly from the eyewitnesses themselves. In either event, I would still think that at least some eyewitnesses were alive (John, of course, included) even when John wrote his Gospel.
I think that there is no compelling reason why the discrepancies between the Gospels cannot be explained.
I will try to quickly explain my terms then. Reason itself is the capacity for a human being to know. Faith is the acceptance of some article of faith on the authority of the one revealing. Natural reason is reason operating only on naturally known principles (scientific, mathematical, philosophical, ect.), as opposed to faith, which knows based on the Revelation by God. God's existence can be proven according to natural reason by reasoning from effects to cause - from the existence and state of the universe to the One who created it. Faith builds on what is known naturally, and completes what human knowledge cannot, of its own power, know.
God is the source of existence and cannot cause an absolute contradiction. His omnipotence is an ability to do all things, not an ability to do the impossible. The absolute end of His power is that He cannot do something that is an absolute contradiction. It is not so much that God cannot do it, and more so that such a thing cannot exist. God, in a certain sense, is the axioms we speak of. God Himself is subsistent existence, and hence cannot negate His own being.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
A prompt response!
One thing I hadn't previously pointed out is how often you pepper your responses with "...maybe...", "...i think...", "...perhaps...", which would indicate that they do not purport to be definitive respones, or you yourself don't have full confidence in them. As long as you do that, all I have to refute you is respond "...maybe not...", "...I don't think...". Try not to do that. Makes you look bad. I'll point them out in italics as we arrive at them.
You do. The existence of the p.m. is not easily seen in the fact that things are in motion only because they were set in motion by another. If something could have always existed (first cause), it could also have been always moving. Look below for more about your beloved prime mover.
"...could be said..." Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Not interested in "could be said". Not definitive.
Granted, I was referring specifically to Aquinas who represents the foundation for most of today's catholic dogma; and it is my fault for not specifying. Saint Augustine is still from the 4th century, so what fumes was the church running on up until then, and jews for the thousands of years preceding that? Augustine was at first influenced by Neo-Platonism, but eventualy absconded it, preferring scripture as his primary source. One erroneous claim of Augustine's is that the universe was created all at an instant. Another, sensible claim is that we should be willing to modify our views when presented with new evidence. Indeed as more evidence mounts, your deity makes less and less sense. (Among references used: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html)
All the same the Aristotelian Aquinas replaced the Neo-Platonist Augustine as the church's main apologist, and his prime mover/first cause apologies have formed the main part of your argument.
"...possible exception..." - Not definitive - A possible, but not a definite exception
"...I would say..." - Not definitive - I wouldn't say.
"...narrow things down considerably..." - Not definitive - considerably, but not entirely.
Is this part of the argument intractable until we come to a conclusion about the Prime Mover argument itself? And if Islam can sneak into the club as a "possible exception" (you locked it out before), would you let in any others if they started chanting "prime mover"?
Then I advise you stop practicing the faith until you can.
"...probable..." Talking about god here. Not interested in probable.
Still not clear what you mean by that which we know naturally. Galileo came to know naturally that the earth was not the center of the universe, and the church claimed to know better than he. So precisely when did the church start embracing natural knowledge?
"...I would argue..." Not definitive.
"...on a whole..." Not definitive.
Context and type of work? Not clear on that. I imagine I could use "context and type of work" to show that the Three Little Pigs was a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh. By your precious context, what about the gospels is "on the whole" true and what "on the whole" isn't? And the interpretive tradition of anyone not belonging to the church denies the "obvious and clearly historical character" of the gospels.
"...I highly doubt..." - Not definitive. I highly doubt the existence of god. Good enough for you?
So no contemporary accounts exist because all the witnesses were "basically illiterate". Noone besides the scribes, the priest and Pilate knew how to write in Jerusalem? I genuinely don't know either way, but I'd be interested in your source for that assertion. And you think educated people wouldn't care if they heard someone was touring the countryside making noise, performing miracles, claiming to be the son of god? Did only the uneducated people care? Why do you suppose that is?
Just to remind you, you didn't address why Paul makes no mention of jesus' life events. He apparently could write letters, why not the gospels, if he was privy to those same "eyewitness accounts"?
"...you don't think..." - Not definitive
It is fair to say they were biased. They were writing for the church. How is it not? Particularly when their only source, as you say, is the gospels? Justin Martyr for one, attributed the similarities between jesus and pagan figures as Dionysus and Mithra, to the work of the devil, who anticipated jesus, and instituted pagan religions as an obstacle (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html). Unbiased and objective? You decide.
"...Not necessarily...I think, as it seems clear to me..." Not definitive. I don't think so, it seems unclear to me...
You don't think it undermines their credibility? I think it does.
"...i would say...it at least represents some knowledge..." - Not definitive.
Knowledge of what? Someone named jesus? Origen mentions (ca. 240) that Josephus "did not believe that Jesus was Christ". Rather, Josephus equates the Messianic prophecies with Vespasian. Are we therefore worshipping the wrong Messiah? "...as most historical scholars would point out..."? As they would point out, or as they have pointed out, Michael? I mean, I like using the subjunctive too, but there are limits...
"...I think it fairly simple...nobody probably cared..." Not definitive. I think it fairly complex...
If it was enough to get Pilate's attention and get Barabbas released (a killer of Romans), you think the pagans would not have cared at all?
"...I would not find that surprisingly odd..." I would find that surprisingly odd...
Agreed on the virgin birth, but nothing of his entire life and ministry? Not one of those amazing miracles which you now latch onto to support your belief? Were the Galatians, Phillipians, Ephesians, etc., make of stronger stuff than we are, that they didn't need to hear about those miracles? Not even the tear-jerking Beatitudes? So far, you have listed him as the only link between the time jesus reportedly died, and the writing of the gospels. So far, he doesn't make for a very good link.
"...I wouldn't...I suspect...I don't think...probably most directly...I would still think..." - Guess what I have to say?
Bah. Learn your history. The Temple was destroyed in 70, and the gospels mention it. Your analysis is actually apalling, since as a catholic even I knew that the church acknowledges the synoptic gospels - namely that the writers of matthew and luke used mark as their prototype, tailoring their details for their intended audiences.
Thank you for at least attempting a distillation of your previous claims of "reason,faith,revelation" in respect to establishing god's existence. I'm still not getting it, but i'll respond later. We can continue the axiom vs. omnipotence discussion, but I fear it is descending into merely an argument of semantics: "omni" means all,"omnipotent" means the ability to do everything. If god cannot do "all", he needs to turn in his "omni" badge. Do you wish to volunteer a new term to imply the ability to do everything except (insert list here)?
Thanks for Playing!
There are no theists on operating tables.
Nope. It could not have always been moving. It does not follow. It requires a mover who moves, but necessitates that this mover is not in motion.
He wasn't in the Renaissance.
Umm... The Jews existed before the 4th century AD...
Nonsense, totally unsupported.
And it was. What's the issue?
Faith cannot be demonstrated from reason with certainty, but it is certain on the grounds of God's authority revealing (as His authority is supremely trustworthy).
What were the forms used in writing the book of Scripture? What was intended historically? What was being used to convey that message? How is the author expressing his message (possibly in parallelisms)? Ect.
Everything is historically true, with the exception coming to, for example, Christ's parables (which are obviously not historical in their subject matter).
I don't see how it does.
Quite a few people were claiming to be the Messiah, as even the Gospel indicates. It would not be far to see that Christ would just have been taken for one of these and most probably ignored generally by most of the elite pagans (who didn't care about the Messiah, anyway).
Yes I did. And he does write about them, as I said earlier. He writes about the Last Supper, he writes about Christ's birth, he writes about His death on the Cross, he writes about Christ's rising from the dead, ect.
They were writing as people who maintained it happened. But I wouldn't call that biased, any more than a man writing a book on mathematics would be biased for believing in the truth of what he maintains.
I never said that.
?And?
As they have pointed out. Is that clear enough?
But of course that was at His death. They might have cared if they thought He was causing an insurrection or just trouble among the people. But they wouldn't have really cared about what He taught or His life/miracles.
The stories were probably supposed. Anyway, it wouldn't have been necessary to impart anything more than the general Christian doctrine in a letter. He was personally founding their churches, not by way of letter alone.
And? Luke and John would obviously be written after the destruction, but Matthew is arguably placed before the destruction. This is, of course, a theory, but I think it rather supported.
The Church does not teach officially either way.
It is not so much as that God cannot do it. It would be more accurate to say that such a thing is impossible, because it contradicts itself.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Nope. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.
Correct. He was 13th century. For the first 12 centuries of its existence, what First Cause/Prime Mover was the church using for its dogma?
Umm...Yeah, with no mention of First Cause / Prime Mover...
Here's a bibliography. Unsupport it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Bibliography
Either it's certain or it isn't. If you have to qualify your assertions with "...probable...", I don't have to accept them. Thank you!
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, and.... I don't know. Do you? If so, make it known before citing scripture, and try not to use "...probable...", "...I think..." etc. Otherwise, don't cite scripture.
It's not. Let me know if you need a list of inconsistencies, and point out whether you are treating the entire scriptures as history, or just the gospels. I'll be happy to provide a list, but honestly anyone who reads the scriptures should be able to spot problems without much trouble. By the way, might you have an answer handy for why the gospels belonging to the Apocrypha don't count as history alongside M,M,L & J?
Simple. I interpret the entire jesus story, miracles and all, as a myth, and not history. Now you see.
"...most probably ignored generally..." - Thought you could sneak that in did you?
But you used Josephus as a reference to support the claim that Jesus was the Messiah, when Josephus was assuredly not of that opinion. If you wish to discontinue your use of Josephus, fine by me, just say so.
If I insinuated something other than what you mean, I sincerely apologize. But based on our discussion, I am aware of only these citations as examples of jesus' historicity: these church apologists, Josephus, Paul, and the Gospels, which you claim are drawn from eyewitness accounts. I assumed the gospels represented the apologists' source. I apologize if I wrongly assumed that; please kindly indicate what sources they would have otherwise used.
And? And he is one of the apologists you provide as a reference for jesus' historicity. Do you find this claim of Justin's objective and impartial, or subjective and biased towards christianity? Does it affect the objectivity of any of his other claims about jesus? The number of similarities among Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra and jesus (among others) just as easily suggest that jesus was just another figure drawn from a common source of myths. Let me know your thoughts please.
That is indeed clear enough. Thank you for refraining from using the subjunctive, and saying something definitive. Now consult the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus and tell me what you see.
Why not? If I heard David Blaine was in the street performing tricks, I would certainly go out and take a look at least.
"...PROBABLY SUPPOSED..."?!?! If it wasn't necessary to impart anything then, why did it become necessary in 70 A.D., and why is it necessary now, for you to refer to the gospels as historically accurate?
"...arguably..." "...I think it rather supported..."
Let me know when the theory which you think rather supported is resurrected as a fact.
Check out Synoptica in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I can only say I attended a Jesuit university (maybe they don't count as catholics, perfectly understandable), and multiple courses on scripture I took all identified MML as the synoptic gospels, Mark being the first.
If god was omnipotent, I'm sure he could find a workaround.
Gott ist tot,
Zarathustra
There are no theists on operating tables.
You've just made a significant error. I don't have to disprove a miracle, you have to prove one. You might as well ask me to disprove the Force.
It wasn't supposed to be.
I don't believe the church, so that's insufficient in so far as evidence goes. I can just as easily point to a writing that says there is no god as you can to one that says there is a god.
And you cannot in any way say that the fluid in the container is proven as blood. It has not been. I did some looking up on it myself, and it's patently obvious that proper techniques were not utilized. And what's the big deal about keeping it sealed anyway? Afraid someones going to find out what it actually is? The church can't be worried about contamination. After all, it's a godly substance.
Incorrect. There are many naturally preserved bodies that have been found. Some dating back 5000 odd years or more. You also cannot prove that the so-called-incorruptibles were not unnaturally preserved in their time. And I doubt you can prove they were not subject to rigor mortis either. I've seen nothing on them in my life, leading me to believe it's yet another thing the church says is proof, and maintains as such soley due to restricted access to articles. The day the doors of the church are flung open, science will disprove most if not all of the miracles they've claimed.
Well how old are the oldest then? And again, unless subjected to scientific study, there's no basis behind claims of miraculous events. And I don't mean studies of 200 years ago or by someone pretending to be a scientist but really working for the church either.
The history of our species disagrees with your conjecture. It is plainly obvious that people are willing and capable of self deception in any number of different scenarios. And the fact that the church has miserably failed to keep unified it's own religion flies in the face of your claims. If christianity were as perfect as you suggest, there would only be one christianity. There wouldn't be a thousand.
Perhaps it was editted from the bible once clear it wasn't evidence of supernaturalism. Or perhaps it's something never utilized by this particular religion. It hardly matters. The fact is that the definition, by your own church, was as stated. Anything unexplained is proof of god. Which is the highest order of bullshit I've ever heard of.
Nor can you prove it happened at all.
Because you understand it. If you didn't, it would indeed be in the same category. By definition.
So you now believe in the sandwich?
That was hardly my intent. Don't side track simply because you are apart from the norm. I was making a point, and you have failed to refute it. I have no reason to look something up when it's legitimacy is in serious question.
And I pointed out that we have strayed from subjects I'm well versed in. I can easily argue against religion on most facets. I disregard everything religion claims is evidence because it is not evidence. There is no rock in the churches possesion that glows with the words "God Exists". You're merely attributing the unknown to god. That is not proof. It's the highest form of arrogance. It is saying that something happens because of something, without knowing what anything going on is. When faced with this arrogance often enough, I get in the mood to reciprocate with it. Which is when you find me start to make absolute claims that there is no god. Which you can't prove wrong, and I can prove right. I will simply use the theist mentality to do it.
Easy enough to deal with. Remove myself from anyone capable of doing harm to me, and I'm immune to their sin.
It is made personal. We are defective. You don't blame the clock for not working, you blame the guy who built it badly enough for it to stop working. Simple logic.
He wants me to believe in him, yet locks all the evidence up in an Italian vault? I don't think so.
He has given me no signs, visible or otherwise.
I can pull up a number of sources that disagree with you, from more credible stand points. Therefore your claim is null and void.
A fact is a reality. "I have 5 fingers" is a fact. I thought this had been covered.
No we have not. The whole concept is based on your misconception of the properties of matter and energy. You will never convince me that your unmoved mover is even possible before first proving that things existed without moving, which would require all energy to be matter. We have never observed a completely and naturally inert object as far as I'm aware.
Which leads me to believe you don't know what entropy is. Entropy is impossible in a closed system. Quite literally impossible. Energy has nowhere to escape to in a closed system. All observations of entropy deal with an open system. Not a closed one.
False. There is as much chaos as there is order. The fact that life exists is proof of chaos. Order is perfection. Chaos is imperfection. An orderly universe would never change. It changes, so it is not orderly.
If there was no energy, then there was no matter, and there was no motion nor non-motion. Hence your whole argument collapses on itself.
No, you just don't know what energy is and does. So further discussion on this point is irrelevant.
But the universe was always there. Period.
Compare the quote with the original statement.
On the contrary. Your mover cannot exist.
Again, you contradict yourself. You say god is, but god isn't. I repeat, which is it?
Yours in humanity and science,
Vastet.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh i see... so just because you cannot grasp how life can exist without a supernatural creator, there is one!
Okay, sold.
you've covinced me.
I'm denouncing my atheism and becoming a Muslim.
Do you have a random crap generating program?
I have been looking all over the interweb for one without success.
I presume someone has allready asked you the following, but since i know that you don't have a rational answer to it i'm asking it again:
- Who made this prime mover of yours?
The universe, a long long time ago:
0
got that? a zero. 0 = 0.
how do we get 1 from zero, without inventing a God?
easy.
0 = 0
0 = 1 - 1
there you have it.
But the question was not to prove a particular miracle, but to prove that miracles are possible. I did the latter.
OK, but you are asking for evidence and I clearly am presenting it with a phone number and references. Just rejecting it because it is a miracle approved by the Catholic Church is no argument, nor is it terribly rational.
Except that this does not prove that God exists. It proves the articles of faith we believe in, such as for example the supernatural miracle involved in the Eucharist.
It was opened multiple times, the most recent being in 1970,as I said. A portion of the blood was subjected to an spectometrical analysis, confirming its nature as blood, as well as a seperate test to determine blood type, which was found to be AB.
Because it is Christ's Body and Blood. That's why. However, I would point out that these scientific studies have been allowed to proceed with examining the contents at various times.
Not in a state of resisting decay, or without rigor mortis. Likewise, point some of these out. In all of the cases I know of natural mummies, this occured in peat bogs or at sub-zero temperatures, which is not true in any event with the incorruptible bodies of saints.
Yes I can. These methods to preserve people with embalming or even with an Egyptian method were unknown at the time of most of these saints' death.
You can shake Saint Bernadette's or Saint Vincent de Paul's hand. Their bodies still have no rigor.
The Church allows research teams to investigate the bodies periodically. Of course, open investigation would be bad on two levels: it would impair the veneration of the saints' relics by the faithful and it would not be respectful of the saints to be prying about their corpses all day.
Who's faith is being disputed now?
Saint Gregory Nazianzen has some incorrupt relics that would be about 1600 years old. I suppose Saint Agatha and Saint Cecilia still have their relics in some churches, which are incorrupt from the year 100-200 or so. Many incorrupt relics were destroyed during the Protestant Reformation, but many from before that time period survive in partial form (a hand, a foot, ect.). The oldest other one I know of is about 800 years old.
Well, none of these scientists works for the Catholic Church. Also, scientific studies continue on these miracles; it is not just from 200 years ago.
People do not want to be decieved. Especially in Christianity, which claims to produce miracles. It would make no sense to believe in Christian doctrine unless miracles were produced. There have been people with inquiring minds far before you or I showed up.
I don't see what this has to do with it. My Church did not splinter. My Church has remained unified throughout the centuries.
Except that is not what the definition said. The definiton said that something which cannot be explained naturally is a miracle. It does not mean, "something we don't know the answer to today," but it means something that is naturally impossible, regardless of degree of scientific or technological prowess. Nobody can resuscitate a corpse naturally, nor can one transform naturally bread into flesh and wine into blood, nor can one preserve blood and cardiovascular tissue in open air for 500 years, nor can one instantaneously heal a mortal wound, nor can one regrow a limb spontaneously, nor can one levitate naturally and without exterior aid. Science cannot explain it, ever. It proceeds from an superior source.
God's existence is not proved by miracles, except indirectly. God's existence is known without miracles by reason alone.
It is attributing that which is naturally impossible to God, not just that which is unknown.
What does this have to do with anything? You claimed that sin never affects other people. Sin can and does affect others.
But God did not build our decisions. God built the soul as able to determine itself.
The proof that exists seems adequate for a reasonable person. We don't need to put it on our night table to investigate it.
Anyway, "it's" not locked up in an Italian vault. It is out in the open.
So let's just make up definitions, then.
And knowledge is a reality as well. Knowledge is the habitual possession of truth.
And if we naturally have never observed an inert object, all things are in motion, requiring a mover. It has nothing to do with things having to be proved non-moving, but only to show that motion cannot exist without a mover.
Entropy is more than possible in a closed system. This is why physics speaks of the "heat-death" of the universe. With entropy occurring and no outside energy source to reinvigorate the system, the system inevitably declines in order. Closed system entropy is a readily available topic.
Not perfectly orderly, as in static, but it possesses order. Anyway, this doesn't argue against MEP order, but only for the presence of chaos. If order exists in ordering things toward ends, there must be an orderer. If we want to assume "chaos theory," what seems as chaos spontaneously produces order.
There was no motion, period. Saying there is not motion nor non-motion is a contradiction (and a double negative); you say motion exists and doesn't exist. There was NO MOTION at all. No matter, no energy.
Even if the universe existed eternally, God would still be logically necessary as the eternal cause of the universe. However, I think science tends to show that this is not the case, as the universe arose some 13.7 billion years ago.
God is Himself subsistent existing, which you participate in. God cannot enter into composition with anything by His nature as Prime Mover/First Cause. We only participate in His existence.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Objects in motion require movers to be in motion in the first place.
The same one. God. From the Church's beginnings with Christ, the Catholic Church has always taught that God is the creator of the universe and first cause of the cosmos, without any accompanying cause.
Yes they did. Read, as I said, the Book of Wisdom. Or Genesis. Either suffices, though references are many.
Your assertion was unfounded, not the biography. I do not find your position in this biography.
Faith is not a matter of demonstration. The existence of God, however, is not a matter of faith (except accidentally), and can be demonstrated.
Scripture has many senses and its interpretation is one of the most difficult sciences. I cite Scripture because you do.
I treat the historical parts of Scripture as history, of which the Gospels are clearly part of.
Because the Church determines the canon of Sacred Scripture and the false gospels were rejected, with good reason. However, I would point out that these gospels are not part of the "apocrypha," which is a Protestant term denoting those books from our canon that they reject. Also, your use of the term "history" is ambiguous.
Too bad.
I never used Josephus to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, but to prove that at least Josephus had knowledge of Jesus (assuming interpolation).
The testimony of the eyewitnesses themselves (as many were alive during the lifetime of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, for example), or of tradition in the Church (oral or otherwise).
I don't think it does in any meaningful way. Christ was not a mythical figure for a number of reasons. First among these is the fact that the Apostles could easily have advocated a mythic Christ, and this would have easily won acceptance of their position in the pagan world. However, this did not happen, and the Apostles and early Christians clearly advocated the literal death of Christ on the Cross and His physical resurrection from the dead, both of which were unacceptable.
That is quite different. Christ lived in a society seperate from the educated world of the time. The pagans would care less about the claims of a particular little Jewish man in Palestine. Further, travel to Palestine was a great deal more difficult then than now, which would discourage a great deal of movement to Palestine in the first place.
"Probably assumed by the listeners of his letter," would be more what I meant. Paul's letters were mostly disciplinary in nature to address specific issues in the churches, and his catechesis was performed in person when he visited the churches.
I refrain from giving a definite answer because these things are debated by scholars.
I know what the synoptics are. Whatever a Catholic university teaches is not necessarily Catholic doctrine. But the order of the writing of the Gospels is not a matter of doctrine, anyway. The Church wouldn't officially teach one position rather than another.
One cannot do a "non-thing." It is absolutely impossible because the thing cannot exist.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Okay, let's try again. It makes as much sense to say that an object at rest needs to be put to rest. We can go back and forth with this until you take a physics class, I don't care.
Then what was Aquinas' contribution to dogma with the Summa Theologica? If not for him, you wouldn't have your First Cause/Prime Mover security blanket.
Read them. They're no more impressive than any other religious text. Creation myths and a little poetry. Yawn.
"...not a matter of faith (except accidentally)..." I don't like the look of "except accidentally" in parentheses. Can't explain why, I just don't.
Faith is not a matter of demonstration? Let's try this: Remove anything based on faith from your belief system and tell me what you're left with. So now you say you can "demonstrate" god's existence? Empirically, like we can demonstrate gravity or diffusion? Then please demonstrate. Just keep in mind, crying "First Cause/Prime Mover" over and over does not a demonstration make. If you're planning to try (for the 40th time) to prove god's existence through reason (only to spring faith/revelation when the ride gets bumpy), drop it. It hasn't worked yet.
A difficult science? I agree. Finding truth in the scriptures is right up there with magnetic monopoles. You cite it because I do - but only you think it is a reliable historical source, and simultaneously a reliable basis for your faith. As you have just acknowledged it "has many senses", and is open to "interpretation", it ought not to be considered historically reliable. Let's spend a week citing the Iliad and meditating on its many senses, and see where it gets us.
They are not clearly a part (we've been through this). And (we've been through this too), the gospels differ in multiple details. They cannot all be historically accurate.
By what "good reason" did the church determine this? And if the scriptures are so "clearly historical", why were they still debating what to include in the canon as late as the council of Trent (16th century)?
Ooooh. That hurt.
I don't think it does in any meaningful way. Christ was not a mythical figure for a number of reasons. First among these is the fact that the Apostles could easily have advocated a mythic Christ, and this would have easily won acceptance of their position in the pagan world. However, this did not happen, and the Apostles and early Christians clearly advocated the literal death of Christ on the Cross and His physical resurrection from the dead, both of which were unacceptable.
"...I don't think...in any meaningful way..."
And by sheer coincidence, these myths which predate jesus (and begat their own cults) just happen to also include virgin births, miracles (like water to wine) and resurrection?
If the issue was important enough to land on Pilate's desk, I have to think something would have made it onto record at the time, or at least before the destruction of the Temple 40 years later.
If Paul could write letters, he could write gospels. If the details of the gospels are important enough for you to mention, they should have been important enough for him to mention.
If they're still debating it, and you don't have a definite answer, how about refraining from believing in it?
A god sacrificing himself to himself sounds like a contradiction to me, but hey, he pulled it off, didn't he?
There are no theists on operating tables.