|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Theists, if your god exists and is omniscient and omnipotent...
Posted on: January 9, 2007 - 11:56pm
   Offline
Theists, if your god exists and is omniscient and omnipotent...
...why the hell does he need YOU to defend him?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Hmmm. This is why it's rather hard to convert or deconvert someone from a world view. Correctly understanding an alternative world view is hard. In fact, I get the impression that StMichael is operating from a different dictionary. "Free will," "love," "praise," "reward," "punishment," etc. may have different meanings in different world views.
The Martin Buber "meeting of meanings" becomes rather hard.
As I recall, Dan Barker wrote a chapter on how fundamentalist Christians define terms differently from other people. I'm going to have to go back and read that.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
God is beyond comprehension (perfect understanding of Him), but not knowledge of Him at all. We can know that He exists from natural reason, with certainty. Further, faith, speaking on supernatural grounds, is the ground on which a positive theology can be built, because by Revelation God reveals what He is in Himself.
A rational being, by definition, would have a mind to be rational with and that assumes at least an intellect. Every will, however, is merely the intellectual appetite. Hence, every rational being has a will.
God cannot create a logical contradiction. It is not within the scope of omnipotence. Omnipotence designates to do all things; logical contradictions are "no-things."
A soul is a principle of life in a living being. The human soul is the mind. If you do not have a mind, I see no reason in speaking at all with you.
God cannot bring into existence a logical contradiction because it cannot, by definition, exist.
Sin is a defect in action. Sin itself does not exist, the action itself does. It is a lack of perfection.
Sin is not required with free will. But an omnipotent creator cannot ever make a logical contradiction exist; it is impossible. It is without the definition of what it means for God to be omniscient.
Again, God cannot make a contradiction. Sin necessarily entails an evil result, because it is an evil action. But those things that exist in terms of harm to other human beings exist as a result of original sin (because our original state of justice did not include death, but death was an effect of the loss of that grace).
A belief is a choice. Get over it.
God does not control every aspect of the human being that sins. This is precisely the definition of free will. God wills that the will is free.
Again, omnipotence does not entail making logical contradictions exist. Hell is a necessary correlate of sin and free will. Right and wrong and good and evil flow from the nature of God Himself; He could not have created them differently. Ever. At all. Never ever.
But He did not. You are just asserting that free will does not exist because free will does not exist. Free will is precisely determined by God to be free. He might know every free decision I am going to make, but that does not mean that my decision is not free.
I clarified my answer, which you ignored. God has never been properly axiomatic, because what He is is never perfectly comprehended by human beings. He was evident to them through the original grace in which He created Adam and Eve.
God can't be known in Himself by human nature. He can be known from His effects. I have repeated this so often it's not funny anymore.
Not beyond understanding at all. God is beyond comprehension and perfect understanding of what He is in Himself. He is not beyond knowledge at all, because we can know Him through natural reason - a posteriori. God is knowable, just not in Himself as He is. We can know Him from our end, not His (which would be a priori).
No it isn't. Don't you think it would be a little odd if it was evident to all Catholics that God can never be known at all that they would proceed to speak of Him?
The Pope and the Church Councils have consistently and always defined that God can be known, even without faith, by human reason. You relied on a "paraphrasing" of Fides et Ratio which never appeared in the text. I produced actual texts from the document itself and from other sources of official Catholic dogma, like the First Vatican Council, which clearly defines as dogma that man can know God without revelation through use of his natural reason. If you need it clearer, look it up again. Go back and read my post again. It is apparent that you either never read them or merely dismissed them because you "knew better."
The Catechism overrides anything you want Msgr. Albacete to believe. The Catechism is infallible official Church teaching; Msgr. Albacete is a fallible theologian whose position not need accurately reflect what the Church believes.
There are various sorts of unbelief, as I pointed out earlier. You just ignored them. There is voluntary disbelief, arising from a negligently or intentionally misformed conscience, or from stubornness, which is sinful. Then there is involuntary disbelief, which is not morally culpable.
That was precisely my point. It is a conclusion of natural reason that God exists and that He can reveal truth, and that this is further necessary if we are to attain to perfect happiness in the Beatific Vision (heaven). It is the acme of ignorance to assume that any revelation ought to be rejected without serious inquiry into its claims.
God does not create our choices. God does not determine our choices. God does not determine the outcome of our wills. God does not force us to choose something against our free nature. God does not create good and evil. God does not determine our decisions by His foreknowledge.
God creates us, like a parent, a free agent. He gives us free wills, perfectly free to choose the good. It is our wills that determine their choice, not God. Thus, only we are morally culpable for our decisions, not God.
God even foreknows all our decisions before we make them, but this does not determine them at all. God knows what we will freely do in the future. The famous comparison exists between His knowledge and a man standing on a high hill. He sees from the hill all the people going through the valleys and the places they will go. But His seeing of them does not mean that they are any less free.
This is not a belief then, it is a fact evident to our minds. Belief is not of the same character. Beliefs are something chosen. I can choose to accept or reject even logical evidence thrown at me. I can reject that 2+2=4. I can choose to have the brownie or the cupcake. I can choose against reason; I can choose to have the cake even though I know it's bad for me. I can choose to believe that God is Triune or not. I can choose to believe any number of things according to my freedom. My choices might be limited by my knowledge of choices themselves, but that does not make my will any less free in choosing.
How can I define a unicorn's horn? "A unicorn's horn is a horn on a unicorn..." "AHA! You are unjustifiedly assuming that a unicorn actually exists!" I do nothing of the sort. I define faith as a trust in something as true because of the authority of the one revealing. Religious faith, or trust in God, is merely the species of this that would trust in what God has revealed as true. It does not beg any questions.
Unless you beg the question by asking how I can believe in God, because you then would beg the question of whether God exists, as well as me.
Knowing that God exists is not from faith, but from reason. God is beyond comprehension, but not from being known at all. Again, you are missing these distinctions.
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.
Way to go StMichael. This goes to show how religion and faith can take over a person's logical power and ability to reason.
How do you reach the conclusion that our minds are our souls? Or is that how you definte it?
Sin itself does not exist? Yet we sin? I'm not rejecting this idea, but can you explain it? I can't grasp the concept of something that we do that doesn't exist (in itself?)
Goes to show you have no understanding of what a belief is. A belief is the acceptance of truth, the real acceptance of truth. Your mind accepts truth according to experiences. For example, if you taste an apple, and think you've never tasted something more unique, then you believe there is nothing like it. You can reject the idea of 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean you don't believe it. Reject the idea, but your mind will still answer '4' if I ask you '2+2' because obviously, to you it's been proven. You have accepted the truth according to what you've seen. Your mind doesn't think 2+2=/=4 because you want it to. Belief is not up to us, it's up to our mind's way of taking in what happens to us. You can not honestly choose to believe something unless your mind has a reason to. Can you taste an apple, thinking it's the best fruit, and say "I believe pineaple is the tastiest fruit ever"? You're confusing the notions of "acceptance of truth" with "wishful thinking". Maybe you don't believe something, maybe you just want it to be true. Badly.
Assertion, assertion, assertion. You're being stubborn, I advice you to confess your stuborness next time you go to church. "He does not he does not HE DOES NOT!" Yee-haw, yee-haw.
God does NOT create us like a parent. Parents are not omniscient nor omnipotent, they are nothing like the God you claim exists.
That comparison is invalid. The man standing on a hill didn't create the people nor the valleys. God did. This is what you fail to understand: God created EVERY rule in the game, therefore he is completely, utterly and perfectly responsible for everything (Yes, everything) that happens. God knows everything, so he knows the fate of everything that he created WHILE creating. This means that when he creates a person, he knows he will be an unbeliever (by that person's free [sic] choices) yet he still creates that person. That makes him an evil God, because as you and I know, according to Christianity, 2/3+ of the world is going to hell.
Why? First of all, they barely chose. God gives us no real choice. If I told you 'Kiss my ass or I'll kick the shit out of you' (See Kissing Hank's ass) would you consider you have a choice? There's no free will there, because you are not free to do whatever you want. You are only free to choose between 2 horrible options. Only forced decisions out of complete fear. That's why Christianity holds so many (scared) believers, and that's why it's so hard to get out of that.
Also, what you fail to understand is that God created your mind, and all stimuli that your mind receives is ultimately traced back to God's creation. How is he not responsible for your evil choices? You don't react many ways, now do you? You react one way to things, because that's the way you are. If I point a gun at a person, and that person is frozen by fear, would you tell me that person CHOSE to be paralyzed? He went "Yeah I can be brave and take his gun, or I can be paralyzed and let him kill me. I'll go with paralyzed". That would be ridiculous! EVERYTHING was created by God, including the stimuli you receive ('things' ). Your mind was created by God. Hence the outcome is a direct consequence of God's doing. If the outcome is hell, the only one who is responsible is God.
You have yet to answer to my mouse + labyrinth comparison. You continue to ignore.
That is how I define it.
A sin is a lack of perfection in an act. It does not exist apart from the act. It is, literally in Greek, "missing the mark." It does not itself exist. It exists only in an existing act as a lack. Our actions exist, but the fact that they are sinful is because they lack what they ought - a proper pursuit of the Good.
This is a different definition of belief, then.
The first is a wrong sense of the word "believe." If I say, "I believe there is nothing quite like this," I can mean, "This experience is very good," or, "I do not hold the opinion that another such good exists." Belief could b holding an opinion, but this is different from the belief I speak of in faith. Further, belief as opinon is not necessitated by experience, as I point out later on.
I can believe it not to be proven and not accept any truth based on a premise that 2+2=4. It is not proven to me. I can act irrationally. It has nothing to do with necessity. There is a reason one could, irrationally, doubt that the world exists. This would be an irrational opinion, but a real opinion nonetheless not determined by fact.
But in the last sense, I would agree with you. A true or reasonable belief is not determined arbitrarily. In a manner of speaking, I would even argue that you are completely correct in that a man cannot really think an irrational thing or will an evil directly. :It would never be believed unless it had a reason for belief"; this is Saint Augustine. True religious faith does not exist in an arbitrary manner. It is based on the credibility of the belief itself. Nobody believes the Catholic faith against reason. There is a ground for why we believe what we believe. First, in that it fits with what I know naturally. Second, in that it shows itself forth as a supernaturally instituted religion by reason of its miracles which testify to its God.
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Because it's fun to learn and to teach what I believe to be true in a subject I am interested in.
Parents are like God? Wow.
It's a bad analogy because your supposed God is so much more than just a parent.
Not directly, but he is directly responsible for this outcome. He creates your brain, therefore he is responsible for the way you react. He creates the stimuli (as I said, traced back to his creation) therefore he is completely responsible.
Here is what you can't deny: God knew, when he created an atheist, that that person would end up in hell. He chose to create him anyway.
That's it. That's all I need to conclude that if he existed, he would be an evil bastard.
True. I have no knowledge how many people are going to hell. That's just my prediction. Wait, it's not, that is my would-be prediction if I believed in hell.
I never chose to turn myself as object of my pride. When did I do that?
This my point exactly: he did. Assuming he is omniscient and omnipotent: if he didn't want that to happen, then why did he create man knowing it would happen? Can you answer that?
Excuse me? He didn't attempt to persuade me. He is omnipotent, if he had attempted such thing, he would have.
Sacrifice? What sacrifice? Do you have any proof of the sacrifice? Again, veracity of the bible?
Untrue. According to Christianity, God DOES punish you from turning away from him. So much for your 'peachy' God.
God never offered to me becoming one with him. Sorry, it hasn't happened yet. The bible, humans and all that is different from God.
You please in the way God pleases. Please understand. Your preferrence is traced back to God's. Because he made you. The same works with a person who is going to hell. That person 'chose' that because the way God made him. And because God made everything that makes him choose (stimuli).
I agree. I stand corrected.
How can you prove a mouse possesses no mind? And they do possess free will.
Of course we are not rats in a maze. That's why it was an analogy.
You probably say it's bad analogy and are reluctant to work with it because you know the answer. It is hard to turn away from religion, takes a lot of time and will power. Not everyone is able to do so. I have hope that in the future all the world will.
We call God "Father." God calls Himself "Father" in Scripture. I don't think it that bad of a comparison. God willed our existence out of love. We might act wrongly, but we still are free not to do so.
This only applies if free will is a materially determined characteristic (if free will were merely electrons firing), which it is not. Free will is the exercise of reason in choosing between goods without external coercion.
But this overlooks the fact that God creates the person in love with the free decision to accept or reject Him. God does not abandon the sinner, but offers him His help until the moment of his death. Further, God never creates a person an atheist - it might happen due to the person's choice, but God never creates a person like this.
The parents of humankind did so. They lost grace. Hence, all human nature lost original grace.
I cannot presume to know God's specific reasoning. We know, however, that God created all things in His love and wisdom, and works all things out for the greater good. His love of the person and the possibility that they could be saved would outweigh the consideration that they might reject His divine aid. Even if He knew them damned, that doesn't mean that they couldn't have accepted God's grace.
Persuasion throughout the Revelation of the Old Law and into the New Law of grace with Christ. Further, by your natural reason and the natural law which is written on all men's hearts, He draws all men to love good, and ultimately to love Himself, the uncreated Good.
The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. You know, Christ...cross...death...resurrection...ect.
I don't know what you mean, exactly.
His punishment of us is allowing us to turn away from Him. He allows us to pursue the end which we want because of our free will. This turning away from God is itself the punishment.
Yes, He has. In Christ and His Church, by the Sacrament of Baptism and of the other means of grace in the sacraments, and through His grace.
Again, God makes every stimulus that goes into our brains, yes, but He does not determine the movement of our wills, which is free. God wills that I am free. End of story.
A mouse does not possess free will because a mouse does not have a mind. A mouse possesses a sensitive appetite which follows the dictates of its instinct without rational reflection. A mind is necessary for free will to exist.
Religion has produced most of humanities advancements. Atheism cannot claim nearly as much as religion can. But that is merely a sidenote. It has nothing to do with my will or power to turn away from religion. I believe what the Church teaches and what God has revealed because my reason shows that it is worthy of my belief. I firmly hold that everything the Church teaches is true and I see no way in which it conflicts with any truth of my reason. Christ is Eternal Wisdom.
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'm saying God created your brain. If you are saying that our decisions are influenced by more things than our brain, you will have to prove that.
But I've got news for you. Even if you did prove that, then God would have been the creator too. God is responsible for creating all things. Therefore, he is responsible for creating whatever (Brain, soul, whatever) makes us decide in one way or another.
My argument applies.
God offers no help to sinners. Only men offer help to sinners.
I'm sorry. God creates nothing but atheists. Atheism: Lack of belief in a God or gods. You were born atheist. Whether you consider the start as the first cell or the moment when you're born, you have lack of belief. Only when you grow older you believe or continue 'disbelieving'.
Anyway, can you, or can you not deny what I said in bold on my last post? It's ultimately irrelevant what I'm overlooking or not, if the statement is in fact true. Or are you reluctant to admit your 'loving' God does that?
Right. I love it when Christians compare God to a judge in a courtroom or a man standing on a hill; I could also say 'Would a just judge condemn you because of your grandfather's crimes?'. I don't care about Christ or whatever comes after. The point is that to God, we are all born dirty, and I for one, don't think that's fair AT ALL.
Irrelevant. That doesn't mean God doesn't create people knowing that they will end up in hell, suffering forever. There is no denial on that fact. Sounds like the moral values of a 6 year old playing with plastic soldiers. If you want to worship that tyrant, go ahead. But he's NOT all-loving.
He did not try to persuade me, that is the point. If he chose a freaking 2000 year old book full of contradictions to persuade me, then he has failed. That's very sloppy of him. He doens't draw all men to love good, we know that. Not all men love good. Another mission failed.
I meant there is no proof of any sacrifice, and there is nothing that accounts for the veracity of the bible.
I meant the sacrifice he supposedly did to himself by himself, so he could change something done by himself previously.
What? Allowing us to turn away is a punishment? Do you realise what you are saying? According to that reason, Adam, Eve, Satan, and everyone in the world were born punished. Isn't 'free will' being able to reject God? If that's the punishment, then we are all born punished. I can see he is very sweet.
And he DOES punish us. Nobody sends themselves to hell, at least not directly. He is the one who chooses we suffer in hell eternally, not the sinners. If it were up to the sinners, they would have no punishment at all. Are you so blind not to see this? Or can't you just admit it?
I haven't met Christ.
Is the Church God? Then he hasn't made any offer to me yet.
I am not trying to dispute the fact that you are "free". "End of story"? That's the church and its stubborness right there.
God does determine the movement of your will, indirectly, for reasons I have specificated before; in a nutshell: omnipotent omniscient being who creates everything includes responsibility for creating everything that dictates every man's reactions, plus the acceptance of every man's fate by aforementioned being at the moment of creation, due of the lack of action.
Prove a mind is necessary for free will to exist.
Prove a mouse has no mind.
Lol. It seems somebody is getting touchy.
Religion has not produced most of humanities advancements. That is just an assertion. Science has produced most of our advancements. Just take a look at all science has done for us in the last 100 years.
And for the record, atheism doesn't claim to have done such advancements. Nobody's playing 'Join the better side' here, only you.
Religion, on the other hand, is responsible for every single death in the name of God. 'Holy wars' are because of religion, people dying there is a direct consequence. Inquisition, burning 'witches', hatred towards diversity, and the list goes on.
It was your God that killed literally millions of people in the Bible, and it's due to your God millions have been murdered.
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Note: I did not read one word of the Bible passages for I am not interested in fantasy or fiction when I'm trying to debate rationally. The Bible has little to no veracity to atheists, it's the Christians that consider the Bible as valid argument.
You are being irrational.
Have you noticed how I keep asking you things, and you COMPLETELY ignore them and start preaching? It's very very hard to reason with someone who barely reasons at all. Yee-haw, yee-haw.
I continue to point out God is responsible for our decisions, since he is the creator of everything that has an influence on our own decisions. Whether we choose what we choose or not, it doesn't matter, he still IS responsible. Yet you continue to say "Free will, free will, free will, free will, free will." Would you stop and look at what I'm saying for two seconds? It feels like I'm talking to a wall here. I am NOT debating whether we have a choice or not. I am arguing the responsibility of God in this issue.
My idea, once again (and would you puh-leeze stop preaching):
God is the creator of everything. That includes everything that makes you decide in the way you decide. Therefore, your decisions, although a product of your own reasonings and choices, are a direct consequence of your reasoning methods (brain, soul, whatever), which were created by God. Therefore, God is responsible for the consequences of what he created, as he is responsible for everything he created and acknowledges the fate of such things at the moment of their creation.
In a nutshell: No matter how you put it, every decision you make is due firstly to your own 'design', and on a secondary level, the stimulus your receive; both of which are God's creation. Therefore, he is responsible for the outcome, EVEN when you choose to do whatever you do.
It's not what you should believe, it's what you shouldn't believe. Do you see God anywhere? Can you perceive, with any of your senses, that he is helping someone? Can you conclude logically that GOD HIMSELF is helping anyone? There is no reason to believe that.
What the Jolly Babble says is irrelevant. There is no veracity in the Scriptures.
If you mention 'free will' one more time my head is going to explode.
Prove God creates people with minds which are oriented towards Him.
Prove our entire goal in life is God.
Prove our wills and our minds are naturally oriented toward 'truth' and 'goodness' (you will have to define those terms while you're at it).
Prove a baby, or a person who has just been born, has ANY reason to believe there is a God. Prove that they even WONDER about that.
This is nothing more than naked assertions.
I observe no grace in the human race. To the Invisible Sky Daddy, I was born dirty. We are all born sinners. To me that's filthy. I'm just a filthy pig
I did not lose any grace. I had no grace in the first place. And if some naked chick in a garden lost her grace, it's not either my bussiness or my fault.
I never said that. You fail at reading.
Yes. It was. Read above for 'God's responsibilities'.
I have heard the tale a million times, thank you.
Let's see...
"...as we were truly intended to be."
This would mean, God had an intention, but things turned in a way that was NOT his intention. An omnimax, perfect being can not have things turning in a way he didn't want them to. God has failed.
"That is why He sent His Son to accomplish our redemption."
Hmm. God sent his Son (himself) to accomplish his own creation's redemption. Am I redeemed? How many people in the world are redeemed? If some of us are not redeemed, then Jesus has faied. God has failed.
Prove it.
God did not reveal himself to me. The Universe revealed itself to me. I have no reason to believe the Universe is God.
You can not prove there is any moral law of Sky Daddy "implanted in my heart", as corny as it may sound.
God did not give me the Gospel and the Church. Men did. Men are not God. Therefore, God has not given me anything.
And the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says otherwise. I don't care what the Scriptures say. There's just stuff written by our ignorant ancestors, 2000 years ago, which contain many contradictions and therefore have no veracity as a whole.
Is Jesus God? You have certainly said so. Therefore:
God's obedience in His Passion was offered to God for our salvation out of charity and pleased God so that it satisfied for all sin, past, present, and future. I see no contradiction.
Hm. "I am so good, I will sacrifice myself to myself, to be satisfied."
Also, what you are saying is untrue. God is NOT satisfied for all sin past present and future. God is NOT satisfied at all. He continues to demand things, if he doesn't do it for sins, then why does he do it?
This is why religion fails. It demands desperate rationalizations for things which should be perfectly clear.
Turning away is the punishment? For what? I thought I turned away because I wanted to. I thought you were punished for turning away, not that turning away itself was the punishment. If turning away is the punishment, then he just gave Satan, Adam, and Eve a 'choice to be punished'. Does that seem logical to you?
You continue to ignore.
I'm sorry. You are truly mistaken.
1) A finite act towards an infinite being does not deserve infinite punishment. A finite act, towards whatever it may be, deserves a finite punishment. Infinite punishment refers to infinite acts, or, in this case, infinite injustice.
2) It IS God's choice to put us in hell. Do sinners choose to go to Hell? NO. Their choice is in their LIVES. I choose to live my life however I please. If that means something else, it means that's an EFFECT of my choice, not my choice itself. The fate of their souls is ultimately judged by God.
God is the only judge who can send you to Hell, or Heaven.
You fail to understand the difference between choice and consequence. Hell is a consequence, CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF, for our choices. He is responsible for creating Hell, or is he not?
The Bible clearly states Heaven is a place. With roads, and stuff like that. To say they are 'dispositions of the soul' is to contradict your own book.
What is the veracity of the Church? If I say I speak of God, would you believe me? Of course not. The fact that they say they speak for God means nothing.
Free will again? Revise your reading skills.
I don't see how independence has anything to do with anything, as God created everything. He created all agents.
For further (mis)understanding of my argument, I would refer you to the following post. My words, even though repeated incessantly, continue to fail in making you see my point, therefore I will quote a post by "BobSpence1" who illustrates the point clearly.
"Every choice we make can only be based on our basic urges, our current emotional state, our reaction to what we perceive, in the context of our past experience, our memory, current understandings, our current desires, and our assessment of how best to achieve those current goals. These all seem to be things which we don't actually choose in themselves, although many will be at least partly the result of previous choices.
If we 'chose' some course of action that we have been told by Someone not to pursue, that can only because we perceive that it will make us happier in some way, or else it's just that our basic urges have overcome our conscious judgment. In the first case, if we have have made an incorrect assessment, then our judgment is flawed, in the second case our basic make-up is flawed in that our basic urges are too strong and ultimately harmful. Either way, our poor choice is due to our flawed 'design'. The mere fact that our perceptions and capacities to analyse the ultimate consequences of our actions are finite, limited, means that it is virtually inevitable that we will make mistakes.
If Hell is something that no creature would consciously chose, then any choice that lead to that would be an error of judgment, reflecting those finite and limited faculties. If we have some overwhelming primal emotional drive which leads to such errors of judgment, that is hardly something we chose, it is a flaw in our basic make-up.
No matter how you cut it, such 'bad' actions can only be due to built-in flaws. So 'God' has to take ultimate responsibility."
If you want to address his post, please refer to http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=6
You still fail to prove a mouse has no mind. Assertion, assertion, assertion... zzz
What the fuck? Learning was virtually invented by religion? That is the single most outrageous statement I have ever heard by a theist in my entire life. Learning is something humans have been able to do since their dawn as species. To say the cause of it is religion is completely nonsenical. In fact, the opposite applies. Religion filled many gaps of knowledge, as I'm sure you are aware. Things we can't explain were justified by religious (fictional) causes. That STOPS humans from trying to find the cause of something, as in their mind, it already has a cause. Religion is what offers false answers, therefore it keeps us away from the truth. This is exactly the reason why religion will not exist in the future. I expect christianity to die relatively soon, but religion might take a while. As science explains more and more, we will find out the need for a Sky Daddy is diminishing at an accelerating rate. His role is smaller with each passing day. Of course, the Church doesn't want to be forgotten so they make up threats like Hell (which was created over time, making it a worse threat as time passed because people needed religion less and less) and that's the main reason people still cling to religion. Fear, and ignorance. That's what religion feeds on.
"Universities were invented by the Catholic Church". Refer to any book (even wikipedia if you like) to check the veracity of this statement. Universities were by no means 'invented' by the Catholic Church.
First of all, you fail to deny religion's responsibility (my claim). That should do it, yet you use the childish argument of 'I'm not the only one!".
Second of all;
False and naked assertion.
Thirdly, atheism is not responsible for deaths 'in the name of science and progress'. While atheists tend to uphold science, science never, ever claimed to 'kill', let alone 'in the name of atheism'.
Was Nazism in the name of atheism? No.
Was communism in the name of atheism? No.
Abortion, eugenics, all 'in the name of disbelief in a God'? These are not only naked assertions, but ludicrous statements.
Religious killings were all in the name of one deity or the other. These killings you mention, such as genocide, have absolutely nothing to do with 'disbelief in a god'. You fail to understand the meaning of 'atheism'.
Does that mean he didn't kill millions? No. He still did, whether he has the right or not. He killed millions in the Bible, you can't deny that.
Then God is one immoral bastard. Didn't he order to kill your rebellious teenage children? You've read the Bible, you are familiar with cherry picking.
God killed people for ridiculous reasons, and not only that- but he ORDERED many to kill. I'm sure you are VERY aware of the killings he committed, plus the killings he ordered- but if you want to play the innocence game like all Christians do, I'll be happy to find many passages in the Bible which clearly illustrate these events.
Note: I do not read one word of any discussion by an atheist dealing with what the Bible says for I am not interested in his fantasy or fiction in interpreting what the Scriptures say when I'm trying to debate rationally. The Bible has little to no veracity to atheists, so don't argue against Christians that consider the Bible as valid argument if you refuse to answer objections.
OK, assuming we have free choice, God is not responsible because our wills are free from God's interference. Our wills are independent moral agents.
But God does not create my decisions themselves. I create my decisions. They flow from my free will. He might cause them to exist, but He causes them to exist as MINE, not as HIS. There is a big distinction. God has no moral responsibility for MY actions.
First, I do "see" God in His effects in nature. Things are in motion, ect. Second, I can deduce that as He created man for grace, He does help by His grace. Nothing nature does is in vain, ect. Third, it depends what you mean by "helping," as it is clear that God orders all things by His wisdom and Providence by natural reason: His intellect knows all things perfectly and His will orders all things according to His perfect knowledge. Hence, yes, by His Providence God helps people.
Our minds naturally know truth as an intellectual good. God is the ultimate cause of truth itself. Our minds are ordered toward God as the Truth itself as their ultimate good.
Our wills desire not merely a finite created good, but Goodness taken universally. The only such Good exists in Goodness itself, which is God. Hence, the end of human willing lies in God.
Our wills only will the good. This is axiomatic, as our will is our desire of something. But the good exists as something that is desired. So the will can only desire that which is desirable. Thus, the will wills only the good.
Similarly, the mind can only know something as true. It cannot truly know something as false, as a false thing in itself is a nothing. Falseness denotes a lack of conformity between the intellect and reality. Thus, our minds only know truth, because only something that is at least somehow true can be intelligible.
I think it is apparent that all men naturally wonder about God because they wonder about the causes of things. This eventually comes to a wondering of something like God. Further, the world testifies that a God exists. There exist things in motion, ect.
OK, but this is just an assertion then. And sin can only exist in relation to God. If you want to speak about Christian doctrine in this way, don't pervert it and read what I write next time. Otherwise you merely exemplify irrationalism.
You did not because our first parents lost that. Unless of course you were baptized, in which case you would have grace in your soul when you were baptized.
God has two senses in which He wills things: primary and contingent. It is His primary will that man be happy forever in Paradise. However, His contingent will is that such happen by way of free choice.
His Son is a different Person but the same substance. You are not redeemed, presumably, because you have not accepted His grace. God has not failed, because, again, this redemption is won on two levels: first, because the Cross did win all the graces necessary for the satisfaction of all sins ever committed, and second, because His redemption is contingent on our free will.
I never said the universe is God. You can see from the universe, however, that things are in motion, ect. and the unmoved mover is hence necessary.
Your will can only desire the good, by defintion of the desirable as the good. This leads to a discovery of moral truths based on the fact that we known that we ought to "pursue the good and avoid the evil." The question becomes "what is good and evil?" and the intellect can discover a great deal about this.
Of course, that is just your contention. If God is the motive force of the Church, He has.
No contradictions exist in the Scriptures which are not able to be solved.
Again, Persons versus substance. Also, "...[one] properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured...."
What does this have to do with anything? God has recieved satisfaction for sin, but we have not yet cooperated with grace. By analogy, if we have a large debt, and someone gives us enough money to pay that debt, we still must actually pay that debt in order for it to actually be forgiven, though it be potentially so.
Yes. It does. Either God or a created good. They chose the created good.
If I commit an act of murder against a president rather than against a common citizen, the latter demands a greater punishment. The object of the offense determines the gravity of the punishment. But the finite created object to which the will turns likewise requires a sort of finite satisfaction (which is why the Catholic Church acknowledges the satisfaction for this by good works, indulgences, Purgatory, ect.).
Your choice is made for something that is not the infinite Good. Hence, you choose hell.
God did not create hell. Hell is more a state of soul rather than a physical place. Hell is a consequence, but it is a consequence from the nature of the act itself, not from God's damning you (in a sense, they are the same).
I ignore your reference to my "Jolly Babble." Apparently, referring to my text to defend myself cannot be done without offending your wee sensibilities.
The fact that they prove it makes all the difference. Aka, "Is it easier to say 'your sins are forgiven' or 'rise and walk?' So that you may know the Son of Man has the power on earth to forgive sins, I say to you, 'Rise and walk.'" Miracles prove the Church's divine institution.
But He creates them as free agents. He wills not to determine their choices. It makes ALL the difference.
And? I only need to prove that YOU AND I do!
Stop being such an superficial reader. Learning is another word that can mean "knowledge of letters," or "education," ect.
Only if you assume that its conclusions are false does the argument follow. Otherwise, religion fills a gap of knowledge that cannot be filled by scientific knowledge or philosophical knowledge or mathematics or any other naturally known science.
That is a totally and utterly ridiculous statement. If you are waiting for the demise of religion, you're gonna have to wait right until the angel blows his trumpet, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. Further, the Catholic Church is the longest standing institution in history, far outlasting any earthly civilization. Keep that in mind when you are waiting. It ain't going nowhere.
Or, of course, bigger as the case may be. Don't be so biased. If you are Catholic, of course, our increasing knowledge of the complexity of the natural universe gives us an ever-increasing look at the intelligence which created the universe and His goodness.
That's of course your assertion. You can provide no historical evidence to support your claim that "worse threats of hell" developed over time. It is total nonsense. Further, most people don't cling to religion out of fear. I challenge you to ask the average believer, including Protestants, why he believes in God. I can almost guarantee that most people you ask would say something like, "Because God fulfills me somehow."
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman
Marrone, Steven P. “Medieval Philosophy in Context: Monastic Discipline
and Scholarship,” in Cambridge Companion to Medieval Studies. A.S.McGrade editor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
I quote from the Wikipedia article on Medieval Universities:
"The predecessor of the modern university found its roots in Paris, [which, by the way, was founded by Papal decree] especially under the guidance of Peter Abelard, who wrote Sic et Non ("Yes and No"By the 13th century, almost half of the highest offices in the Church were occupied by degreed masters (abbots, archbishops, cardinals), and over one-third of the second-highest offices were occupied by masters. In addition, some of the greatest theologians of the High Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas and Robert Grosseteste, were products of the mediaeval university.
The development of the mediaeval university coincided with the widespread reintroduction of Aristotle from Byzantine and Arab scholars and the decline in popularity of Platonism and Neoplatonism in favour of Aristotelian thought." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university
It is a non-unique argument. Humanism and atheism is most certainly more bloody than religion has ever been; and atheism has only had a few years to reign compared to my religion.
Um, yes! If you are not totally uninformed, the basis behind both national socialism and communism is atheistic materialism. The dedicated goals of both of these parties was more or less to stomp out religion as inimical to "progress" and "science."
Eugenics arose as a predominant science from an atheist humanist who was a disciple of Charles Darwin.
“Your book drove away the constraint of my old superstition, as if it had been a nightmare.”-- Sir Francis Galton, letter to Darwin, recorded in Life and Letters of F. Galton (1914) In abortion, modern abortion was pushed most fervently by such atheists as Margeret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She also, coincidentally, happened to be in good standing with Hilter and her theories were implemented in the Reich's policies.That's a good one. Extermination of one people as inferior to another is found consistently in atheism, as "science" can define whatever life is below your own to be whatever you like. I point out as well extreme environmentalists, usually tied to atheism, who encourage the destruction of the human species as a cancer on the planet.
It does not matter because God cannot properly murder anyone. If God exists, which you of course are assuming for the purpose of argument, He grants and takes away all life and thus has is the only agent who can properly take away life without infringing on the creature's rights. Murder does not apply to God - it doesn't make sense.
Anyway, why should I respond as you are referencing my "Jolly Babble?" I obviously have no way to defend myself against such a terrific attack of supreme intelligence.
No. He did not.
First, even if He did, it would be justified because all moral authority derives from Him in this area especially. Second, He did not order irrational deaths; I contend your interpretation of Scripture is awful and superficial. Third, why should I respond to your use of the "Jolly Babble" as obviously I have no way to respond?
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Ora Pro Nobis, Sante Pater Dominice, Ut Digni Efficiamur Promissionibus Christi!
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
because for all of its power and greatness they speak of, it is the most childish being in existance (suppsosedly)
The problem is, you use your Bible to support your claims. Therefore, I'm not doing anything invalid when I point out that by your own Bible, there are problems, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc., because you think it's right. It is invalid however, tell me something is "because the Bible says so", because I do not believe in the Bible. That's the difference. You do, so for you, what the Bible says applies (as you want to follow it). I don't, so to me, it doesn't.
I am done with this argument as you are in complete denial. It's been thoroughly explained and if you want to look away, it's your "free will."
Here it goes again...
True, God does not create your decisions themselves. But god creates everything that CAUSES your decisions, whether it's your choice or not. By creating all the causes, he is responsible for the effects.
I think you have the objections to the "first cause" argument perfectly clear to you. I can not do anything but hope you figure it out on your own. His Noodly Appendage knows I've tried.
Personally, I find no reason to believe this. I don't know if there's a flaw, but to be honest, I don't care. To me, it's pure assertions, from the first sentence: "Our minds know..."; "God is..."; "Our wills will...". I will not ask you to back up these assertions, as there is no point. I've found there are many more reasons why we wouldn't agree in the end, despite this particular matter.
1) If it's "all men", it's not "all babies" (or did you mean that too?)
2) All men wonder first, they don't believe.
3) Not all men think "the world testifies that a God exists" (I've heard your argument and you claim to know things not even quantum scientists know. You are obviously trying to come up with some weird rationalization to fill in the gaps your God forgot to explain)
I think we can safely conclude, that everybody is born atheist, and probably is atheist for a significant time of their early life. Wondering comes before believing.
You ignore the matter. I'm not asking for a lesson about God. I'm asking if you can deny, that by your own statements, God wills something that is not? Refer to the argument you quoted.
I don't care who his son is. And I'm not redeemed, so therefore not everyone is redeemed. I'm asking you again, if you can deny, that by your own statements, God wills something that is not? Refer to the argument you quoted.
I disagree. I claim to have no knowledge of the Universe's beginning, if there was one. I think nor should you.
If you define "good" as "benefitial towards men" and "evil" as "harmful to men", then yes. But there is no reason to believe I get those concepts from God. There is however, logical reason to believe I don't.
No contradictions? That's a very bold statement.
Surely you don't want me to cut and paste all the contradictions found online. Therefore I will not. Even if I did, I wouldn't want you to try and resolve every single one of them. I shall pick rather trivial ones:
1) Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
- II Samuel 6:23
The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
- II Samuel 21:8
2) If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.
- Deuteronomy 25:5
If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing... they shall be childless.
- Leviticus 20:21
3) I'll quote this one that I found on a webpage (given upon request)
"A second major difficulty associated with the Resurrection lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred. The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the events connected with the Resurrection:
A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)
C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)
E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).
F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).
G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).
If the stories were consistent, one could write one long continuous narrative incorporating all four versions without fear of divergencies. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument which is quite irrelevant since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming inerrancy."
Regarding the veracity of the Bible, let's just take one story, out of all. How do you explain the Flood? It says water covered the Earth, yet I think science has told us that can't have happened at all. Furthermore, there are incoherences regarding the animals (like penguins, koalas, etc) Can you solve that? How can you satisfactory explain that story happened? Or is the Bible making it up?
That means God is not satisfied.
Except God has given me nothing, and if I don't "pay the debt" I suffer forever in hell. Bad analogy.
It does? So to you, God gave them a choice to be punished, and that's logical with an all-loving God? "You're fine, but I'll give you a choice to be punished." Ok. Up to opinion then.
Indeed, if I kill the president, it's greater punishment than just any murder. But the object of the offence does not necessarily determine the gravity. If I kill millions of worthless people, I will still probably be sentenced to death.
There is one MAJOR flaw with this argument, even if I agreed on the fact that the object of offence determines gravity... The problem here, is that I'm NOT killing God. I'm just "walking away" from him. If I walked away from the president, nothing would happen. Even if I offended the president, rejected whatever gifts he made me, spits in is face, denied him as a president; worst thing they could do would be some time in jail (finite; for spitting probably) and maybe cast me out of the country- where I certainly don't burn forever. See why it's a bad analogy?
We are adressing this in another thread (your stubborness to admit Hell is not a choice, but a consequence, that is)
Untrue. Jesus descended into Hell ("Harrowing of Hell"
, that's what the Bible says. YOUR Bible.
And God is the creator of all things. Including Hell.
You're not offending me. You're also not denying that you're saying things that contradict the Bible.
There is no scientific evidence of the Chuch speaking from God, as there is no scientific evidence of God existing, let alone him "talking", however metaphorical that may be.
I have yet to see any miracles proven.
Is that how it is, or is that how you would like it to be? I will not refer to the same argument again, it's boring. You certainly do know how to repeat yourself. Free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will.
No. You said my analogy of the mouse and the maze was not a good one because "mouses have no mind". That makes that an assertion.
And has it not (and continues to) offer conclusions that are/were false? We have evidence that has happened (not for Christianisty in particular, but for religion in general)
That's your opinion. In my opinion, it is quite obvious people will eventually discard religion as part of their lives. To me, it's only a matter of time. I'm sure that by "Christ, infinite wisdom" you know everything in the world and you're never ever wrong (as you continue to prove to this very moment), and of course you know this too.
The majority of people in the world are not Catholics. Therefore it is irrelevant what people think of Sky Daddy's role if they're such a minority. I'm not biased, it's just that the majority of the world will need it less and less. I'm glad at least Asia is virtually free of your God. Of course they're all just going to Hell. They're the majority of the world, yet you Christians are still right. Entire ancient asian civilizations are wrong.
Yes, it is my assertion. Simply by the fact that a God such as yours wouldn't need the idea of Hell, I conclude that if he existed, the notion was invented by humans. It's my assertion, unfounded as it may be for you, I believe it to be true.
The believers think God fulfills them. And that's probably because they've got used to the idea of fear by now. It usually works with children, that's why it's a complete abuse to raise them Christian.
That's "Medieval University". I would encourage you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University Section "History".
It seems history tells to each of us a different story
I don't care. It was not in the name of atheism.
If it doesn't matter to you, that your so called ever-loving God killed millions in what you consider to be the "holy" book, that's your bussiness.
Ok. Your Bible says:
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
and:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Do you Christians follow those rules? Then you cherry-pick. Sorry.
Refer to specifications above of the "Holy Bible".
On a more personal note, I think we will go on forever. I'm not sure I will still argue your answers. I'm tired of this, and I think it will never end
It's way too big. I might have to agree to disagree, or let someone else take over. To be perfectly honest, you seem like a nice guy, but I don't even know why I'm doing this 
To my personal opinion, you have failed (and continue to) to address certain matters that are to me, crucial and I thereby mantain my position. The rest doesn't matter (although I still consider they haven't been solved) as long as those remain unresolved.
Let's just say, I have enough evidence for myself
QuadrivialMind, I think I would have to agree, continuing to 'debate' StMichael, seems fruitless. He has medieval understanding of both science and religion, a deeply confused and hostile conception of Atheism, and shows no sign of grasping any of the points we attempt to make.
StMichael, you are obviously deeply committed to your position and beliefs, but you present nothing that we haven't heard before except you present it in a much more confusing manner. Nothing that makes much sense to me at any level.
Sure, if I could get myself into the strange, ancient world-view of the authors of scripture, it would probably make sense to me, but I much prefer to taken advantage of the vast improvement in our understanding of both Man and the Universe at large, in the millenuium or so since those writings were set down.
I am as comfortable as I could expect to be with my view and understanding of the world and human society, but happily continue to learn from people who offer fresh insights into the nature of things. Based on your posts, the last thing we can expect to hear from you is fresh ideas, yours were tired centuries ago. Sorry.
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
Essential points of the discussion:
Point 1: God determines all action, hence He determines my action even though I have the ability to choose.
Answer: God does not determine our action. This is precisely the point. Despite all causes or exterior events that might influence our decisions, our decisions are still free. We can still will to do this or that in any circumstance.
Point 2: All claim about God's existence from cosmology is merely a "god-of-the-gaps" argument.
Answer: This is false because our proof would only be such if it existed purely on the realm of science or physics. However, the proof is metaphysical in nature, not scientific. If I were making an argument that the cat gets hot because of buggles that come from the sun, this would be truly an argument that is "god-of-the-gaps," as I attempt to fill in what is properly scientific knowledge with a theory which is unscientific in nature. However, science only treats of things in the universe and of the universe itself. The cause of the universe's existence is a topic of enquiry that is beyond physics - it is metaphysical. We can know things in a certain manner from logical deduction about the nature of being. In this way, we can come to a knowledge of God's existence from the fact that things are in motion, changing, and hence require a mover.
Point 4: The Scriptures contain apparent contradictions.
Answer: While I think that all of those which you presented have more or less obvious solutions, I don't think it is a productive effort to argue about it. We do not both hold the same opinion about the veracity of Scripture, so it seems pointless.
Point 5: Knowledge of God is purely derived from the Bible, or Scripture.
Answer: This is not true, as God's existence can be known naturally. Likewise, faith itself can never contradict the truths known to natural reason because both derive from the same source.
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 dont understand why a persons opinion about the truth of the bible would make a discussion about it pointless. I mean if it's true then any reasonable person could be convinced. It sounds almost like you are saying that to accept it you have to believe it first. If you already believe it then what's the point?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Well, the Bible is not self-evident. The Bible is a means of Revelation. It is, in fact, a record of Revelation. It is not a proof for God's existence. It deals of things that human reason cannot attain on its own power. It therefore really cannot be argued within by someone who cannot accept its principles. Likewise, I would not use the Bible as a proof to prove anything where the person I am proving to does not accept the Bible as an authority.
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.
Yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it. If it was then there would be no point in discussing the veracity of claims made in it.
If it's a means of revelation and it's accurate then it would be proof of god's existence.
Yeah, that's what I said to accept it you have to believe it first. The only reason that I brought this up is because reasonable people usually have a difficult time rejecting things that are empirically true. So when you say that it's pointless to even discuss the issue it sounds like you mean that people here are so unreasonable that they won't accept the facts when they are presented, either that or you have doubts about it yourself. Of course I don't want to put words in your mouth or assume that I know what your thoughts are, that's just the impression that I get.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
What about miracles? When miracles happen he's taking away free will right there.
Actually if evolution is true then we would have come from the earth (dirt)God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.
-Francis Collins
Yeah, I already ran out of patience. I'm glad someone else took over. I guess we're going to do this in tag-teams?
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I never claim it as a self-evident work, nor is it such. It would be evident only because of two things, which are precisely the grounds on which we recieve Revelation: [a] compatibility with reason, and [b] miracles/prophecies.
But, further, I think it rather silly to discuss Scripture with someone who doesn't accept the principles of the work's authority in general. I could merely speak of how the Church interprets it and why such an interpretation is necessary from the text, but I don't think that topic really gets us anywhere.
No it would not. It would be circular reasoning if we were to show God's existence by a text whose authority relies on God's power as revealer of the text.
I do not mean that you are not rational people. It's just a bad place to hold a conversation on something we cannot mutually agree on. I find it preferable to speak from philosophically demonstrated principles and work from there to Revelation.
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.