[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
evolutionary construct[/quote]
Likely not.[/quote]
Is this because you don’t believe macro-evolution can happen or another reason?[/quote]
I am not really hip on Macro-evolution, I’ve read some stuff on it, but they all say the same. But, I’ll say that morals are not a evolutionary construct because they come from God.
^
Can’t argue with you on that one.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
To those who state why isn’t the universe the uncaused, the universe is not the first cause because one of the properties of the first cause is that its eternal, the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Pat’s argument is not that everything has a cause but that as one follows the casual chain it cannot have an infinite regress and the logical conclusion is you start with a first cause. Why not more than 1 uncaused cause? Occum’s razor say not to multiply entities beyond necessity.
Hey krsoneeeee you going to respond to my reply on page 30?[/quote]
For all we know the universe is “eternal” too, for the very reason that it requires a universe for “time” and “causality” to exist.
The idea to apply ideas that require a universe to exist to a time, well not before, but without a universe is flawed.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???
Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.
One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …
Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.
[/quote]
I think you confuse the difference between doing something in the name of Christianity and atheist not condemning an action.
Christians condemned Stalin, Hitler, &c. Atheism did not. Being silent on a subject is the same as doing it yourself.[/quote]
I don’t understand what you mean? - christians codmened stalin and hitler? (who gives a F what christians have done its not like they’re judge and jury)
???Maybe atheists can separate their beliefs from a situation where as christians, clusping for anything that will attack atheism, cant.
You need to understand that atheism usually has nothing to do with a lot of the things people blame upon it.
I don’t believe in your religion, but you dont believe in, say, Hindu. SO how are we any different…
On a side note, not sure if this has been brought up but Australia actually has an atheist Prime Minister now - She is a very intelligent woman too.
[/quote]
Let me congratulate you on your intelligent PM. Who gives a fuck about what Christians have done? A lot of people, atheism in America is a direct denial of the Christian God. Kind of strange to say you do not care about something that your world view is based on being against that thing.
That’s like me saying I do not care about communism, but I am anti-communist and I will tell everyone and argue with everyone about it. But I do not give a fuck about it.[/quote]
You took it out of context mate - i said who cares that christians codemned stalin. - if you had of said, an independent body, maybe the UN, condemned stalin of his crimes due to the fact he was atheist maybe that would hold up - but saying christians said this “…” means nothing. In fact christians should be the last people to “condemn” anyone.
[/quote]
Not just Christians, but Catholics. Like that society that is headquartered in the Vatican City, that so many people love to hate. Why should Christians be the last people to condemn anyone.[/quote]
Because of their obvious bias. Just the same, i would say atheist or any group of people for that matter should be the last people to condemn anyone, hence “an independent body”…
[/quote]
Isn’t that ad hominem abuse? What does it matter that the Catholic Church is religious when it comes to the legitimacy of their condemnation?
[/quote]
Because you are assuming the legitimacy of their condemnations, are legitimate. You said earlier the church condemned stalin’s atheism as the reason he did evils, where as Im pretty sure there is no evidence to support this. Where as there are many citation’s of religion being the reason for MANY evil acts.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.
Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]
Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]
What religion though, when making a conclusion (even without proper premises), one should not use abritrary words.[/quote]
You know full well that there is no irrefutable evidence against the existence of a god. (hence your confidence in telling people to prove it) - But if you’re worth half your weight in the amount of times you posted here, youll know the same can be said for your side of the argument. However, YOU are the one making accusations that there is a magic man who can create universes, so the responsibility lies on you to prove it. (why would i follow a religion that has no evidence to support it, (unless i had been brainwashed into it by my parents at a young age))[/quote]
Yes, I understand that there is an assumption that needs to be assumed. Thomas Aquinas referred to it as faith.
Please, if you will, let’s not use ad hominems and appeal to emotion because I am tired of listening to them and am ready to start ignoring people. God is not magic, Catholics are not superstitious. God is not man, he is being. Plus you show your age with comments like “magic man.” And, God isn’t on stage in Vegas seven nights a week.
If we are being completely rational I suppose that with the two arguments (although I have never heard of a good argument for God not existing, usually it is to complex for a person to explain it to me without having to pick up a book to read out of) that an agnostic would be most rational. That there is no proof of God, there for I can neither say he is real or not real.
However, I present the questions:
Is it more rational to think something came from nothing, or that there was an uncreated creator who formed universe?
From my short study in cosmology, mathematically speaking it is impossible for the universe to happen by chance.
Being in the Catholic Church, no I don’t. It doesn’t scare me, it is actually pretty cool. I offer you a challenge, five pieces of science that goes against the Catholic Church.
No, I do not get the idea, sorry I am being difficult. I just am not good with inferences. Guess that is why my woman get’s upset at me so much.
Not really, I am not Catholic by chance. There is a specific reasons why I am Catholic. And, I think .333 of the world that follows the same religion is not a coincidence. I live in a heavy populated Protestant and Mormon area. Matters what part of town you are in if you will deal with the Mormons or if you’ll deal with the Protestants.
Fill my boots, I’m not sure what this means. And, I didn’t know this was an opinion thing, I thought we brought logic and fact to the table. Oh well.[/quote]
Assume and you make an ass out of you not me 
- I dont really know what to reply we seem to be getting off topic.
And i cant believe you said something about my age? and then went on to say “I thought we brought logic and fact to the table”.
I shall search for some good points to discuss my friend
[/quote]
Show your age = figure of speech. [/quote]
I know what it means, but it’s a saying usually used to patronise… which goes against what you were trying to say about logical discussions…
Chris,
you seem to confuse creation and causation
two different concepts.
God (in catholic theology) did not create himself at any point of time. He always existed, yet he is cause of himself (logically, not chronologically).
if not, He is not omnipotent and theology would be impossible as a science because we can’t articulate a rational discourse about an uncaused (and therefore undetermined) thing.
[quote]
God is not caused. Sorry, you should pick up T. Aquinas and some other Catholic doctors if you think that is what the Church teaches. God is the First Cause, which is uncaused.[/quote]
(the christian) God is the First Cause, which is uncreated, and caused by His own will, or Word.
Thomas Aquinas say “god is uncaused” in his Summa, yes.
but in this text, he is reffering specifically and explictly to the concept of efficient cause, as defined by Aristote.
this can be applied to the concept of material cause too. for obvious reasons.
but this can not be applied to the concepts of formal cause and final cause without absurdity.
if God is not formal cause of himself, then he is not omnipotent.
if God is not final cause of himself, then he is not omniscient.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Either you cannot read, you don’t want to, or you are just responding without having done so.
Please re-read what I wrote and respond to what I actually said, not some imaginary dialog that you want to hear me saying.
I’m one post away from abandoning this argument if you continue to refuse to respond in good faith.
[/quote]
SORRY MR “IM FUCKING AWESOME” - but I think the miscommunication is probably more likely due to this form of medium being unable to convey the message ie tone etc etc
I think I addressed some of the issues you wrote about so maybe we should both re-read it?
The only thing I didnt talk about was the fact you dont want to compare religion and science but I think that is at the core of what we are talking about.
[/quote]
See Cortes, already getting angry responses.[/quote]
Im not angry - his first few sentences? what was the point in attempting to patronise me when Im pretty sure each of my paragrah’s corresponded directly to each of his.
The reason religion has lasted so long is that people love to loved and hate to be hated - you “taking his side”, forming a group, and ensuing im angry is a prime example. ridiculous. If you read what i wrote its in a very mild tone, or at least thats how I intended it to be conveyed…
anyway we’re off topic…Im still searching for some good NEW topics
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?
and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]
Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]
How can you accept this and not accept the premise that the universe is uncaused?[/quote]
Because the universe doesn’t have the characteristics, plus things die. And if the universe were uncaused then itself couldn’t die and nothing begot of the universe could die.[/quote]
By your logic nothing begot of God should be able to die.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]
Theology is not a science.[/quote]
Um, yes it is.[/quote]
No, it isn’t.[/quote]
Yes, it is.[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.
[quote]
By your logic nothing begot of God should be able to die.[/quote]
that’s actually what the christian dogma teach.
innitialy nothing begot of God was able to die.
Adam and Eve were created immortals.
but they were also created free.
and they sinned.
and so we die.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]
Theology is not a science.[/quote]
Um, yes it is.[/quote]
No, it isn’t.[/quote]
Yes, it is.[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.[/quote]
Extracted, squeezed out, pared and boiled down to its absolute essence, this little exchange really is the true embodiment of PWI, isn’t it?
Beautiful. If there were a “first mover” of PWI, I feel like I just caught a glimpse of him.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]
Theology is not a science.[/quote]
Um, yes it is.[/quote]
No, it isn’t.[/quote]
Yes, it is.[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.[/quote]
Extracted, squeezed out, pared and boiled down to its absolute essence, this little exchange really is the true embodiment of PWI, isn’t it?
Beautiful. If there were a “first mover” of PWI, I feel like I just caught a glimpse of him.
[/quote]
Is there a thread where the Mods actually thought: “Holy shit, this lunatics are overrunning the forum and this finally does it, lets build a place where they can be “special””?
For if there is, it is the Genesis of PWI.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]MR “IM FUCKING AWESOME” wrote:
Either you cannot read, you don’t want to, or you are just responding without having done so.
Please re-read what I wrote and respond to what I actually said, not some imaginary dialog that you want to hear me saying.
I’m one post away from abandoning this argument if you continue to refuse to respond in good faith.
[/quote]
SORRY MR “IM FUCKING AWESOME” - but I think the miscommunication is probably more likely due to this form of medium being unable to convey the message ie tone etc etc
I think I addressed some of the issues you wrote about so maybe we should both re-read it?
The only thing I didnt talk about was the fact you dont want to compare religion and science but I think that is at the core of what we are talking about.
[/quote]
No.
I’ll type slowly, see if you can follow:
[quote]you said:
I think it’s a tragedy that so many people live their lives in complete absence of wanting to know the truth about our existence.[/quote]
Whereas I said science and religion are two different things, that fulfill different needs, and are not necessarily incompatible, and that my very own religion was happy to accept the same tenets of science you worship. This includes the origins of the universe to its knowable point as well as the evolution of the creatures of earth to their present form.
[quote]you then said:
If its not religions or sciences job to find out how we were created, who’s job is it?[/quote]
Whereas I specifically said that science’s job is to find out HOW we were created. This was my second indication of your illiteracy. The first being what appears to be an almost herculean struggle with the English language.
[quote]you then seriously continued:
It would seem you dont care about knowing the truth, as long as you can uphold your current belief system…immature comes to mind.[/quote]
When I wrote, in language that should have been clear to any literate 9 year old, exactly the opposite in the post directly above yours. Again, my religion leaves science to the scientists and takes them at their word for the most part.
[quote]you then, I’m not making this up, continued to prattle:
also, WE ARE PHYSICAL, THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS PHYSICAL - therefore for no other reason should it be clearer it is up to science alone to find out how we began, religion just shouldnt have a say[/quote]
Even while you could still read in your very reply, in the words just above your own, that the job of science is indeed the realm of the physical, while religion’s is the realm of the META-physical. Hence the compatibility I first alluded to.
I’m done arguing insanity with you. I feel like I’m on acid reading our exchange, or, rather, that you are.
I apologize to Fletch for wasting my time here. I’ll try and get to your post tomorrow.
For someone who is such a connoisseur of the english language you’re struggling with some very basic concepts. ie discussion and difference of opinion.
You initially said science and religion can not be compared because one explains how and one explains why(or is about your relationship with God)? BUT i disagree. FIRSTLY - just because you “specifically say” something doesnt mean its true (a premise you are obviously unaware of). Secondly we are discussing HOW the universe was created (Because both religion AND science have there theories on HOW the universe was created). READ THAT LAST SENTENCE TWICE.
You said religion is about ones relationship with God. Unless Im mistaken if you believe in god you essentially believe in the religion that the particular God is from. THEREFORE you believe that HE was the creator of our universe. Your statements are in a complete juxtaposition. “I believe in my relationship with God but also that science is going to tell me HOW the universe was created?” - NO! you believe in God and therefore believe in religion’s reasoning for our creation. I just don’t think you can have it both ways…
SO back to the point - Science and religion cant be directly compared for many topics - BUT if were talking the theories of HOW we were created they definitely can be. (this i believe is where our difference of opinion lies, take it or leave it because truthfully you come across as both arrogant and stupid.)
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
For someone who is such a connoisseur of the english language you’re struggling with some very basic concepts. ie discussion and difference of opinion.
You initially said science and religion can not be compared because one explains how and one explains why(or is about your relationship with God)? BUT i disagree. FIRSTLY - just because you “specifically say” something doesnt mean its true (a premise you are obviously unaware of). Secondly we are discussing HOW the universe was created (Because both religion AND science have there theories on HOW the universe was created). READ THAT LAST SENTENCE TWICE.
You said religion is about ones relationship with God. Unless Im mistaken if you believe in god you essentially believe in the religion that the particular God is from. THEREFORE you believe that HE was the creator of our universe. Your statements are in a complete juxtaposition. “I believe in my relationship with God but also that science is going to tell me HOW the universe was created?” - NO! you believe in God and therefore believe in religion’s reasoning for our creation. I just don’t think you can have it both ways…
SO back to the point - Science and religion cant be directly compared for many topics - BUT if were talking the theories of HOW we were created they definitely can be. (this i believe is where our difference of opinion lies, take it or leave it because truthfully you come across as both arrogant and stupid.)
[/quote]
Ok.
Does that mean Im still off the mark with your point of view or hit the nail on the head and you give up?
Im curious as to why you dont seem to understand any of my points…(maybe someone else should weigh in?)
I guess one should define science first.
Science- Any study that develops ideas and theories that are peer reviewed using the scientific method.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]
Theology is not a science.[/quote]
Um, yes it is.[/quote]
No, it isn’t.[/quote]
Yes, it is.[/quote]
No, it really isn’t.[/quote]
Extracted, squeezed out, pared and boiled down to its absolute essence, this little exchange really is the true embodiment of PWI, isn’t it?
[/quote]
No it isn’t.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)
The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.
Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?
Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]
So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.
You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?
[/quote]
Not quite - So there are two theories right, religious theory and scientific theory to how universes were made.
At the moment science has its theories, but cannot irrefutably prove them. (but imo they are getting closer to understanding our world and therefore must be closer to proving their theories.) There are some methods like dating the age of rocks (carbon dating?) that have thrown some religious theories out the window, ie when the earth was created. So its a just matter a time for us to understand the world around us.
On the other hand, religion has its theories, but are not, and will probably never be able to prove them. Thus, religion is stagnant, they will never be able to PROVE their claims. (unless a scientist figures something out for them)
So there lies the stupidity, imo, in blind faith. When we are talking about creation of earth, science, universes etc etc there is no other truth than a scientific truth. logic, morality etc shouldnt even be discussed.
[/quote]
Your blanket statement involving your “us” (science) against their “them” (religion) betrays the silliness of everything you are saying.
It is not the job of religions to “prove” anything. Indeed, my particular religion has no problem leaving the issues of science to the scientists. You won’t find me arguing against the world being billions of years old, or that the present species inhabiting Earth today do appear to have evolved somehow or another from prior creatures.
There are other religions who possess certain beliefs which may or may not be in opposition to the conclusions of scientific thought. However, there is no bogeyman called “Religion,” who is the Lex Luthor to science’s Superman.
Religion is about one’s relationship with God. It is essentially metaphysical.
Science is about figuring out the physical and how it works. Neither is necessarily incompatible, but it is not “religion’s” job to figure out how we got here. Just as it is not science’s job to figure out why.
To conflate the two and act as if you are making some sort of fair comparison is nothing more than a straw man. If you disagree with something, then pick something specific. And if you say “God,” then you had better be careful, as you have already admitted that your “scientific” knowledge of His existence (or not) is just as faith based as any street-corner preacher.
[/quote]
missed the point but oh well-
far be it from me or you to tell anyone how to live their lives, but I think it’s a tragedy that so many people live their lives in complete absence of wanting to know the truth about our existence. In my opinion, you’re either lazy like the atkins video was saying or are just happy to live your life without wanting to know. If its not religions or sciences job to find out how we were created, who’s job is it? It would seem you dont care about knowing the truth, as long as you can uphold your current belief system…immature comes to mind.
religion might be about your relationship with “god” but if you look at it from an outside perspective (that there isn’t a god) you’re borderline insane…
also, WE ARE PHYSICAL, THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS PHYSICAL - therefore for no other reason should it be clearer it is up to science alone to find out how we began, religion just shouldnt have a say… i mean for fucks sake the bible is just a book written a gazillion years ago by, no disrespect, idiots(comparatively)…[/quote]
Yes, and we should burn those insufferable Catholics who have been saying the same thing for 2000 thousand years. Heil, mein Führer! Sieg Heil!