1. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184465 by BJohn on May 25, 2008 at 11:29 am

Here is an article I think many people on this website would find interesting. It's about what "other atheists" are saying about Dawkins and Harris...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/books/03beliefs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

2. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #127924 by BJohn on February 15, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Here is a slice of Pope Benedict's encyclical Spe Salvi--I'm posting it because it offers more reasonable thoughts on the Christian hope for eternal life...

You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html


"Today as in the past, this is what being baptized, becoming Christians, is all about: it is not just an act of socialization within the community, not simply a welcome into the Church. The parents expect more for the one to be baptized: they expect that faith, which includes the corporeal nature of the Church and her sacraments, will give life to their child�quot;eternal life. Faith is the substance of hope. But then the question arises: do we really want this�quot;to live eternally? Perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living for ever--endlessly--appears more like a curse than a gift. Death, admittedly, one would wish to postpone for as long as possible. But to live always, without end--this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable. This is precisely the point made, for example, by Saint Ambrose, one of the Church Fathers, in the funeral discourse for his deceased brother Satyrus: “Death was not part of nature; it became part of nature. God did not decree death from the beginning; he prescribed it as a remedy. Human life, because of sin ... began to experience the burden of wretchedness in unremitting labour and unbearable sorrow. There had to be a limit to its evils; death had to restore what life had forfeited. Without the assistance of grace, immortality is more of a burden than a blessing”. A little earlier, Ambrose had said: “Death is, then, no cause for mourning, for it is the cause of mankind's salvation”.

11. Whatever precisely Saint Ambrose may have meant by these words, it is true that to eliminate death or to postpone it more or less indefinitely would place the earth and humanity in an impossible situation, and even for the individual would bring no benefit. Obviously there is a contradiction in our attitude, which points to an inner contradiction in our very existence. On the one hand, we do not want to die; above all, those who love us do not want us to die. Yet on the other hand, neither do we want to continue living indefinitely, nor was the earth created with that in view. So what do we really want? Our paradoxical attitude gives rise to a deeper question: what in fact is “life”? And what does “eternity” really mean? There are moments when it suddenly seems clear to us: yes, this is what true “life” is--this is what it should be like. Besides, what we call “life” in our everyday language is not real “life” at all. Saint Augustine, in the extended letter on prayer which he addressed to Proba, a wealthy Roman widow and mother of three consuls, once wrote this: ultimately we want only one thing--”the blessed life”, the life which is simply life, simply “happiness”. In the final analysis, there is nothing else that we ask for in prayer. Our journey has no other goal--it is about this alone. But then Augustine also says: looking more closely, we have no idea what we ultimately desire, what we would really like. We do not know this reality at all; even in those moments when we think we can reach out and touch it, it eludes us. “We do not know what we should pray for as we ought,” he says, quoting Saint Paul (Rom 8:26). All we know is that it is not this. Yet in not knowing, we know that this reality must exist. “There is therefore in us a certain learned ignorance (docta ignorantia), so to speak”, he writes. We do not know what we would really like; we do not know this “true life”; and yet we know that there must be something we do not know towards which we feel driven[8]."

3. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #127672 by BJohn on February 15, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Lol, "Mr. Immortal" clearly does not have a Christian conception of the afterlife.

Funny to read, I guess. But, ultimately, you're fighting a straw man here...

4. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #105489 by BJohn on December 31, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Well I have to stop my part in this dialogue. I can't afford to spend more time writing�it's taking too much of my energy and distracting me from my monastic responsibilities.

But I wish you guys the best of luck in your search for the truth. I hope you'll be open to the idea that the layers of reality detectable by natural science may not be all there is. For how foolish would it be to claim that rocks did not exist after only analyzing earth that had been put through a sieve?

And there are answers to your questions about Christianity. Homosexuality, evolution, the multiplicity of faiths, suffering� They're out there. You just can't find them on the bumper sticker slogans or the picket banners.

Catholicism discovers its dogma in the attempt to reconcile revelation with reason. That's partly why doctrine develops�the more we learn about reality, the more we have to consider and discover our faith. If you love reason and are considering Christianity, then by all means challenge the faith�she can take it if you give her a fair chance! Just lose the sarcasm, the jokes and the hostility. Passion and cheap rhetoric like that has never served the truth. Find the people who can represent her faithfully and ask to see how it is reasonable, how it corresponds, how it can be reconciled...

Why believe in Jesus? Why believe the Apostles? Why believe the Church who claims to have preserved the apostolic teaching?

Those are the questions to ask. And the answers are out there, you just have to read the right books and talk to the right people :-)

I hope you'll always keep searching for the way, the truth and the life� And I pray that one day you'll find Him, for your happiness and His glory.

Take care,

BJohn

5. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104983 by BJohn on December 30, 2007 at 9:20 am

"If you are going to allow for the possibilities of miracles as evidence of Gods, you are going to become a polytheist."

I don't see how that follows. Why can't one God be behind all miracles?

And not every extraordinary event should be (nor is it) considered miraculous; in fact, the Church gives credence to very few such claims. And when they do believe God acted in a special way it is after a completely natural explanation has been ruled out.

That is a pretty good article from Wikepedia, thanks for linking it.

"Those in attendance had assembled to observe what the Portuguese secular papers had been ridiculing for months as being the absurd claim of three shepherd children that a miracle was going occur at high-noon in the Cova da Iria on October 13, 1917."

Regardless of what one thinks about the probability of the various attempts at a purely natural explanation, isn't anyone alarmed at the fact that the children predicted when the phenomena would take place? I didn't know (I read it in the article) that the Portuguese papers had published the 3 kids' claim that a miracle would take place at noon on October 13. I think that's pretty amazing that, whatever it was, they knew when it would happen!

But look, Fatima is not proof of God's existence. Nobody can say, "Look, Fatima. Now believe." There are certainly other possible explanations. However, it is one of many converging signs which point to God's existence.

...You see a car in the driveway, the mail's been picked up and there is a light shining out of a second story window... Someone's probably home.

6. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104944 by BJohn on December 30, 2007 at 5:24 am

"How can you seriously believe the Sun really moved around in the sky?"

I thought we already covered this. I'd be willing to believe that the Sun hadn't "really moved around in the sky," because if it did God would have had to get much more involved, ensuring that his fiddling with celestial bodies didn't cause the planets to crash into each other, and not to mention that other people around the world didn't see it. So it was probably some sort of an illusion (that's my guess). That doesn't mean nothing miraculous didn't happen�70,000 people witnessing the appearance of the sun moving around as it did is pretty miraculous, because the sun doesn't naturally do that.

"70 thousand marian followers stare at the sun for several hours. What the hell do you'd think would happen? They all wanted to see something. Stupidly stared at the sun."

This isn't true or even plausible. For one thing, those who followed the 3 children at Fatima were not "thousands" of "Marian followers," in fact thousands of them had been persecuting those children for claiming what they did�including their own families. Many of those thousands came with the intention of disproving the apparitions. All, however, walked away convicted of their veracity.

And there have been no "Fatima whistleblowers" that I have heard of. If it was a group hoax, wouldn't you think at least one would have backed out? "Paid off" by the Church? I suppose that is theoretically possible, but highly improbable. I've heard of people paying others to say things, but I have not heard of people paying other people to continue saying what they said. The Church didn't come up with the story, the 70,000 did. It wouldn't make sense for the Church to come in and stake their credibility in such a risky way�could they really expect all 70,000 to keep a promise?

The notion that 70,000 people said let's stare at the sun until we hallucinate is just not very probable. And it doesn't explain why those in the neighboring towns saw the same phenomena, since they would not have been around to hear the "plan" for the great hoax.

7. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104871 by BJohn on December 29, 2007 at 8:47 pm

"I thought it sensible to ask you what the miracle therefore told you about his presence and activity in the universe. I suggested that if the miracle really happened then the being which carried it out was a being that was prepared to mislead 70,000 people into its way of thinking, but at the same time was not prepared to (or capable of) mislead(ing) the rest of us similarly."

I should say that "mislead" is a pretty harsh assessment of God's supposed activity at Fatima. Ever come up and scream "Boo!" behind a friend? Lure someone home for a surprise party? Fatima was probably an "illusion," but not a malicious one. Illusions can be for entertainment, playfulness, teaching, etc. They don't have to be for ill intentions. I look at Fatima as God's display of power; and ensuring 70,000 people of his presence, giving them awe and joy.

"It seems to me that what you have done thereby is assign the miracle of Fatima to the realm of 'mystery'. In which case, I don't think you should appeal to it in any way in support of your views."

I don't think I did that. It is certainly mysterious in the sense that nobody knows the precise reasons God did it, or what part it will play in the grand scheme of human history; but I do think I suggested some reasons for what he did�to reveal his presence and involvement in human history, give credibility to the three kids who had the Marian apparitions, etc.

"But in my view the more important point is you have a pre-formed view of what god ought to be like (personal and loving etc) and bring that to bear on this and any other question. This is how theology works in practice."

Yes, "Credo ut Intelligam" is the beginning of most theology. Theologians take the principles of faith and reasonably follow them out to their conclusions. This is theology only for the believer, to help him know and understand the meaning and implications of his faith. This type of theology is not expected to convince or convert�apologetics is the area of theology associated with that.

"It never reasons the other way round. It never takes the apparent fact that god only does miracles for some people and says that therefore eg he only loves them and is happy to ignore the rest of us."

This is a good example to illustrate the point I just tried to make. Theologians believe that, "God so loved the world�that�he sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (John 3:16-17). Believing that God loves the entire world, they reasonably conclude that a so-called "private" miracle should not be taken as an indication of his love for an elite. For such a conclusion would contradict the tenets of the faith. Instead, they realize that the whole body is enriched by the gifts God chooses to give to a particular member. For how many have come to the faith because of the witness of the saints or God's miracles?

Nevertheless, the implications of Fatima, and the conclusion that it is not a sign of an "elitist God," are reasoned to after one accepts the premises of Christianity in faith. And that is how most theology works, but not all�

"I appreciate theologians have reasons for this, but when I was a believer it was one of the sorts of things that used to nag at me and I wonder if it doesn't nag at you also. It was one of the sorts of things that eventually made me conclude that the 'system of faith' that I had committed to was just that, a system, and one which had made itself impervious to falsification. Ultimately, it just goes round in circles. But worse than that, because it is an enclosed system, it never really gets in touch with reality."

The answer to this immensely crucial question is one of the main reasons why I am a Catholic Christian and not a member of any other religion. All religions have their "primordial myths," but for so many of them, myth is all there is�just systems of supernatural realities which are internally coherent, but whose correspondence to the "real world" is only allegorical. Some seem little more than fables�closed systems with no "real" connection to reality.

Christianity is (and I'm sure even many atheists will agree) a beautiful and coherent system. But is that all it is�just a beautiful collection of speculative truths? The reason I believe it is not is because Christianity is not about myth but about the "really real"; it is about a God who bridged the gap between the supernatural and the natural by entering history and acting within it, accomplishing many things, the greatest of which was to became incarnate in a human life in order to redeem all of creation. This is not another religion with a "myth of the dying God." This is about a God who really did die (in his human nature).

The differences between the Gospels and other sacred texts are many. One is the frequent use of personal names, places and references indicating that real historical events are being described. For example, Mark 15:21 reads: "And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross." Who the heck are Alexander and Rufus? With so much to say about Jesus, why would Mark mention the sons of Simon of Cyrene, unless to establish the credibility of the event through mentioning some witnesses? It's as if Mark was inviting the reader to ask Alexander and Rufus about what happened to their father.

Out of all the other religions I've been exposed to, I'd say Islam comes the closest to Christianity in this respect (outside Judaism, of course). My problem with Islam is that Mohammed is just not as credible as Jesus. Military conquest is not the most convincing guarantee of divine favor�rising from the dead, on the other hand, is.

But for sure there are inconsistencies in the historical details of Jesus ministry�not to mention things like Matthew's genealogy are pretty suspicious. But these are reconcilable when one takes account of the type of literature which the Gospels are. Now that's a long discussion, but for now let me just say that the differences of detail in the Gospels does not preclude that they're all are wrong and the events never happened.

Christianity is unique in its connection between the "system" and the "reality." But is this alleged link credible? In other words, is the God-made-man, Jesus, credible? Are his apostles credible? Is the Catholic Church�who claims to have preserved the apostolic tradition�credible? Has she really done preserved the faith of those who witnessed Jesus and his activity? These are the next, very important questions to ask. And they belong to apologetics, which can be defined as that discipline of theology which "opens" the "system," defending its correspondance with reality.

I enjoy talking with you Mark. Take care,

BJohn

8. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104547 by BJohn on December 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm

"If Catholicism has these answers... Do we have to buy them (I know you guys had some policy of purchasing salvation)? Are they free? Where can I get them? "

No, you cannot buy your salvation. That's not what indulgences are (which is what I assume you are referring to).

"I say again. Some evidence please. "

I think you're making me run in circles. You accused the Church of being unreasonable for a number of issues (the fact that one's environment influences one's religion, the problem of the existence of suffering and a good God, the accusation that God created people who had no chance of knowing Christ and then condemned them for not knowing them, etc.) I presented Catholic teaching to illustrate that there are reconciliations to these problems and that they are not issues which render the existence of God improbable�which is what you claimed they were. I acknowledged already that I was not then "proving" the doctrine. I'm sorry I don't think I'm able in this setting to convince you that these solutions are probable. If we can't even agree that the existence of God is not improbable, then I don't think we're going to have much success discussing other points of doctrine.

"Catholocism changes doctrines every 5 minutes. What happens if I die on vacation. Then I'm screwed. "

This is just not true. I grant you that the praxis of the Church has certainly changed throughout the centuries�but nobody claimed it didn't. And I also grant that the teachings of the Church were not all "spelled out" when they were handed over to her from Christ. Doctrine becomes more refined and precise over time�that's just one of the human elements of the Church: that she exists in time and that no mind can plumb the depths of God's truth in a single moment. But that doesn't mean that it "changes" in the fashion I think you are implying.

Notsobad,

"do you think and speak for yourself too or only parrot the criminal institution known as the Catholic Church?"

What is this supposed to mean? Over the course of my life I have come to believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is true; thus I do my best to learn what she teaches and live and speak by it. Does that make me a parrot? I don't think so as I believe what she teaches freely and with reasonable study and consideration.

And I can only wonder what you mean labeling the Church as a "criminal institution."

Take care,

-BJohn

9. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104413 by BJohn on December 28, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I appreciate that al-rawadi, thank you.

"All religious texts everywhere have more than a few portions that are demonstrably false (we can prove the negative). Thus if god wrote any of these, he doesn't know anything about the world."

This assumes that all passages in every religious text are to be taken, in their literal sense, as God's revelation. That is not the Roman Catholic position with respect to the interpretation of Scripture.

"You are usually in the religion you are born into. Religions are strongly geographical. That is because they are human and not divine phenomona."

That they are entirely human phenomena is certainly one possibility�but not the only. Another is that they are a mixture of elements both human and divine. The Roman Catholic position is that there are many religions with varying "amounts" of truth. According to the Church, she is the only one to know "all" the truth necessary for salvation. That doesn't mean others aren't going to be saved�it just means they don't understand how they are being saved. There could be many reasons God permitted man to develop in his understanding of religious truth (for example, this way there could be a real pursuit of truth available for every human being, as well as an exchange of gifts between men).

"What happens to non-believers? They burn in hell, forever. � What about all the people who never hear of Jesus (upper Amazon). What about all the people who believe a different religion than you, as fervently as you do, and as impervious to rational argument as you are?"

If this were the case, God would be very unfair�not to mention it is inconsistent with belief in a good God. But, as I try to explain above, one can reconcile the singularity of religious truth and the salvation of those in the "wrong" religion.

"Lastly, why does a wonderful God allow and theoretically actively engage in the torture of people on earth. Poverty, Floods, Tsunamis, Volcanos?"

I presented a quick overview of the Roman Catholic reconciliation of the problem of suffering in one of my last posts (to Mark).

"All that makes a god improbable. So it rests on you to provide one shred of evidence for god. Just one, and then we can try to disprove it."

These are quick glosses of long, deep and beautiful theological issues. But they are enough, I hope, to leave you more open to the idea that Catholic Christianity has answers for these problems, and that it does not claim the ridiculous or the improbable.

Take care,

BJohn

10. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104348 by BJohn on December 28, 2007 at 11:02 am

Stating that the religious mind (of which I am one) is something you engage and humor with debate is an object "under the microscope" of your laboratory (311) is, in my mind, insulting.

Saying my arguments "suck" (267) and that they are "childish fantasies" (260) is insulting.

Those are just a few. It's not important to list them all. It would just be nice if it stopped is all I'm saying.

So many are so convinced that God doesn't exist, claiming to have "proven" using natural science that there is no God�something which is held to be "supernatural" to begin with. I think the indignation these people feel is unjust; any belief about the supernatural�whether you believe it does or doesn't exist�requires faith. You are dealing with the unseen� We have no reason to be so angry at each other as if we thought each other was demanding the ridiculous! God's existence, is not such an obvious issue!

11. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104282 by BJohn on December 28, 2007 at 9:11 am

This is a response to Mark's posts. I haven't read all of the other ones.

I will try to work from your posts 292 & 248, which I now remember asked if I had thought about your previous post 204 (smithyboy?)

First I'll address 204:

"Leaving aside the question of god's existence (just a small issue I know!), please consider what sort of god you believe in. You think the miracle of Fatima is real. But you seem to accept the sun can't really have 'spun and then dived toward the earth'. So what you believe in is a god who is prepared to hoax or mislead or delude (dare I say it) 70,000 plus people to get what he wants. And what did he want, by the way? And if he did do that indiscriminately for 70,000 people, why the hell didn't he do it for the rest of us, so we could all become believers too? And don't say 'freewill', because he was obviously prepared to overlook that for the 70,000."

Let me start by affirming what I've already said a few times here�these are good, fair and proper questions. If a Creator/Governor of the universe does exist, then we should be able to deduce a few things about him by looking at his creation. It is "fair" of us to seek an explanation from God for certain things. There is, however, a limit to our inquiries. We are human and cannot expect to understand Providence in its entirety, and thus there will be some things we will not completely understand. But suffering, for example, is something that is "explicable" according to the Christian faith. It is not inconsistent to believe both in the existence of a good God and the fact that we suffer and die. What is the explanation? Here's a short one� God came to earth by the Incarnation (Merry Christmas :-) in order to definitively and clearly reveal himself to mankind�no more speaking through burning bushes and other strange and semi-ambiguous miracles and prophets. This "revelation" (Jesus) could talk, answer questions, justify his authority, and teach and perform actions, all of which revealed the nature of God. One of the things which he accomplished and revealed was to establish the way to true peace on earth (and eternal life) through a love that patiently endures all things, including suffering. Suffering is salvific�it purifies the heart, teaching it patience and love. And since "God is love" (1 John 4:16), suffering is a part of that "process" (the Paschal Mystery) by which man is divinized, that is made ready to join God for all eternity.

So if I get a terrible disease and undergo a tremendous amount of suffering I could either be bitter against God for creating and torturing me, or, if I accept the revelation of Jesus, I see that that my sufferings�which are limited only to this finite world�are the "way of the cross" which will lead through death to the resurrection. I understand that all this probably seems like "superstition" to many. Indeed, it is something that requires one come to terms with the many elements of the Christian faith which explain and support it (like the existence of God, for starters).

Why not give everyone a miracle like those at Fatima? For one thing, we all have been "given" that miracle in a sense. It may take more faith for me to believe in it than someone who was there but I can still believe in the miracle (they would only have to believe that there was no hallucinogen or something else that affected them and the rest of the crowds whereas I have to believe that in addition to the evidence which supports the story has not been fabricated.) But why doesn't God just appear on the clouds for all to see and settle this debate? That's a good question. One reason I can think of is that such a manifestation of himself is terribly impersonal, forceful and even somewhat aggressive. He treats every person differently, loving them in different ways and promoting and integrating their different destinies. Why should we expect such an impersonal address as that? He is not only our God, but my God and your God. He comes to each person in his/her own life and situation and manifests himself in ways he could not for others. That is far more personal, far more loving (at least in my opinion).

So why not work some unbelievable and special miracle for each person? Well he does work miracles for some people, but certainly not all. Why not give everyong a miracle by which they could know he exists? Well, for one thing, such "un-doubtable" miracles do not exist�human beings are always capable of doubting even the most amazing miracle. So such a policy of manifesting himself wouldn't "work" for everyone. But you say it would work for you? If he would just come down on a fiery chariot and hand you detailed instructions about how to live your life you say you would obey? You wouldn't doubt it? You wouldn't worry that you might have been delusional or dreaming? Okay good, that speaks well of your faith. But God is to gentle, to loving to do that. You are not his slave, but his son. He didn't create robots; he made men. He wants to involve you in your life, not just watch you travel along a pre-determined track he set out. He doesn't force, he asks. Of course one has to live with the consequences if they say no, but nevertheless he still wants to give you that option, and even to incorporate and redeem your own desires in life.

Again, I realize that to accept this logic one must accept Christianity, so I'm not expecting to convince you that this is the way it is. I'm just trying to answer the challenge and show that Christianity is internally coherent. Whether or not it corresponds to reality is another argument.

Now, regarding Post 292:

You have hereby switched to a different argument. The first was based on a general logical quality of 'somethings', while this one is based on empiricism, ie observations of particular 'somethings'. I have no problem with you switching to a different argument, indeed I welcome it given my view that the previous argument is not sound. But I think it is best for the sake of clarity to recognise this is what has happened.

After re-reading this post and 248 I believe that on this point you are correct. Somewhere in my reformulations and adaptations of the argument I began to misrepresent it. As you pointed out in 248, premise 2 does need to be absolutely true for the argument to work; and then, if it is true, it invalidates the conclusion, which states that it is not absolutely true (for there is a creator for whom it is not true). And my attempted "rescue" is not legitimate; for I turned the proposition into an empirical observation when I said it is "a trait of the universe", and thereby I eliminated it's "logical force." However, for Aristotle and the original argument, I don't think it was an empirical observed quality but a "logical quality" (to borrow your words).

So far I've been trying to use a more "scientific" vocabulary instead of a strictly philosophical one (which is my background) because of the forum; however, you have convinced me that is not entirely legitimate, as a philosophical truth known through something like "abstraction" or "intuition" is on a different playing field than scientific truths gleaned from material observation (I think this is what you called "empiricism"). For the record, I shouldn't have spoken of the principle of non-contradiction as a theory we have "observed" either (putting it on par with other empirical theories, like gravity for instance).

This all being the case, will you allow me to pull back and restate myself a bit?
We were mistaken to say that "(1) something exists, [and] (2) something doesn't come from nothing" are the premises in the syllogism. I don't know exactly what you'd call them, but their "use" in the argument is this: "The existence of something that has come from something implies the existence of something else which has NOT come from something." And why must this logically be the case? Because if it were not true (i.e. if everything came from something else) then there would be an infinite regress of causality, which is irrational. I think this is a better representation of the argument for "the uncaused cause."

I think the premise, then, would be something like this:

1. There are causes
2. An infinite regress of causality is not possible
CONCL: There must be an uncaused cause

Mark, I very much welcome your response and I thank you for revealing my errors.


P.S. I think we should take it easy on Billy Coconut--he may have lost his temper, but he is certainly not the only one to have done so. There have been more than a few very hostile and insulting statements thrown around...

How about an agreed end to that stuff?

12. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103961 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 11:43 am

Gotta go, for now.

13. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103959 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 11:41 am

al-rawadi...

So many insults, so many misunderstandings...

1. "It is flawed because you are making disimilar comparisons. It doesn't even make sense. Of course one would assume there are TV makers. But the universe is nothing like a TV. We know the universe developed in a certain way which is absolutley nothing like a TV."

I'm aware that the universe is not the same as a T.V. The respect in which the analogy claims they are similar is that that they are particular "things" which exist. Or, in your words that they are things that have "developed" and now are.

2. "So if something can't come from nothing how did god create all the matter in the Universe?"

And I've already said that the whole point of the argument is to show the necessity of a being for whom the rules of this universe do not apply.

14. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103951 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 11:34 am

Steve I think you need to back that up with more than a reference.

Overturning the principle which is the foundation of human reason should not be glossed over so lightly...

I'd be more inclined to believe that either you or the book you read misunderstand either the principle itself or the consequences of the phenomena they have observed.

15. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103945 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 11:29 am

Steve, it's not vain to believe that the Creator has a purpose for me because he created me�in that respect I am no different than anything else has been created!

And I think your "interventionist" comment reveals a misunderstanding about the predominant way "rational religious people" view God's influence upon the universe. God creates by means of the laws of nature. He uses the sun to shine light to make plants grow to enable herbivores to eat, etc. etc. etc.

And just because we have not found a sensible reason for a genetic mutation does not mean that there is none. You are limiting the scope of reason and existence to what is empirically detectable, and that's not legitimate.

--Happily helping you "study my mind"

BJohn

16. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103939 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 11:18 am

Steve, read the rest of my post... I said that the issue didn't belong to this forum.

17. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103937 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 11:16 am

To refute my argument you started talking about an entirely different one that happens to have a very similar vocabulary? That will make things very confusing.

But no sweat, I am glad to hear your thoughts on the watchmaker analogy, so long as you acknowledge (which now you have done) that mine was different.

Would you then, please respond to it? Please explain how you are convinced that the world does not need any kind of creation. Tell me by what REASON you believe a material body can create itself.

I agree with you that we have discovered realities in science that do not seem to fit with what we "see" every day (you mentioned the "stretchiness" of time). However, the more accurate understanding of time does not involve a violation of the most fundamental principle of human reason like your contention that the universe does not require a creator. The Principle of Non-contradiction states that nothing of the universe "is A" and "not A" at the same time. The universe cannot both "be" and "not be" at the same time--which is what is required if it is to create itself.

Thanks,

BJohn

18. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103930 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 11:03 am

Notsobad, that's a good question. For starters, I'd say the fact that out of the infinite array of possibilities you have been created is an indication that he has some sort of personal concern you. He could have chosen not to create you; but you do exist and thus he must have selected you out of all the possibilities.

But why??? Why me???

But that's a bit further down the line than this forum was meant for. If you do want to talk about/debate those issues feel free to email me--pjbyr@yahoo.com

-BJohn

19. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103927 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 10:57 am

You guys missed it...

First of all, my analogy was about the "T.V. Maker." The fact that you (Tony and Steve) thought it was about the watchmakers shows me that you did not understand it. Judging by Steve's counterargument and Tony's diatribe you guys may be lumping my analogy with another, more common one which is about a "Watchmaker." However, unlike that analogy, mine did not claim that the complexity of the universe indicates a rational and personal creator, as you seem to think it did, judging by your response (particularly Steve).

My analogy was about "ability" not complexity. The universe is UNABLE to create itself, etc.

Maybe we all just need time to digest what everyone else has said since we both feel misunderstood by the other.

20. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103910 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 9:57 am

Mark � I thought that was an excellent and clear post, thank you. I hope it will help me further explain the elements of the argument that I think you (and many others) don't see yet.

I could have been clearer. What you call "proposition 2" is a trait OF THE UNIVERSE that we have never failed to observe. Because of the nature of material being, its opposite has never, and will not ever, be found to be true. The universe could not have existed to create itself before it existed�I don't care how fast, or small the "quantum fluctuations" are operating, in so far as they already exist to create they cannot be created. Steve's contention that we should just "accept that reality does not depend on what we consider rational" (that is a direct quote from post 240) absolutely floors me�especially coming from one who insults without qualification all religious persons for "acting irrational" by having faith.

So yes, you are right in observing that the argument implies that God is capable of creating something out of nothing. But you must also see that the argument implies that he is not the same sort of "being" as the universe, and therefore what we know to be true of the universe (proposition 2) may not necessarily be true of him.

Suppose you are in a "universe" full of people who can only make watches, and that you suddenly discover a T.V. Logically you conclude that there must exist some sort of "T.V. maker." We are in a universe where nothing comes from nothing and we have stumbled upon something�the universe itself. There must be that "universe maker" � a being capable of making something out of nothing.

I hope this clears up your objections "(a)" and "(b)". To try to use your words, "Proposition 2" is an absolute statement ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, not an absolute statement.

We have not seen evidence that ALL beings must have a creator. I did not mean to imply that. What we have observed is that all beings WE HAVE SEEN have a creator (for all we have seen has been in the universe). But what we also know is that, for anything to be, there must be some being�a being whom we have not seen�who does not have a creator. Otherwise we would fall into an infinite regress of causality, which, as you point out, is also irrational.

Take care,

BJohn

21. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103858 by BJohn on December 27, 2007 at 6:21 am

Mark, that's a fair critique. But let me qualify a few things though--and maybe you'll see the force of the argument.

First, know that in that argument, "God" stands for "a being capable of creating the universe". The argument does not lead, necessarily, to the Christian God.

Since spontaneous generation of itself is impossible for the universe there must be something pre-extant to the universe to generate it (those who are waiting for science to discover "an explanation" for how the material universe brought itself into being--you'll be waiting forever as its impossible, and the very idea of a material entity bringing itself into being is completely irrational).

Thus the existence of the universe very logically indicates the existence of a being capable of creating it--a "Supreme Being". Surely this is not a "proof" in every sense of the word, but it is certainly some evidence for his existence.

That's all we know about this "God" so far in the argument (that he has the power to create the universe). But you can look at the universe he has created and the signs of his interaction with it to and you can learn more.

22. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103612 by BJohn on December 26, 2007 at 9:59 am

Steve, you write as if you're so confident you've understood what I wrote...but I don't think you have.

1. Evolution does not disprove God. God created evolution and he created man through it. There's a quick harmonization.

2. It is not irrelevant that a Church of a billion Christians does not believe evolution is opposed to God. I don't understand why you think it is.

3. I don't think you understood my last point. I was asking how we could justly claim that there is only the laws of nature. Especially if we narrow our means of discovery only to those which are capable of discovering the laws of nature.

-BJohn

23. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103611 by BJohn on December 26, 2007 at 9:54 am

Al-rawandi, thanks for your reply. I thought it was eloquent, but ultimately wrong.

"Occam's Razor" (simplest explanation for things is the most preferable) is a prudent motto�although it certainly should not be taken absolutely; sometimes things are, for better or worse, complicated.

Even so, Occam's Razor does not encourage us to abandon God as you seem to insinuate. Why? Because "not God" is not a solution at all, let alone the simplest one. It is not a solution because it does not solve the problem of existence. Something exists, and something doesn't come from nothing.

Thus God's existence is "necessary" in order to explain how anything is at all. Nevertheless, I grant you that his existence "complicates" things, but at least it is a solution!

-BJohn

24. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103603 by BJohn on December 26, 2007 at 9:35 am

School's out � I'm back, I hope everyone is having a nice holiday.

BillyCoconut,

"And need I remind anyone that the inventor of Big Bang Cosmology, Georges-Henri Lemaitre from the University of Louvain, was a Jesuit Priest? That's why people refer to him as Father Lemaitre, not because he was the father of modern cosmology. And maybe is his religion the reason why he concocted a theory that basically obligates us to argue for a creator - unless we want to believe in something so irrational (as well as so devoid of observational foundations), as Something emerging out of Nothing."

Thank you for sharing that! I mention it now only because I think it is worth repeating�although I think many in this forum are still confused about the last statement (I spent many posts trying to explain how the impossibility of something emerging out of nothing implies the existence of realities outside the scope of natural science).

Steve,

Billy did not set up "many straw men." He had (so far as I could see) only one point and it was a "real man"�that science and religion, while distinct disciplines, are not inherently opposed. To help illustrate his point, he listed a great deal of well respected scientists who held to that opinion. For sure though, it's not a conclusive proof--for as Walk points out, just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't mean its true.

Your contention that "Before Darwin, there was some sense in which religion and science could co-exist, but after Darwin it became dramatically clearer that Religion and superstition had to give way to science" is just plain false. Simply put, the truth of evolution does not discredit the existence of God. I grant you that there are many creationists who take Genesis literally and therefore oppose evolution, but that is not main-stream or authentic Christianity�at the very least it is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

Billy Sands,

First, Billy Coconut acknowledged Newton's issues with the Trinity (I think he mentioned that he might have been an Arian). Regardless, Newton's particular beliefs about the nature of God is only further testimony that he believed in him.

Second, You wrote:

"It's called compartmentalisation, you can not include god in scientific thought, as there is no evidence that a god exists. Science deals in observation and testing. If it has the potential to be falsified, then it in is science. The trouble is that the religious keep moving the goal posts to take religion out of science. They are not compatible philosophies"

I agree with you in a sense (believe it or not). Religion and natural science are certainly different disciplines and they proceed by different methods; they are not redundant sciences.

Where I disagree with you is in the implication that religion ought to be abandoned because it does not proceed in the same way as natural science. Does every piece of knowledge that the human being comes to accept and act upon have to come through "observation and testing"? That is not what any of us do as we live our lives (I hope that is obvious enough). And what proof do we have that reality is commensurate to the system of natural laws we discover through the methods of science?? In fact, the evidence is against such a notion�there are many things to know other then the laws of nature!

-BJohn

25. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101725 by BJohn on December 20, 2007 at 8:29 pm

I am rather appalled that people are so unwilling to even consider agreeing with these statements.

1. Nothing comes from nothing.
2. Nothing can bring itself into being.

If you will not agree that we can know these things I don't think anything I say is going to convince anybody. These are really rather basic ontological observations. If we can't agree on them, I think we're just gonna frustrate each other :-). So, I think I'm done here.

But I invite anyone who would like to email me at pjbyr@yahoo.com

I will not post again on this board.

Take care,

BJohn

26. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101719 by BJohn on December 20, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Radesq, you've identified one of the most important parts of the argument on the head. Thank you, thank you. I hope I answer it well...

You asked:

"Someone must have asked you already (but since I haven't seen it above) who created your GOD. If nothing comes from nothing your GOD must have had a creator? Any creator argument it seems to me begs that question and leads to infinite regression. Something has to come from nothing I think. If GOD can create itself why can't the universe do the same and cut out the middleman?"

What we have observed about the universe, that "nothing comes from nothing" is only (so far as we know) a characteristic of this universe. And this observation is part of the argument which reveals that the universe cannot create itself (which I've already presented). Cool so far?

Since we know that the universe cannot create itself because of this limitation, and that nevertheless it has been created, we suppose that something else created it--something else for which this limitation does not apply.

Thus reason tells us that there must be a cause that is uncaused. Since everything in the universe is caused by another cause, nothing in the universe is that cause which reason tells us must be.

Let me higlight something you said:

"If nothing comes from nothing your GOD must have had a creator?"

What you wrote is the realization which leads reason to conclude that God must be outside the universe. For from what we have seen everything that is of this universe that is limited in this way (that nothing comes from nothing). And if something is not limited in this way, then it must not be of the universe.

We also know that the cause of the universe is outside the universe because nothing of the universe can bring itself into being--for if it was "there" to bring itself into being, then it already was and could not then have created itself.

I hope that helps, if it doesn't, post and I'll try again. This is a crucial part of the argument. Or email me (pjbyr@yahoo.com).

Good night,

BJohn

27. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101693 by BJohn on December 20, 2007 at 7:05 pm

People seem always to accuse the "religious guy" of making assertions without offering any support. Tony and Steve, re-read your posts--did you guys offer any reasons for your statements? But at least Steve made an appeal to the authority of what "quantum mechanics says."

But as you and I both know, people shouldn't always take things just on authority.

If you do not agree with me when I say "nothing comes from nothing" then I don't think we will get very far.

Steve, it is absolutely impossible for "quantum mechanics" to create something from nothing. Why? Because quantums ARE SOMETHING. So you are not getting something from nothing, but something from something.

And Tony, you quote me saying this:

"At the end of this argument we don't know much about the nature of this being, only what it can't be. And one of the things it can't be is a part of the universe (because otherwise it would violate one of the above premises)."

And then you accuse me of this:

"...you think that your logic, which leads to a living, Christian god, is bulletproof logic..."

I did not claim my argument was bulletproof, nor did I claim it leads exclusively to the Christian God (I don't even think the word Christian was in that post).

I 'm not sure if what I'm writing is being understood.

Let me stress something else. The arguments I've tried to offer for the existence of God are not proofs nor are they "bulletproof" logic. They are arguments which show that God's existence is reasonable and probable--"proof" in the sense you demand is not possible for religion, science, or anything else accept for constructive systems of knowledge like math.

28. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101589 by BJohn on December 20, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Thanks Walk,

Let me try again from a different angle. I'll outline each step to an argument, and you tell me where you take issue.

1. Something exists, a universe.

2. One of the laws of the universe that we have observed is that nothing comes from nothing. Things don't just pop into existence, they are created or "caused" by other things.

3. "Things" like the universe cannot create themselves. To suppose that the beginning state of the universe (Quantum fluctuations, Big Bang, whatever) just popped into existence is about as reasonable as supposing that the beginning of another universe could just pop into being in front of me on my desk.

4. Thus things like the universe are created by something other than themselves. They are created by something outside them, something before them.

THEREFORE, there must be something outside the universe which caused it.

That something is a "being" (it exists)
That something is "supreme" over the universe (it came before and caused it).

At the end of this argument we don't know much about the nature of this being, only what it can't be. And one of the things it can't be is a part of the universe (because otherwise it would violate one of the above premises).

Make more sense?

BJohn

29. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101036 by BJohn on December 19, 2007 at 6:55 pm

I should be doing homework... But this is also important :-)

1. The creator of the universe must transcend or "be outside" the universe or else he would be "inside" and, as a part of the universe, he would be unable to create it. Transcendence is a necessary quality of whatever created the universe, or else he could not have created it.

The same logic from a different angle: If whatever created the universe came from within it, then It would have created the universe before It existed--because, as a part of the unvierse, he only began to exist once it was created. That is illogical, therefore whatever created the universe must be outside it. It must transcend the universe. It must be "supreme" over it. It must be a "supreme being" which many people call "God."

2. I understand your frustrations with miracles. I cannot explain what happened at Fatima. I don't know if the sun actually did those things, only that it appeared to do so to 70,000 people. Such an apparation I would still consider miraculous, however.

3. The morality God gave us (giving thanks and praise to the Creator is part of the fulfillment of justice, and thus party of Christian morality) is not for God's sake, but for ours. He doesn't enjoin us to praise him because he needs the ego boast. Praising God is good for us. Why? I don't have time to explain, but think of it this way. Is it good for a child to respect his parents? To thank them? In like manner it is good for the creature to thank his Creator.

Take care Walk,

BJohn

P.S. I'm not sure why you think you need to quote scripture to respond discuss my post. I only used it twice (and for rhetorical reasons).

30. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100765 by BJohn on December 19, 2007 at 9:58 am

Here is my promised post.

I must say I am hesitant to answer these questions with a single post, so vulnerable and prone to being misunderstood in such a "foreign" land as the website of Dr. Dawkins. And I also pause out of the fear that I may not do the faith justice�I am no theologian, bishop or saint. But I think it would be bad of me to "cop-out" and back down at this point, so I'll attempt an answer (and I do want to do my part in improving the Christian image). I do hope, however, that you do not rush to assume the ridiculous, accept that you will not understand everything I say (for in order to give you a picture of the whole I have to assume many of the parts) and treat what I write with some measure of dignity.

And while I am certainly saddened by how surprised you seem to be at the notion that one would even propose to present their faith as rational (even probable), I must say I am not surprised. I suppose you've met a lot of Christians who gladly present themselves as believing in the irrational�I myself have met many Protestants (certainly not all) and even Catholics who are terribly offended when someone attempts to investigate the claims of faith with human reason. The never-ending divisions of Christian belief and the massive level of ignorance are some of the many unfortunate effects of rejecting the only teaching Magisterium that reaches back to the time of the Apostles and authentically preserves a tradition of 2,000 years of Christian thought (and has "baptized" the thought of so many non-Christian sources of truth). So, I am not surprised that you have such a poor conception of Christianity�in many places, Christianity has a woefully poor conception of itself.

One more thing, I do not expect to "convince" anyone with the following arguments; they are not proofs. Reason allows you to say "This is possible" or "This is probable," but only faith enables you to commit and say "This is true" and act in accordance with it. This is the case for every truth, not just religious�we do not see "things in themselves�"

I'll proceed by addressing the elements of Walk's post, indicating what is and what is not an accurate representation of my understanding of the Roman Catholic faith (which I believe in).

1. You wrote: "So, let's see, one does not have to violate reason to believe that an immensely powerful entity, which is so powerful it can arguably create universes, move huge stars around at will, etc."

No, I do not violate reason by believing in a Supreme Being that I have not seen with my eyes. As I've already mentioned, physics is inherently incapable of explaining the origin of what it observes. Science is the physical observation of what is. It does not describe "how what is is." And something is�namely a universe. There is nothing within the universe that can create "ex nihil." No "thing" can create out of nothing, much less create itself out of nothing. Don't say "quantum fluctuations" or anything else within the universe spawned the universe, because if you do you're missing the point. Nothing of the universe can beget itself. So no matter how far back we trace the history of the universe, we will never, using physics, cross into the moment "before it was." If anything was around to create itself, then it already was and could not then go on to create itself (for it would have already been created). If you say big bang, then I say what made the big bang? If you say quantum fluctuations, then I say what made the quantum fluctuations? And so on� This very rational argument leads many to suppose a Being which is outside of the universe and therefore not like it (unlike the universe, this Being is not contingent and can create out of nothing). For how else could this universe have come about, since it has no power of self-creation? And since this Being which is "supreme" over the universe would be the author of gravity I would say that yes he has authority over the movements of stars, etc.

2. You wrote: He "created this incredibly large universe with the sole purpose of giving rise to the species homo sapiens in this tiny corner of space."

Lol, this is a very fair question. :-) And of course I should admit that ultimately I don't know exactly why God would create; I cannot claim to know the whole mind of a Being that transcends the universe. But I can say a few things about his motivations�thanks to reason and what he has revealed about himself�don't worry, I'll get to that. If he's God he wouldn't need us, so he didn't create us to "get" something from us. Therefore, he must have created us for our own sake, and this is the beginning of the reasonable explanation of Love. Is his generosity and love for us the "sole" reason? I have no idea. :-) It is a big universe!

3. You wrote: "This incredible entity, although totally invisible, (and undetectable even to our most sensitive instruments), nevertheless reaches into our material world and manipulates it (again undetectably)�"

God is completely outside of the universe, and yet he is also radically imminent�for we have perceived the effects of his presence. This seems irrational if you conceive of God as a spatial and temporal being, which he's not (remember, he's not like the universe; he is immaterial). I must confess that I am not well informed in Catholic theology regarding the relationship between "Grace and Nature." Does God "override" the laws of nature he created? Does he move them to operate on a new level? I'm sorry, but I cannot adequately describe "how" God moves the material world�I just don't know the philosophical and theological tools (yet, I hope). But I can offer two very recent, credible happenings which indicate that he does in fact move within the material world, and that he is present and active in this spatial and temporal universe.

a) In 1917 at Fatima 70,000 people witnessed the sun "spin" for several minutes and then appear to "dive" towards the earth before pulling back and returning to its normal position. People in neighboring towns testified to the same happenings�people who had never even heard of the 3 little children who, in spite of the harassment and torture of their own families, maintained that they saw Mary at that location. Conspiracy? Hallucination? Well, I suppose it's possible�but highly improbable. No traces of air-born hallucinogens were found (to my knowledge). And could 70,000 people having the same idea for a hoax�to follow 3 little children and their fantasies? Could all those people in the towns create the same story as those at Fatima? And to what purpose? Those 3 children suffered a lot of grief when they told their families that they had begun to see Mary at that location. They were harassed by a great amount of people (others believed them). But after that miraculous day, everyone who was there believed them, in spite of the religious persecution that existed in the country.

b) Padre Pio's hands, feet and side bled for fifty years with no known "natural explanation." And they began to heal before his death and all traces (not even a scar) remained afterwards (I've read that there are pictures). Did he wound himself his whole life and fool all those who investigated him? I suppose it's possible, but again, highly improbable. He died in the 1970's�these were no witch doctors that investigated him, but real "men of science." And again, to what purpose would he fake it? He suffered great alienation from his own monastic order and the Church for several years�the Catholic Church initially suspended his right to perform the functions of a priest and ordered him not to show his stigmata publicly�even they were skeptical in the beginning! Eventually however, they authenticated his stigmata (as best we can "authenticate" this sort of phenomena�by saying "there is no natural explanation and thus we believe there could be a supernatural one"). Thousands of people have claimed to the Catholic Church they have experienced the wounds of Christ on their body�the Church has given credence to very few.

Could there be completely "natural" explanations for these solar and bodily phenomena? I suppose so, but probably not. They're unlike anything else we've seen in nature, and thus a partly supernatural explanation is the most probable cause. But what is the relationship between the natural and supernatural "ingredients" of the phenomena? How much were nature and grace each involved? I don't know�but I hope both scientists and theologians continue to investigate these things so that we can try to understand them.

4. You wrote: He moves the universe "in response to some of the silent wishes of some of his creatures (only the ones he favors)."

This is a misunderstanding of prayer. God does not "do things" at people's request in the sense you seem to suggest�that's Santa Clause. In John 14, Jesus says "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." To ask something "in the name of Jesus" is not a magic formula to secure whatever one wishes. God knows what he wants to give us already; he knows what we need and what is best for us (which is always the particular life he plans according to the manner in which he personally created each of us). And thus there are a great many things we can ask for to which he will respond with a loving "No." But why pray if he already knows what he wants to give us? Because God, in his love, wants to incorporate our freedom into the life he planned for us. He knows from all eternity what we will ask for and what he will gives us. Prayer is our way of communing with him (there's a lot behind that statement) in order to learn his will, declare ours, and thereby enable ourselves to freely participate in the "living out" of his will for our lives. God wants us to be good, but he also wants that we want to be good. Pursuing a relationship with him (which is a definition of prayer) is our way of learning about him, about the world and ourselves such that we can make free and good decisions about our personal lives in response to his will�and thus prayer is another gift of God's. This is an incomplete explanation of prayer, but it's all that I can offer in this forum at the present time.

5. You wrote: "If these creatures follow the almost indecipherable rules set forth in a badly flawed 2,000 year old book, think the right thoughts, behave properly in the bedroom, etc., this being will grant them (or some illusive, undetectable part of them) eternal life somewhere beyond space and time."

Lots of things one could say here�which to choose�

God revealed himself over time�he did not throw a book from Heaven and step aside. That revelation was mediated through human elements (traditions, texts, songs, stories, myths, etc.) and collected over hundreds of years into a body of work we call Sacred Scripture; thus the Bible is a mixture of elements, both human and divine. That needs to be acknowledged if one is to interpret it correctly. For example, the first chapters of Genesis are myth, not narrative history. The Canticle of Canticles is�well, a canticle (a song), with lots of pretty "racy" poetic images I might add. Other books are mixtures of different types of literature. It is important to realize, however, that just because much of the Bible is literature and not non-fiction, that doesn't mean it's not about truth. Ask a good English major what I mean if you don't understand that. ("Two roads diverged in a wood�" Is Frost talking about an actual road? Probably not. Does that mean his poem isn't about something true?) Thus a literal interpretation of every passage in the Bible is not a reasonable way to interpret it.

But what about Christian morality? There are two sources: reason and revelation. We can look at the universe God created, observe its laws�which range from gravity to those which govern our human nature�and discern the appropriate way to live in the world. Take penguins, for example. They are monogamous, but not free (at least the ones I saw in the movie "March of the Penguins"). If a penguin had free choice and could choose to act against his instincts and "sleep around" he would frustrate his own "happiness" and the peace of his community. For example, he would have two eggs to sit on when the mama penguins go to get food, and thus one would die in the cold (I hope you guys have seen this movie or this might not make much sense! ). The movie showed how mama penguins behaved when their egg died: they attacked and tried to steal the eggs of other females�it wasn't pretty. Humans are animals as well! We have a human nature, but unlike other animals, we have an ability (although limited) to choose whether or not we act in accord with it (I say limited because there are many natural conditions I just can't get away from, no matter how hard I might try :-).

The other source is Revelation�and the fullness of that came in Jesus Christ. And why should we believe in him and what he taught? The big reasons Christians believe in him are because of what he did while he was alive (miracles, etc.) and because he rose from the dead. As St. Paul says, "If Christ has not been raised than your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). But how do I know he rose from the dead? Well I don't "know" it, I believe it. But why do I believe it? People don't just rise from the dead! What reason could I have to believe something that contradicts what so many of us have observed!? Well, simply put, I believe it because some very credible witnesses observed what I have never seen�a man rising from the dead. Why are these witnesses credible? For starters, all of the apostles had nothing to gain but persecution and poverty from preaching the Risen Christ, but they persevered all the way to martyrdom. What did they see that gave them the courage to do that? And how about St. Paul? He was a major persecutor of Christianity and a man of high rank in Judaism�what happened to him that prompted his conversion? Lol, it would be as if Dr. Dawkins came out tomorrow and said "Guys, I was wrong. I've encountered him�he exists." Then there is the testament of all the early martyrs, and the saints and their miracles throughout the years. And then there are the essential personal experiences, which, however, could always be chalked up to emotions or coincidences. But how many "converging signs" can we reject before we become culpable for our incredulity?

There are many signs which point to Christianity, and so there's always a lot more to be said. But I have to move on.

6. You wrote: "However if they violate any of these strange conditions, or have the audacity to not believe his son (who is actually him) was born of a virgin, then he condemns them to burn for eternity with great wailing and gnashing of teeth."

No, Catholic soteriology does not hold that the way to salvation is tantamount to a check list of beliefs and deeds. For how could God, in his love, condemn a man to hell for not believing in his Son, when God chose to give him life in some location where he could never have heard of him? That doesn't make sense with what else Christianity claims (but sadly many Christians believe such things, and worse). Rather, God gives everyone he has created the graces to know and respond to him in a measure sufficient to allow God to step into his life, redeem and raise him to eternity (For how could a loving God do otherwise? He wouldn't create someone he pre-determines to go to hell). Nevertheless, we will certainly be accountable for our deeds (For why would he enable us to make free decisions if they had no purpose or value?). And although the loving God will take into account the gifts he has given us, our life after death will in some measure be affected by the responses we make to his grace in this life�for a loving and ordered God is also just. If we reject him on earth he will not force us to be with him in eternity. Out of love he will respect our freedom, and permit us to remain in hell.

This is a tiny picture and incomplete defense of faith. I know I have made statements without supplying much support�my time and space is limited. I hope, however, that I have given you some reason to accept that God and Christianity are more plausible than you once thought�or at least not as ridiculous as you thought.

One last try to address Cartomancer's argument. You wrote:

"Faith and reason are mutually incompatible. Well, they are from the side of reason anyway. You can believe whatever you want on faith, whether it is rational or not. You can simply have faith that gravity exists or that 1+1=2 without bothering to reason it out, but rational argument falls down if even one component of it is derived from an irrational source."

No, faith and reason are different, but not incompatible. For example, your parents (I presume) told you that you were not adopted. Did you witness your birth? Have you run the DNA tests? Probably not. But in faith you believe your parents, that what they claim is true. Your faith in them is reasonable�your earliest memories are probably of them and you've seen pictures (although I suppose there's no guarantee that its really you in them�but maybe you have your father's eyes or something? :-).

Nevertheless, you believe something which is not "proven." You have faith in a proposition that is reasonable. You have made use of both faculties in the same action�they are not mutually exclusive.

And I'll say one note about math, since you mentioned it. Math is different than natural science as it is constructive, rather than being based off of observation. We are "absolutely certain" that 1 + 1 = 2 because we have defined 2 as the collection of 1 and 1. Man "created" the number system; he did not "observe" it. Have you ever seen a perfect triangle in nature? All of geometry is based upon theoretical shapes we "suppose" and then play around with to discover more characteristics about them. The formulas we discover correspond to the shapes we find in the real world always with a certain degree of error, although the margin of error is irrelevant for practical purposes�nevertheless, strictly speaking, there is nothing in nature to which the Pythagorean Theorem applies. There are no "right triangles" in human experience! We envision them and then deduce the rest of their attributes!

In light of the fact that religion and natural science are not "constructive" in this sense, you cannot expect the same degree of proof.

And one more try for Northern Bright�

You complaint about "the illogical nature of the creationist argument" is unfounded. Try this analogy: Suppose ten shoe-makers are stuck in a room making shoes for their entire existence. Shoe-making is the only thing they have the tools and ability to make. One day they wake up and see a car�an object nothing anyone within their room has the power to make. It is a very probable truth that there is an 11th maker in existence of which they were unaware�a car maker, whom they are now aware of after seeing the effects of his existence. The universe and all its laws are the shoemakers governing and changing their shoes of planets, black-holes, big bangs, and other effects of nature, etc. But we have discovered the car�existence itself! No power within the universe has the ability to create existence. There are only forces that operate on what already exists. Make any more sense?

I don't think I'll post again as I've been neglecting some schoolwork that I need to take care of (although I'll certainly come back to read any response anyone makes). But if anyone wants to press me to explain something in greater degree or wants to learn more, feel free to email me (pjbyr@yahoo.com). But you don't have to bother with me; there's a lot of good books out there about the faith (just be careful because there's a lot of bad ones too). If you want to know "what Catholics believe" then check out the Catechism first. If you want to know why we believe what we do then you'll be joining us on a quest of life and learning that will not end until we are in the presence of Him who has all the answers, for "nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known�" (Luke 8:17)

Take care,

BJohn

31. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100343 by BJohn on December 18, 2007 at 2:05 pm

No, NortherBright I (and my church) do not believe that.

I will try to answer Walk's challenge about prayer. But first I have to go play basketball and eat dinner.

So look for it later.

Take care,

BJohn

32. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100196 by BJohn on December 18, 2007 at 11:27 am

No, much of what you presented does not seem very probable at all. However, what you presented is only just another poor caricature of Christianity, and so I can only say "that's not it" and move on.

33. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100073 by BJohn on December 18, 2007 at 7:48 am

Ok, thank you for your reply Cartromancer. And I do apologize for assuming that you did not know "Credo ut intelligam" originated with Augustine.

I hope you don't mind if I address only selections of your last post�I don't have the time, space or knowledge to address all the points you made.

I agree that theology begins with belief. Pondering the relationship of the Son, Father and Holy Spirit requires first that one believe in a doctrine that is not provable in this life (namely the existence of the Trinity). I do not dispute that.

However, ALL of theology (good theology anyway) is done both with man's faculty for faith and with his faculty for reason. And so I do not agree with your suggestion that theology is about "believing in every single thing that might exist," which you go on to imply is the belief in every monster or god man has ever imagined. That's a ridiculous caricature, and I'm surprised that you made it. Some beliefs are more probable than others, and others are simply irrational. For example, it is irrational to believe that a hedgehog created the universe. However, one does not have to violate his reason in order to believe that a "Supreme being" exists outside of the universe. In fact, not only is it reasonable, but also probable, since it explains the existence of the universe�an explanation not possible by any discipline that studies only the things of the universe, such as physics.

Early moderns like Bacon were honest (unlike many of today's scientists) that science is the study of "intermediate axioms" only. In fact they willfully abandoned the study of "ultimate causes," in order to focus on what they believed was really important to humanity�improving his biological situation (see the New Atlantis). They thought that questions of religion and metaphysics were "vain pursuits," which could not improve the situation of mankind; and that therefore tolerance of all metaphysical beliefs should be accepted, since knowing "the truth" about them was not possible, and certainly not worth all the conflict caused by their discussion.

How wrong they were! It is dangerous if someone believes that the moral order of the universe permits him to blow up a coffee shop or an abortion clinic. It is a danger if someone believes that the god of the universe desires human sacrifice. These are "metaphysical problems" which need to be addressed. What is right and wrong? Who is my author (for I and the universe certainly did not create ourselves) and what does he demand of us? You can't live appropriately in this life without considering these questions. That's wonderful if one day we cure cancer�but we may not be able to enjoy it for too long if certain people are able to act on certain metaphysical beliefs! But in some sense I'm preaching to the choir on this one, I know�

But the main point I want to make is that, ultimately, no intellectual endeavor of man's is completely free from faith�not even science. And I'm not referring to "hyperbolic doubt," so much as to the nature of human knowledge. We are finite beings that don't see the things "in themselves." Our perception of reality is always filtered through the limited sieve of our humanity. And so the demand that only religion be "provable" before we are willing to respect it is terribly misguided.

And Dr. Benway, if "Quantum fluctuations" lite the fuse, then who shook up those fluctuating quantums? I think you missed my point, which is that there are no uncaused causes in physics; things of the universe do not emerge out of nothing, they are the result of other things. And thus the fact that there is something at all indicates the presence of a power outside the universe which called it into being (for the universe's powers cannot create "ex nihil").

And yes, the demands for scientific validity are less than proof, that's what I said as well�my complaint was that we demand "proof" of God but permit ourselves to have faith in science. All we demand of a scientific theory is that we don't physically observe the contrary, which is, as you say, anything that would falsify it. But with God, many take the absence of any "physical observation" for or against his existence as an excuse to ridicule any belief in him.

Take care,

BJohn

34. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99910 by BJohn on December 17, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Cartomancer, I appreciate the dignity your lengthy response affords me, thank you. And I appreciate your criticisms of the "A-authors," however I think I can identify a few misunderstandings.

Yes, Aristotle spoke of multiple movers (one for each motion of the heavenly "spheres") but of only one immovable mover ("Thus, the first immovable mover is one both in formula and in number" � Book XII of the Metaphysics, line 37). His argument is that an infinite regress of causality is impossible. To believe that this universe�where one thing causes another (causes which are being discovered all the time, by physics and other disciplines) had no beginning is irrational. There must be some kind of cause�some kind of mover�that is uncaused, unmoved. That immovable mover, or the "uncaused cause," is Aristotle's "God." That is an excellent argument for the existence of a being that transcends the universe. After all, someone had to be there to light the fuse on the big-bang, right? :-)

And causality does not imply time for Aristotle. But that's another section of the metaphysics (potency and actuality)�

"Credo ut intelligam" was originally St. Augustine, not St. Anselm. And it's not an "epistemological argument" � he was not speaking with respect to apologetics. In other words, he did not expect a non-believer to just decide to believe in order to understand. He is speaking about himself as a believer who accepts the truths of faith in order to move deeper in his exploration of his faith and its implications. For example, no one has "proved" God. However, many people have believed in him for the sake of discussing other issues that pertain to him�and thus learn more in faith.

Good arguments have been given for the "Euthyphro problem." Man possesses a limited freedom which a loving God would respect. His freedom for both good and evil has, unfortunately, enabled him to do some bad things�bad things which God permitted. So there is no problem reconciling God's omnipotence and the existence of evil. But what about preserving his goodness? Christianity has a beautiful resolution to this dilemma: in order to save his people from the sad evils brought about by their sin he became human, bore the worst evils possible (the crucifixion of the most holy and undeserving person) and thereby "paved" a way through the forces of sin and death that leads to the eternal and blessed life he originally intended to share with them. Now there's a lot packed into that sentence that needs a lot of explanation in order to be sufficiently understood. Not to mention that there's a lot of premises one would have to "credo ut intelligam" :-)

I wish more atheists saw that to believe "not God" takes faith just as to believe "in God." God is not an irrational concept. It is "unproven" but it is still reasonable. And if you take an honest look around you might find that there are a lot of unproven things that we believe in�like the theories of science for example. You can't prove physics. You can witness it thousands of times in experimentation, but you can never prove the necessity of its laws. "F = ma" is an observation based off of other observations seen in the lab, not argued in the forum.

I need to do my homework. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays :-)

35. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99640 by BJohn on December 17, 2007 at 8:34 am

I disagree Cartomancer. I think there are some very good arguments for the existence of God, at least as good as the arguments I've heard for "not-God." Sts. Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas are some of the good ones...but the rest of the alphabet can boast other thinkers as well :-)

But I would like to know more... What are the favored arguments against God's existence? One of the better ones I've encountered is probably the most familiar: the problem of evil. But Christianity (and other faiths as well) have presented strong counter arguments. What are some others?

I do not consider science an argument against religion. Christianity (not fundamentalism) makes the claim that God created; it does not pretend to know outline how.

And I think it is pretty arrogant thing to say that all those who have believed in a Supreme Being have "persevered" in something that was "completely irrational" (see Chrisie, below). There have been a great many intelligent people who have been men and women of faith.

How about Aristotle? (another "A-author" :-) He believed that an infinite chain of causality is irrational--and therefore a universe without a First Cause which transcends the universe could not be the truth.

The universe and its laws cannot explain themselves, no matter how complicated and far reaching we discover them to be. There must have been an "in the beginning" for there to be a now...

That seems like a very rational argument to me.

-BJohn

36. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99595 by BJohn on December 17, 2007 at 6:31 am

I would have expected more thatn this from Dr. Dawkins, who is such a well known and respected atheist:

"We never wondered why God would go to such lengths simply to fulfil a prophecy. Nor, indeed, why God would go to the even greater lengths of sending his son into the world in order that he should be agonisingly punished for the sins that mankind.... We never wondered why God, if he wanted to forgive our sins, didn't just forgive them. Why did he have to scapegoat himself first? Where religion was concerned, we never wondered anything. That was the point about religion. You could ask questions about any other subject, but not religion."

Dr. Dawkins seems to try to give the impression he knows Christianity (he's mentions a lot of details about the Bible), but his frustrations on these issues betray a glaring ignorance of the Christian faith.

1. "We never wondered" why would God go through such great lengths to save mankind? I think Christianity has been attempting to understand that one from the begining! Love. And why didn't he just forgive them? Again, Love. Its the only plausible reason that an infinite being would create, let alone redeem, mankind. But love is not an idea that can be summed up by Webster; its content can be plummed indefinetly. If you believe in Christianity, then Christmas is about the greatest moment of revelation--when God humbly condescended to show himself in human form, coming to tell us more about himself in the efforts to deepen his personal relationship with humanity begun in the time of Abraham. That's a gift that goes well beyond "just forgiving us."

2. And the other claim of Dr. Dawkins' paragraph quoted above (that you could question anything but religion) is also problematic--or at least in need of clarification. Does this remark stem from a bad personal experience? It must, for surely Dr. Dawkins is not ignorant of the 2,000 year tradition of Catholic apologetics and theology. Christians have been marveling and trying to understand their faith from the beginning (and its what Christians believe they will be doing for all eternity). Why would God send his Son? That's a big question that has "spilled a lot of ink" over the ages! Nevertheless, there are many who have suffered from those who would push "just believe it and be quiet." That is an evil (pardon the expression) that should be conquered. When an issue of faith divides your humanity--setting your reason and will in opposition, it must be addressed. Thankfully, the claims of the Christian faith do not demand that one act irrationally. However, that is a very big claim that would take a lot of time and text to defend. And it has already been addressed over 2,000 years by men and women more capable than I.

-BJohn