A Challenge Of Sorts

[Akalyte]

God is like Radio waves. We cant see them, but we know that they exist and are there. Take a look at all of creation. You'll notice its exactly that, creation. A design.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1106977' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:30 PM']
Oh, that's a very convincing story!
A puddle of goo, by its own magical power, evolved into a living, rational human being!
A small dense point of matter just happened to explode of its own power, and just by chance became an ordered, working universe capable of producing intelligent life.

C'mon, I thought you were smarter than that!

Where did this "small dense point of matter" come from?
[/quote]

That is the real question, isn't it? I find myself convinced wholly on the issue of evolution. And I don't think evolution necessarily gets in the way of Catholicism either. I mean, I'm no theologian so I guess it could. However, I try my best to be honest with my beliefs. I tried very hard to believe in a God, but I never really managed anything approaching faith. You can't get faith by working very hard I've learned. Anyway, as to the question of where the small dense point of matter came from - this is the sticking point I always find myself with. Science, for all its claims to truth, has no satisfactory answer.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1106966' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:25 PM']
Read Corinthians 11. 1st Timothy 2: 11-15. I could add more, but why bother.
[/quote]
And what of it? Paul speaks of proper behavior at church - though I can see why such matter might not appeal to an atheist.

Are you here to debate, or to hurl insults at the Saints of God? (looks like you're just an emo-driven attention-[hound] like your Satan-loving buddy!)

Edited November 1, 2006 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1106982' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:34 PM']
And what of it? Paul speaks of proper behavior at church - though I can see why such matter what not appeal to an atheist.

Are you hear to debate, or to hurl insults at the Saints of God? (looks like you're just an emo-driven attention-[hound] like your Satan-loving buddy!)
[/quote]

I'm actually not here to debate. If you look at my first post, I'm here to listen to various explanations offered by phatmassers without ridiculing their beliefs or arguing with them. Forgive me, but I never can resist a passing shot at Paul.

[Socrates]

I don't have time to get into the whole intelligent-design debate in detail here, but I actually find it quite convincing. The human body (and those of other living creatures too) is a functioning machine many, many times more complex than any machine devised by man. (And this includes on the sub-cellular level.) I find it impossible that such a complex ordered functioning system could come about by forces of pure blind chance. I'd recommend reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936/sr=1-1/qid=1162346574/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9205297-9214448?ie=UTF8&s=books"][i]Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution[/i], by Michael Behe[/url]. (Read it with an open mind - Behe is much attacked, but most of the attacks seem to be straw-men arguments and emotionally-driven ad-hominems.)

And there's the whole "anthropic principle" - scientists tell us the range of physical conditions which make the existance of rational living beings such as human beings possible is actually very narrow. (Distance of earth from sun, composition of earth and sun, distance from asteroids and damaging bodies, position of sun in the galaxy, and the composition and physical laws of the universe itself) A slight change in any one of many factors would make intelligent life impossible. The chances of such conditions coming about by pure chance are infinitely small.
I have read the "anthropic principle" argued by people who are not Christian, nor even traditional deists.

Edited November 1, 2006 by Socrates

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1106980' date='Oct 31 2006, 11:33 PM']
That is the real question, isn't it? I find myself convinced wholly on the issue of evolution. And I don't think evolution necessarily gets in the way of Catholicism either. I mean, I'm no theologian so I guess it could. However, I try my best to be honest with my beliefs. I tried very hard to believe in a God, but I never really managed anything approaching faith. You can't get faith by working very hard I've learned. Anyway, as to the question of where the small dense point of matter came from - this is the sticking point I always find myself with. Science, for all its claims to truth, has no satisfactory answer.
[/quote]
That's because science deals with the measurable. Infinitesimal moments of time are immeasurable. Infinite, intentional beings are immeasurable. The immeasurable belongs properly to the field of theology. Therefore, the answer must be theological, not scientific. Theology's answer is simple: creation must have a creator. Now, whether that creator is a loving God or a vengeful God depends on other things, but that He exists is plainly obvious from reason alone.

[Winchester]

There must be a fisrt cause. I don't believe a Christian god cna be proven, but one may arrive at the assurance of a philosopher's god.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1107034' date='Oct 31 2006, 10:10 PM']
I don't have time to get into the whole intelligent-design debate in detail here, but I actually find it quite convincing. The human body (and those of other living creatures too) is a functioning machine many, many times more complex than any machine devised by man. (And this includes on the sub-cellular level.) I find it impossible that such a complex ordered functioning system could come about by forces of pure blind chance. I'd recommend reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936/sr=1-1/qid=1162346574/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9205297-9214448?ie=UTF8&s=books"][i]Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution[/i], by Michael Behe[/url]. (Read it with an open mind - Behe is much attacked, but most of the attacks seem to be straw-men arguments and emotionally-driven ad-hominems.)

And there's the whole "anthropic principle" - scientists tell us the range of physical conditions which make the existance of rational living beings such as human beings possible is actually very narrow. (Distance of earth from sun, composition of earth and sun, distance from asteroids and damaging bodies, position of sun in the galaxy, and the composition and physical laws of the universe itself) A slight change in any one of many factors would make intelligent life impossible. The chances of such conditions coming about by pure chance are infinitely small.
I have read the "anthropic principle" argued by people who are not Christian, nor even traditional deists.
[/quote]


That's very true. Just one small example I used to use when I was Catholic - Ice is less dense than water. It is (to my knowledge) the only solid which is less dense than its liquid form. If ice were more dense than water it would sink rather than float and the oceans would freeze. It also so happens that liquid water is one of the prime prerequisites for life in general. So, if ice weren't less dense than water, there would probably be no life on earth at all.

However, I disagree on evolution. Evolution by natural selection is not chance. Rather, it holds that some animals (or plants even) will have different traits than others within the same species. Some of those traits are more advantageous than others. Therefore, the ones with the more advantageous traits will be more likely to survive and reproduce and thereby pass those traits on. I'll spare you the trip from bacteria to man, but the idea is that a series of small changes lead to the developments of new species and that these new species in turn change and become more complex until you reach man. It takes millions of years and has no apparent plan, but it isn't random.

Edited November 1, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[Kosh]

God exists because something can't come from nothing and something can't exist forever.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1107059' date='Oct 31 2006, 10:31 PM']
However, I disagree on evolution. Evolution by natural selection is not chance. Rather, it holds that some animals (or plants even) will have different traits than others within the same species. Some of those traits are more advantageous than others. Therefore, the ones with the more advantageous traits will be more likely to survive and reproduce and thereby pass those traits on. I'll spare you the trip from bacteria to man, but the idea is that a series of small changes lead to the developments of new species and that these new species in turn change and become more complex until you reach man. It takes millions of years and has no apparent plan, but it isn't random.
[/quote]
There is the problem of "irreducable complexity," though. There are many complex systems in a living organism, where if even one part of the system is changed or removed, the system fails. (Think like the different parts of a car or computer, but far more complex). I'm not denying that organisms may have changed over time, but random mutation and "natural selection" cannot account for all these complex functioning systems. Even a simple living cell is an incredibly complex machine (the cell is the "black box" of Behe's title). Read Behe for details..

Edited November 1, 2006 by Socrates

[suuran]

Well, to me, God exists because there is goodness and beauty in the world, and goodness and beauty are not material principles. You can't put beauty in a test tube, or define it, or even get people to agree exactly what it is. But everyone can appreciate beauty.

Same for goodness. Only the existance of God can explain people like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul II, Padre Pio, whose goodness goes far beyond anything which can be explained by any secular system of thought. Heck, there are plenty of other examples of goodness--witness the post-Sept. 11 solidarity among New Yorkers and even the rest of the nation.

If you want to see more of my thoughts on those, I could try to elaborate.

Then there's what Kosh said--the principle of entropy says that all the material things we see are in an ongoing state of decay, so what we see must have had a definite beginning--and, even if there was a "Big Bang", there had to have been some event that caused the Bang. Somewhere back along the line, there has to be an "uncaused cause".

[Kosh]

Yay for Thomas Aquinas.

[suuran]

True dat!

[123]

[quote]Nice job of labeling. Why was he a "bigoted Pharisee" - because he didn't preach modern liberal moral relativism, but actually preached Christ and that certain acts are right and wrong?
[/quote]

Quite the statement. I have also noticed Socrates that many seem to label Paul becuase, he is unlike modern evangelical pastors today whom seek to "up" the ego of their congregation for the sake of Christ.

Many seek to down Paul's good news because, he wasnt a "feel good" Apostle who preached a "feel good" sermon. He told people the truth no matter how someone felt about it. We have since lost that today, it's mixed up in the trash of postmodernistic thinking. I'm sure you are aware of all this but, I noticed in my previous church days that Paul wasnt not highly favor becuase, he had no tolerance. This is what I fight against and I just had to say this one thing.

Edited November 1, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Guest JeffCR07]

Kizlar, it seems like the conversation has strayed a bit. Could you respond to my most recent substantive post?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1106908' date='Oct 31 2006, 08:35 PM']
it is important that we remember the specific formula used by Anselm. God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This is not merely a great "something," but rather, it is a something so great that we can conceive of nothing greater. Now Anselm's entire [i]Prosologion[/i] does exactly what you are asking of me - it shows why "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must be the God of Catholicism. I strongly urge you to read and grapple with this work, but in the absense of a serious treatment of the entire text, I can offer just a few reflections:

First, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must have every perfection that we can think of. So it must have perfect knowledge, perfect justice, perfect mercy, perfect love, etc. Moreover, it must not be susceptible to change, or identifiable to anything that can change, because change implies a movement from what something potentially is to what something actually is. But what is actual is greater than what is potential, and so there can be no potentiality in "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Now if it has perfect knowledge, then there is no knowledge that it lacks. But a mere force is not self-conscious. Therefore, it is not a mere force or principle, but rather, a self-conscious entity, or a person. It is sufficiently clear that at least a [i]prima facie[/i] identity exists between the God of Catholicism and a self-conscious, personal, perfect being.

Yours in Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]

It makes sense that the perfect entity would have perfect consciousness and perfect sentience. However, I have a hard time with the mental leap that just because we conceive of it, it must exist.

Oh and Jeff - topics with Socrates and I "discussing things" tend to get off topic? Pishposh!

Edited November 1, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi K.A., welcome back to Phatmass. Just a few random comments...
[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1106988' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:36 PM']I'm actually not here to debate. If you look at my first post, I'm here to listen to various explanations offered by phatmassers without ridiculing their beliefs or arguing with them. Forgive me, but I never can resist a passing shot at Paul.[/quote]I think this is the point: if you ridicule St. Paul, you are ridiculing Catholic beliefs. We believe he was inspired by God to write his Epistles in the New Testament. Just an unfortunate tangent, I guess.

Anyway, I always found agnosticism/atheism to be the most intellectually interesting challenge to the faith (compared with Protestantism or Islam, for example). I find the question of a first cause to be the most convincing argument against a godless universe. In the wee hours of the night, I caught a show on EWTN (relevant to your topic) hosted by Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, called "Finding God Through Faith and Reason" ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/series/2006/fall2006/Finding_God.htm"]link[/url]). Watching it gives me the feeling that I'm sitting in a college philosophy class. It's pretty interesting discussion. In case you have EWTN on your TV, you might want to watch this series.

A second issue which has always been a strong argument against atheism is the idea of spiritual reality and the origin of life ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life"]link[/url]). I suppose a materialist believes that one's entire conscience/spirit/soul/etc is somehow contained in our body's brain cells, and all the little electric signals running around in our head. I find it difficult to accept that the spirit/soul/will is purely material. Also, I feel that consciousness wouldn't/couldn't "evolve" from a non-living thing (e.g. my great grandfather was ammonia, his wife was hydrogen, and you should have seen the sparks that flew when they met).

Side note 1: In the last paragraph, I'm purposely avoiding the discussion of material evolution. I think that Young Earth Creationism isn't an essential for Christianity. For example, St. Augustine (in his Confessions) treat the Genesis 7-day Creation account as a figurative treatment of Creation.

Side note 2: It is interesting that the Big Bang theory actually vindicates religions which taught "In the Beginning...", since many pre-Big Bang scientists thought that the universe had no beginning.

Finally, just in case it hasn't already been posted, here is a relevant Catholic Defense Directory entry: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/121"]Science and the Existence of God (link)[/url].

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1107209' date='Nov 1 2006, 01:39 AM']
Hi K.A., welcome back to Phatmass. Just a few random comments...
I think this is the point: if you ridicule St. Paul, you are ridiculing Catholic beliefs. We believe he was inspired by God to write his Epistles in the New Testament. Just an unfortunate tangent, I guess.

Anyway, I always found agnosticism/atheism to be the most intellectually interesting challenge to the faith (compared with Protestantism or Islam, for example). I find the question of a first cause to be the most convincing argument against a godless universe. In the wee hours of the night, I caught a show on EWTN (relevant to your topic) hosted by Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, called "Finding God Through Faith and Reason" ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/series/2006/fall2006/Finding_God.htm"]link[/url]). Watching it gives me the feeling that I'm sitting in a college philosophy class. It's pretty interesting discussion. In case you have EWTN on your TV, you might want to watch this series.

A second issue which has always been a strong argument against atheism is the idea of spiritual reality and the origin of life ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life"]link[/url]). I suppose a materialist believes that one's entire conscience/spirit/soul/etc is somehow contained in our body's brain cells, and all the little electric signals running around in our head. I find it difficult to accept that the spirit/soul/will is purely material. Also, I feel that consciousness wouldn't/couldn't "evolve" from a non-living thing (e.g. my great grandfather was ammonia, his wife was hydrogen, and you should have seen the sparks that flew when they met).

Side note 1: In the last paragraph, I'm purposely avoiding the discussion of material evolution. I think that Young Earth Creationism isn't an essential for Christianity. For example, St. Augustine (in his Confessions) treat the Genesis 7-day Creation account as a figurative treatment of Creation.

Side note 2: It is interesting that the Big Bang theory actually vindicates religions which taught "In the Beginning...", since many pre-Big Bang scientists thought that the universe had no beginning.

Finally, just in case it hasn't already been posted, here is a relevant Catholic Defense Directory entry: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/121"]Science and the Existence of God (link)[/url].
[/quote]

Alright, Mateo, since I'm trying to be friendly, I apologize for insulting Paul. But, I don't like the man's ideas. Now, on with the show as it were.

I find it interesting that you have a hard time thinking that your consciousness is contained completely within the organic components of your brain. For me, this isn't a difficulty, and I guess it comes from my life experiences. I've been put unconscious for surgery before, and during that time I experienced no passage of time, no thoughts, no dreams - nothing. I also get very regular blood work, and for whatever reason, I sometimes pass out when my blood is drawn. Usually when I pass out, there is nothingness, and then a slight dream-like state, and then I wake up. But, when I wake up, my brain oftentimes takes a minute or so to boot back up as it were. Sometimes I don't recognize where I am or who the people around me are (despite being on very good terms with my phlebotomist). In the interest of just being open and honest I'm going to discuss some other personal issues relating to brain function. I've on several occasions overdosed on various prescription medications (not for recreation so much as a consequence of depression, but at the same time not out of a desire to die). Anyway, the altered mental states that can be induced in my mind by chemicals are quite fascinating. Clearly, the chemical component is extraordinarily strong in our consciousness. Finally, I've found that having different hormones causes radically different emotions and states of mind. So, I have a hard time believing our consciousness is anything more than the sum of the chemicals and neurons in the brain.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1107220' date='Nov 1 2006, 02:00 AM']
So, I have a hard time believing our consciousness is anything more than the sum of the chemicals and neurons in the brain.
[/quote]

What a very depressing way to think of life. In this way of thinking Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain. So to would be hate, and in this way of thinking there would be nothing wrong with killing someone that "loves" us, it would simply be one multi-cell organism terminating the functions of another multi-cell organism.

If there be no God there is no right or wrong, and life has no value. Any argument that attempts to give value to human life, and leaves God out, comes down to someone's subjective opinion.

What if I said not one single human being died in the Nazi's concentration camps? Well, not one single human being died in the Nazi's concentration camps! How can I say such a thing? I can say this because under German law at the time, Jews were see as "not fully human." Classified as "sub-human." Legally they were "non-persons."

If we are to believe KizlarAgha there is nothing wrong with what the Nazis did, Beacause there is no God and it was just one group of multi-cell organisms terminating the functions of another group of multi-cell organism, in fact there is nothing "wrong" at all. "Life" is meaningless, and pointless.

Depressing is it not?

Atheists Have No Rights...

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1107275' date='Nov 1 2006, 04:26 AM']
What a very depressing way to think of life. In this way of thinking Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain. So to would be hate, and in this way of thinking there would be nothing wrong with killing someone that "loves" us, it would simply be one multi-cell organism terminating the functions of another multi-cell organism.

If there be no God there is no right or wrong, and life has no value. Any argument that attempts to give value to human life, and leaves God out, comes down to someone's subjective opinion.

What if I said not one single human being died in the Nazi's concentration camps? Well, not one single human being died in the Nazi's concentration camps! How can I say such a thing? I can say this because under German law at the time, Jews were see as "not fully human." Classified as "sub-human." Legally they were "non-persons."

If we are to believe KizlarAgha there is nothing wrong with what the Nazis did, Beacause there is no God and it was just one group of multi-cell organisms terminating the functions of another group of multi-cell organism, in fact there is nothing "wrong" at all. "Life" is meaningless, and pointless.

Depressing is it not?

Atheists Have No Rights...
[/quote]

That's not at all the case. I could argue that murder is wrong because it is destructive to society. I could argue that altruism is important because of enlightened self-interest and because it confers evolutionary benefits. There are plenty of ways to square with morality that don't touch on God. Even the simplest, most juvenile point of logic - I don't want to hurt him because I would not like to be hurt. So, the idea of reciprocation can be seen. None of this relies on God and all of it can be used to bolster an argument against murdering your fellow man.

As to love - well, I think in a lot of ways, love is a chemical thing. For example, I have no sex drive and feel no sexual attractions whatsoever. I view human romances, marriage, and sex on the same level as the mating rituals I see on the discovery channel. To me they're both kind of ridiculous, kind of gross, and wholly unfathomable. However, I differ from almost every person on this planet in that regard (and probably a good thing too!). So, I can easily look at the romantic relationships of the people around me and think that it's chemically driven. But that doesn't mean I don't feel love or attachment. However, we do know there are sociopaths who feel neither love nor attachment to anything. So, it would make sense that it's chemically driven - the sociopaths might not have the proper chemicals.

(I want to note before the accusations are made - I'm not excusing criminal behavior on the basis of chemicals. Even though you all have the chemicals which urge you to sex, you can abstain. Similarly if indeed it turns out that there are chemical for criminal impulses, they can abstain as well.)

And that little side note brings up an interesting point. We seem to have urges, drives, etc brought on by hormones or what have you, but we still have the ability to resist those urges and control them. I'm not sure what that means in terms of human consciousness to be honest.