Questions For Those Who Converted To Catholicism

[bonkers]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1728334' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:15 PM']Well first off im crazy but not delusional. God has given me more then one sign to confirm to me that he is legit. Now of course you dont know me so that means nothing to you as it probally shouldnt. But it still doesnt change my experience and my 100 % undoubting in his existance. Now ive struggled before with Gods and things about him. Alot of the old testement stuff has bothered me and even Jesus being on the cross. But that is part of having a relationship with God. Im coming to know Him more and more everyday and I do trust in his goodness and love.[/quote]

You thinking you are not crazy or delusional does not mean you are not crazy or delusional. Delusions are usually extremely convincing to those that believe in them, even when evidence to the contrary suggests otherwise. A delusion isn't always a mental illness, something simple, like believing your prayers are answered by god, even though it's been emperically established prayer does not work, it is a delusion. Go here for more detail (if you dare)
[url="http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI"]http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI[/url] on how prayer works. Even I, and everyone has delusions, though they usuall vary in frequency and intensity.

[quote]So my point is if you seek God 100 percent with a sincere heart im pretty sure he's going to validate to you that he is real. He loves you and wants you to know he loves you. (not speaking for God just what I think )[/quote]

My point is if you seek [b][u]any[/u][/b] god that god is going to validate to you it is real. The mind believes what it wants to.

[Lilllabettt]

Bonkers, if you reject religion because it is a delusion some people believe because wanting to believe it tricks their brain into it, then you can also reject most of what constitutes the human experience of reality.

There are some philosophical systems that hold there is no such thing as objective reality ... your reality is only your mind's perception, your experience of certain electrical impulses in your brain. "Wanting" something triggers certain synapses to fire, and the brain convinces the mind that it is so. In other words, my psychological needs and desires are fulfilled by me having a job, living in America, being a female, practicing a religion .. etc., so my brain convinces me that I do actually have these things. Really, I could be a deranged 70 year old woman in the year 2300 who is locked up in the loony bin. Phatmass and this conversation could also be a part of my delusion.

It's just a crummy argument.

By the same token I could say that you are an atheist because your mind has suggested it to you.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Lilllabettt

[Giolla]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1729182' date='Dec 16 2008, 12:18 AM']You thinking you are not crazy or delusional does not mean you are not crazy or delusional. Delusions are usually extremely convincing to those that believe in them, even when evidence to the contrary suggests otherwise. A delusion isn't always a mental illness, something simple, like believing your prayers are answered by god, even though it's been emperically established prayer does not work, it is a delusion. Go here for more detail (if you dare)
[url="http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI"]http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI[/url] on how prayer works. Even I, and everyone has delusions, though they usuall vary in frequency and intensity.



My point is if you seek [b][u]any[/u][/b] god that god is going to validate to you it is real. The mind believes what it wants to.[/quote]

So its your mind telling you that there is no god. Could it be that your brain is delusional.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1729594' date='Dec 16 2008, 12:51 PM']Bonkers, if you reject religion because it is a delusion some people believe because wanting to believe it tricks their brain into it, then you can also reject most of what constitutes the human experience of reality.[/quote]

I reject religion because it's irrational, it involves belief in things that are not based on objective evidence, and irrational tenets such as angels, devils, demons etc. Either these things are true or they are a delusion. If the thing you are praying to you believe you are having a personal communication session with, if that thing does not really exist (except within your own mind) you are suffering a delusion. If not, what esle could it be (besides god)?

[quote]There are some philosophical systems that hold there is no such thing as objective reality ... your reality is only your mind's perception, your experience of certain electrical impulses in your brain. "Wanting" something triggers certain synapses to fire, and the brain convinces the mind that it is so. In other words, my psychological needs and desires are fulfilled by me having a job, living in America, being a female, practicing a religion .. etc., so my brain convinces me that I do actually have these things. Really, I could be a deranged 70 year old woman in the year 2300 who is locked up in the loony bin. Phatmass and this conversation could also be a part of my delusion.[/quote]'

You were almost making sense there for a minute. Why is it a crummy argument? Is it not true, if someone really really wants to believe in god, they are more likely to believe in him? It's not just god, it's anything of a supersticious and supernatural nature. There are some people who are convinced that aliens are living here on earth, that the CIA is hiding them, or that man did not really land on the moon, or the lochness monster is real. They use alleged "proofs" to support their conspiracies. Some have even been convinced they themselves were taken aboard an alien ship and.. "probed". Not all are liars, they aren't even mentally ill, psychologists believe ideas as such can be easily "suggested" in the subconscious mind and become accepted by the conscious mind. One thing is for sure, no matter much evidence and reason suggests otherwise, these conspiracy theorists continue to embrace these weird theories and think of other people as geniuses for not believing the same.

[quote]By the same token I could say that you are an atheist because your mind has suggested it to you.[/quote]

And you would be right. My dissatisfaction with religion no doubt influenced the way I evaluated reason and planted seeds which caused me to abandon my faith. When I was Catholic I made a poll and wanted thoughts on whether Catholics would continue to believe in god if god was proven to be false. Most people overwhelmingly answered they would continue to believe, which kinda shocked me, because I was always about finding truth and living according to that truth no matter how "empty" it seemed. What about you, if overwhelming evidence was found which negated gods existence, would you forsake your god for an empty, pointless reality, or would you continue to believe?

[bonkers]

[quote name='Giolla' post='1729617' date='Dec 16 2008, 01:48 PM']So its your mind telling you that there is no god. Could it be that your brain is delusional.[/quote]

No, a delusion is based on false beliefs that are confrontational to reason and [u]facts[/u].

[Giolla]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1731106' date='Dec 18 2008, 07:56 AM']No, a delusion is based on false beliefs that are confrontational to reason and [u]facts[/u].[/quote]

Exactly so you are delusional to the fact of God.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Giolla' post='1731203' date='Dec 18 2008, 09:28 AM']Exactly so you are delusional to the fact of God.[/quote]

But if it's fact then it's not faith, no?

faith; belief that is not based on proof:

[Lilllabettt]

Bonkers:

It is a crummy argument because it is illogical. If everything could be a delusion, then it is impossible to prove anything true. The thesis statement is a contradiction: "It is true that nothing can be proven true."

You said before that truth and reason are important part of your personal philosophy. How can "truth" be important to you if you doubt we are capable of knowing what it is?

You demonstrate faith everyday. It is faith that lets you drink tap water, and eat food at a restaurant. You have faith that the water is clean and the food is not poisoned. No one gets out a chemistry set and proves it to you before you take a sip or a bite. You have good reasons to have faith in these things. But they are not proven to you.

Christian faith is based on reason, but not on proof. Atheism is a belief, a belief there is no God. There are a number of reasons to believe there is no God, some better than others. But it is not proven.

If it were proved that God did not exist, of course I would not go on believing in God. Aside from being silly and cowardly, the exertion involved in pretending such a thing would be unsupportable.

Proving that God does not exist is not something that can be done, however.

I do not say this because I know God exists and therefore I don't think His existence can be disproven ... I say this because 1. physical science is intrinsically limited in addressing this matter and 2. It is impossible to prove a negative. (eg. no matter how hard I try, I can NOT prove there are NO fairies dancing in my attic.)

Edited December 18, 2008 by Lilllabettt

[Holly3278]

No, I did not consider Eastern Orthodoxy when I was converting to Catholicism in large part because we have no Eastern Orthodox churches in my area. However, I never really liked their view of the papacy anyway.

[Holly3278]

Double post. Sorry.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Holly3278

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1731365' date='Dec 18 2008, 02:03 PM']Bonkers:

It is a crummy argument because it is illogical. If everything could be a delusion, then it is impossible to prove anything true. The thesis statement is a contradiction: "It is true that nothing can be proven true."

You said before that truth and reason are important part of your personal philosophy. How can "truth" be important to you if you doubt we are capable of knowing what it is?[/quote]

My paradigm has changed. I no longer believe in an ultimate truth, or if there is it is something we can never truly know what it is with a reasonable degree of certaintly. People claim to have and have ultimate truth all the time, you're all the same, you don't even admit the possibility you could be wrong (I admit I could be). It is illogical, irrational because you're purporting to have ultimate truth without any proper evidence to back up your claims. You all use the same process of justifying, rationalising and intellectualising everything to conform with your preconceived notions. It is not truth guiding you but your sub-conscious desires (same for me). But you are incapable of the same self-critique you extend to others, and they do the same to you. No one wants to admit they might be wrong, because we all prefer certainty over doubt. Have you ever doubted? If you did, you probably panicked and immersed yourself in prayer and the bible to overcome your dissonance.

[quote]You demonstrate faith everyday. It is faith that lets you drink tap water, and eat food at a restaurant. You have faith that the water is clean and the food is not poisoned. No one gets out a chemistry set and proves it to you before you take a sip or a bite. You have good reasons to have faith in these things. But they are not proven to you.[/quote]

It isn't faith. I don't have faith water is clean or food I am served is poison, the thought or belief never enters my mind. until later if I get sick (evidence)

[quote]Christian faith is based on reason, but not on proof. Atheism is a belief, a belief there is no God. There are a number of reasons to believe there is no God, some better than others. But it is not proven.[/quote]

Christian faith isn't based on reason. The tenets of faith; devils, angels, gods, prayer, transubstanitation, grace, etc, these are superstitions and are fundamentally opposed to reason. As I said, atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. Atheists would change sides should evidence become available.

[quote]If it were proved that God did not exist, of course I would not go on believing in God. Aside from being silly and cowardly, the exertion involved in pretending such a thing would be unsupportable.

I do not say this because I know God exists and therefore I don't think His existence can be disproven ... I say this because 1. physical science is intrinsically limited in addressing this matter and 2. It is impossible to prove a negative. (eg. no matter how hard I try, I can NOT prove there are NO fairies dancing in my attic.)[/quote]

We can't prove fairies, pixies, goblins and invisible spaghetti jelly monsters aren't real either. We can use reason to declare these things irrational concepts, and make valid and reliable assumptions (based on the evidence) these things are untrue. Why should angels and demons be exempt from the same scrutiny we apply to other myths? The burden of proof is on you to show these things really do exist, otherwise we should jsut assume them for what they are, superstitions.

[Winchester]

Give me something you know objectively.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote]I no longer believe in an ultimate truth, or if there is it is something we can never truly know what it is with a reasonable degree of certaintly[/quote]

I really doubt that you are an atheist. I've re-read this thread, and almost all of your statements fit into agnosticism. Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, it is a belief there is no God. Agnosticism is a belief that there may or may not be a god, but it is impossible for us to know.

[quote]Have you ever doubted? If you did, you probably panicked and immersed yourself in prayer and the bible to overcome your dissonance.[/quote]

Yes, I have doubted. I did not grow up in a religious home. I did not, at the time, immerse myself in prayer or the Bible, since I did not own a Bible or know anything about how to pray. I did read lots of philosophical books. Voltaire; that kind of thing. For awhile, I fancied existentialism.

I became a theist because I believe reason and rationality permeate the Universe; that reality is, in its essence, rational and ordered. I rejected non-theism because it suggests that the Universe is essentially chaotic, random, and irrational.


[quote]It isn't faith. I don't have faith water is clean or food I am served is poison, the thought or belief never enters my mind. until later if I get sick (evidence)[/quote]

You believe the water and food you drink is healthy, because you drink and eat it. You believe it so completely, you don't even think about it. You have strong faith in the cleanliness of your food and water. If you should get sick, your faith might be shaken. You might start filtering your water or quit going to that restaurant. If it happens often enough, you might not eat or drink anything unless it is first tested, and thus "proven" to be good.

Until you do that, you're relying on faith whenever you eat and drink.

[quote]Christian faith isn't based on reason.[/quote]

This just isn't true. Huge tracts of systematic philosophy have been written about the various tenants of Christianity. (These types of things are always based on reason. You may be critical of their various methodologies, but they are still based on reason.)

Theism itself is rational. Einstein was a theist. While he didn't believe in a personal God, he believed the orderliness of the Universe must have a rational source, which is an eminently reasonable idea.

[bonkers]

-

Edited December 20, 2008 by bonkers

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1732045' date='Dec 19 2008, 02:29 PM']I really doubt that you are an atheist. I've re-read this thread, and almost all of your statements fit into agnosticism. Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, it is a belief there is no God. Agnosticism is a belief that there may or may not be a god, but it is impossible for us to know.[/quote]

It's not, I've already explained the difference.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist[/url]
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1][b] or the rejection of theism.[/b][2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as an [b]absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.[/b][4][5][6][7]

[quote]I became a theist because I believe reason and rationality permeate the Universe; that reality is, in its essence, rational and ordered. I rejected non-theism because it suggests that the Universe is essentially chaotic, random, and irrational.[/quote]

Sounds more like deism and no reason to embrace the irrational tenets of theism.

[quote]You believe the water and food you drink is healthy, because you drink and eat it. You believe it so completely, you don't even think about it. You have strong faith in the cleanliness of your food and water. If you should get sick, your faith might be shaken. You might start filtering your water or quit going to that restaurant. If it happens often enough, you might not eat or drink anything unless it is first tested, and thus "proven" to be good.

Until you do that, you're relying on faith whenever you eat and drink.[/quote]

This isn't the same thing as religious faith, in the positive sense. I trust the food/wather is healthy, I have a lack of belief it will make me sick. Religious faith is a positive belief there is a god, it's a conscious belief.

[quote]This just isn't true. Huge tracts of systematic philosophy have been written about the various tenants of Christianity. (These types of things are always based on reason. You may be critical of their various methodologies, but they are still based on reason.)[/quote]

Reason can be used to justify anything. That's where evidence comes in.

[quote]Theism itself is rational. Einstein was a theist. While he didn't believe in a personal God, he believed the orderliness of the Universe must have a rational source, which is an eminently reasonable idea.[/quote]

Einstein wasn't a theist, not in the strict sense of what theism is. He didn't believe in prayer, miracles and revelation. I think his understanding of what god is is substantially different from your own.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1732310' date='Dec 19 2008, 10:51 PM']Sounds more like deism and no reason to embrace the irrational tenets of theism.[/quote]

Deism is a subset of theism. If you are a deist, you are a theist. All deists are theists, not all theists are deists.

[quote]I trust the food/wather is healthy, I have a lack of belief it will make me sick. Religious faith is a positive belief there is a god, it's a conscious belief.[/quote]

Okay, now we're talking semantics. Trust/faith in God, trust/faith in the quality of the water supply ... there is no practical difference ... you have a positive belief that your water is clean.

What do you mean "conscious" belief? A lot of people go about their day just assuming God's existence, never even thinking about it, in the same way you go on drinking water, just assuming that it won't make you sick.


[quote]Einstein wasn't a theist, not in the strict sense of what theism is. He didn't believe in prayer, miracles and revelation. I think his understanding of what god is is substantially different from your own.[/quote]

Of course Einstein's understanding of what God is different than mine. I believe in a personal God, he didn't.

There have been many, many philosophers who came to the conclusion that God must exist. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato ... these were not irrational idiots.

Einstein eventually explicitly said he believed in Spinoza's God (a God who is responsible for reason and order permeating the Universe, but not involved in personal affairs. )

I am deliberately not addressing the logic behind Catholic beliefs because I think it's useless to talk about specificity when general terms are still unsettled. I don't talk about the virtue of faith based charter schools with someone who doesn't believe in charter schools at all; I'd first need to talk with them about charter schools in general; that is if I'm interested in a genuine, worthwhile exchange, which is my goal here.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1732341' date='Dec 19 2008, 11:08 PM']Deism is a subset of theism. If you are a deist, you are a theist. All deists are theists, not all theists are deists.[/quote]

Not all deists are theists. Somone who believes god created the universe but has no play in it, is not a theist but a deist.

[quote]Okay, now we're talking semantics. Trust/faith in God, trust/faith in the quality of the water supply ... there is no practical difference ... you have a positive belief that your water is clean.

What do you mean "conscious" belief? A lot of people go about their day just assuming God's existence, never even thinking about it, in the same way you go on drinking water, just assuming that it won't make you sick.[/quote]

Of course there's a difference. I'm sure you would agree faith is more than just mere belief? Faith is emotive, it involves love, repentance, guilt, devotion, compassion and so forth. [i]Faith[/i] in the cleanliness of food/water is absent of any feeling and emotion or conscious thought. We just take it for granted. If I did have hope food wasn't poisonous, it would be because of a past experience which made me sick, so naturally I become skeptical (but less over time) towards eating dodgy food, otherwise I wouldn't question it. If anything the passive hope I have in food being ok is based on fear, it's more like a psychological process than [i]faith[/i].

[quote]Of course Einstein's understanding of what God is different than mine. I believe in a personal God, he didn't. Einstein eventually explicitly said he believed in Spinoza's God (a God who is responsible for reason and order permeating the Universe, but not involved in personal affairs. )[/quote]

Spinozas god isn't really a "god" at all. It isn't like a separate spiritual entity, it doesn't have omnipotence, intelligent or a personality. It isn't conscious and it didn't decide to create the universe. It's more like a metaphor for describing nature.

[quote]There have been many, many philosophers who came to the conclusion that God must exist. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato ... these were not irrational idiots.[/quote]

No but they didn't know about things like science and evolution back then either. We don't know what Socrates believed.

[quote]I am deliberately not addressing the logic behind Catholic beliefs because I think it's useless to talk about specificity when general terms are still unsettled. I don't talk about the virtue of faith based charter schools with someone who doesn't believe in charter schools at all; I'd first need to talk with them about charter schools in general; that is if I'm interested in a genuine, worthwhile exchange, which is my goal here.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I don't think deism (the belief in a creator) is irrational or illogical, just not supported by evidence. As I said my reasons for atheism is the rejection of theism and the tenets of it, so I feel the specifics of religion would be important here.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1732545' date='Dec 20 2008, 11:13 AM']Not all deists are theists. Somone who believes god created the universe but has no play in it, is not a theist but a deist.

Of course there's a difference. I'm sure you would agree faith is more than just mere belief? Faith is emotive[/quote]

Faith does NOT have to be emotive. Feelings of trust, love, confidence, etc., may accompany faith, but they do not define it, and their presence does not demonstrate it.

Faith IS belief. Is is an intellectual assent to an unproven proposition as true. Up until last month, Einstein's theory of relativity was unproven. Scientists took that as truth for nearly a century, on faith. It was accepted as a fact, even though it was unproven. They had good reasons for their faith, but it was faith.

You believe the water out of your tap is clean, and you act on your belief by drinking it, thus proving your faith in the systems which ensure the safety of the water supply.

We are getting lost in definitions here.

Deism is a type of theism. That is its literal definition. It just is. When I wrote my papers in Western Religion, that was the consensus of all my references.

I know that "popular" definitions of things like faith and theism are somewhat different than the literal ones. People think faith must have something to do with God because they conflate the two. Their typical experience of the term almost always involves religion or feelings of trust and confidence in something/someone. But that is not the actual definition of what faith is.

And theism does [u]not [/u]mean belief in a God of revelation or miracles. That is a narrower definition assigned by popular culture, because the common man conflates theism with religion that asserts the existence of a personal God, since that is his typical experience of theism.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1732578' date='Dec 20 2008, 12:30 PM']Faith does NOT have to be emotive. Feelings of trust, love, confidence, etc., may accompany faith, but they do not define it, and their presence does not demonstrate it.

Faith IS belief. Is is an intellectual assent to an unproven proposition as true. Up until last month, Einstein's theory of relativity was unproven. Scientists took that as truth for nearly a century, on faith. It was accepted as a fact, even though it was unproven. They had good reasons for their faith, but it was faith.

You believe the water out of your tap is clean, and you act on your belief by drinking it, thus proving your faith in the systems which ensure the safety of the water supply.

We are getting lost in definitions here.[/quote]

You are obviously subscribing to very literal definition of the word 'faith'. I assumed in the context of a religious discussion faith would mean more just a just a hollow, empty belief in anything (which I think is not was faith in god is). I think when you draw comparisons between faith of a supreme being and faith in mundane, trivial things like food/water the word itself loses meaning. From a Christian perspecitve, faith is not just a mere belief or acknowledgement of belief in god, it is the "... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". To quote wiki;

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith[/url]
"Rather than being passive, this leads to an active life of obedience to the one being trusted. Faith causes questions and seeks answers from God and transforms, it sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. Faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism, or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements."

This contrasted from the more literal, non-religious use of the word 'faith', and obviously has different practical considerations. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? Really? I don't think, in a practical sense, faith would be the correct word to use. Confidence, belief, maybe, but I don't know how important having a perfectly literal understanding of the word faith is important to this discussion. I think we can easily contrast between faith in god and faith in other things. For example, everything I have faith is in some degree emperically established, scientific and/or reliable. Yes, I have faith in Einsteins theory, but the difference between faith in his theory and faith in god is his theory is supported by evidence.

[quote]Deism is a type of theism. That is its literal definition. It just is. When I wrote my papers in Western Religion, that was the consensus of all my references.

I know that "popular" definitions of things like faith and theism are somewhat different than the literal ones. People think faith must have something to do with God because they conflate the two. Their typical experience of the term almost always involves religion or feelings of trust and confidence in something/someone. But that is not the actual definition of what faith is.

And theism does [u]not [/u]mean belief in a God of revelation or miracles. That is a narrower definition assigned by popular culture, because the common man conflates theism with religion that asserts the existence of a personal God, since that is his typical experience of theism.[/quote]

Well I subscribe to the popular definitions of these words, those that are understood in our modern day culture. Surely having a literal understanding of certain words, knowing their history and what Greek/Latin words they derived from and what they meant 3000 years ago is not required to make a compelling, rational case for the existence of god?

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1732611' date='Dec 20 2008, 02:22 PM']You are obviously subscribing to very literal definition of the word 'faith'. I assumed in the context of a religious discussion faith would mean more just a just a hollow, empty belief in anything (which I think is not was faith in god is). I think when you draw comparisons between faith of a supreme being and faith in mundane, trivial things like food/water the word itself loses meaning. From a Christian perspecitve, faith is not just a mere belief or acknowledgement of belief in god, it is the "... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". To quote wiki;

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith[/url]
"Rather than being passive, this leads to an active life of obedience to the one being trusted. Faith causes questions and seeks answers from God and transforms, it sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. Faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism, or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements."

This contrasted from the more literal, non-religious use of the word 'faith', and obviously has different practical considerations. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? Really? I don't think, in a practical sense, faith would be the correct word to use. Confidence, belief, maybe, but I don't know how important having a perfectly literal understanding of the word faith is important to this discussion. I think we can easily contrast between faith in god and faith in other things. For example, everything I have faith is in some degree emperically established, scientific and/or reliable. Yes, I have faith in Einsteins theory, but the difference between faith in his theory and faith in god is his theory is supported by evidence.[/quote]

As I have said before: If you insist you will not believe anything that cannot be demonstrated with empirical evidence, then you are limiting your investigation of truth to a smart part of human experience.

There was no direct empirical evidence of Einstein's theory until last month. None. His theory looked like the most probable explanation for the behavior of matter, so it was taken on faith, as fact.

Einstein's original formula indicated that the Universe had a beginning. This disconcerted Einstein, because the only logical solution to a Universe with a beginning was a Creator. Motion has to have a Mover.

So, Einstein modified his original formula by adding a cosmological constant, attempting to make a static, unmoving Universe the logical conclusion to his theory. Einstein counted this as one of the worst mistakes of his life. We know now that the Universe is expanding, and a lot of people think its actually accelerating in its expansion. So as the Universe expands, it grows increasingly empty. The stars burn out, one by one, and eventually nothing will be left but vast darkness. All intelligent life then dies, in a "Big Freeze."

It's very interesting. Sorry about the tangent. Lately I'm turning into a fangirl of cosmology.

Einstein did abandon his additions to his original formula. The point is, I guess, that if you accept Einstein's formula as fact, then it itself is empirical evidence of a creator. People never agree of course; there are competing explanations for evidence of anything. But the most probable explanation is the existence of a Creator.

[quote]Surely having a literal understanding of certain words, knowing their history and what Greek/Latin words they derived from and what they meant 3000 years ago is not required to make a compelling, rational case for the existence of god?[/quote]

If you are really going to search for the truth, you've got to use precise language. Language is such a fundamental part of logic ... it would be impossible to describe how many experiments and theories and arguments have hinged on one, exact word.

I use the popular "fudge" definitions of words in my daily life. In most situations "you know what I mean" is "good enough." But when it comes to questions about the nature of reality, existence, destiny, etc. ... these things may as well be life and death issues to me, and I strive to use the best, most correct word I can. I don't expect to find the truth if I'm using blunted tools in the search.