Evolution and Humanity in 2012?
Probably like many others, I would like to stay informed about evolutionary science because it seems relevant. The problem is, the theory of evolution is almost always presented as something to be praised for its ability to tell us more about ourselves, to be accepted without question, even if a premise does not make sense.
For instance, I read a Live Science article titled “What We Learned About Humanity in 2012” expecting riveting insight into the year’s latest scientific discoveries about the human body. Instead, the article was a summary of the year’s human ancestry fossil discoveries and how learning to control fires and cook meat “may have influenced human brain evolution” and our ability to think, as if everyone already knows that there is nothing more to our thought process than atoms obeying the algorithmic laws of nature in our brains.
The article concludes with a suggestion from a Stanford University researcher that “humans are getting dumber over time” because we have “lost the evolutionary pressure to be smart,” conceding that perhaps it is just that “people have diversified” into “different types of smarts today.” What?
While the Church teaching authority does not forbid research and discussion about the theory of evolution, it also recognizes that evolutionary theory is limited to questions about how the human body evolved from pre-existing matter. And that is a perfectly reasonable, but very often misrepresented and misunderstood, distinction.
Science, from the Latin scientiam, means knowledge. A branch of science is a branch of knowledge, and any science is only science if it seeks truth, not opinion or partisan ideology. If the research does not seek truth, it is not science; it is falsehood or even deception. Evolutionary science is a biological science, its objects are the bodies of living things down to their DNA, proteins, and molecules. Evolutionary science is, fundamentally, a branch of the physical sciences, and as such, cannot comment on spiritual questions.
It would be an absurdity to expect physical, natural science to comment on the metaphysical, supernatural realm, and those who assume otherwise must either 1) deny the spiritual realm, angels and God, the human soul and mind, or 2) transgress the bounds of evolutionary science. Until evolutionary science presents its data within these legitimate boundaries, it cannot remotely address what “we” humans have “learned” about “humanity” in the 2012th year of Our Lord. I was left scratching my Homo sapiens neurocranium wondering what, exactly, they are trying to prove.
Category: Catholic Free Press, Science
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (227)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Evolution and Humanity in 2012? | cathlick.com | December 31, 2012
- Unmoved Mover for Unmoved Doubters : Accepting Abundance | January 10, 2013
Stacy, I started to read the article in the link, ““What We Learned About Humanity in 2012”……my mind started to wander a bit…….then my eye caught this article in the sidebar, “New Theory on Why Men Love Breasts”.
I figure since this is also science I should investigate a little.
Aside from the expected interest, I was amused that the writer seemed to think it was necessary to declare twice that this interest exists among “straight” men and boys. I would have thought that would be pretty simple to guess correctly, but, I am not a scientist.
It is also interesting that there is an assumption that at one point men did not have this interest. The evidence for that was not given. I can attest that we are not talking about in my lifetime, but gazillions of years ago. It developed because “human evolution has harnessed an ancient neural circuit”. It seems that “Evolution has, in a sense, made men want to do this.” Use your imagination. As usual, no evidence is given that would even hint at how some kind of change took place.
It looks like you could actually seriously study this subject as a life work. They quote anthropologist Fran Mascia-Lees, who they say has written extensively about the evolutionary role of breasts. “Always important whenever evolutionary biologists suggest a universal reason for a behavior and emotion: how about the cultural differences?”
So a question comes to mind. What affects evolutionary effects so that we have different outcomes (cultural differences)? I can’t even conceive of the elaborate interactions necessary.
http://www.livescience.com/23500-why-men-love-breasts.html
Howard, contrary to what you assume (and apparently this article), there are indeed non straight men who love breasts.
Alan, I was wondering at the time I wrote that if you would have something to say about the subject that interests you the most, I do consider you an expert.
If you are referrng to “bi” I can see that. If you claim more than exceptions to the generalization then we do indeed have a strange situation.
not sure if the “expert” comment is sarcasm or not Howard, but as it is a new year I will go based on the assumption that it is not.
I am not talking about bisexuals. I am talking about gay men that are attracted to breasts. There are some.
I think for the most part it is easily understood that we all have different attractions. Some men are breast guys, some are leg men, some behinds. Some eyes, some face, some hair, some feet, some fat, some skinny. The same said for women.
How we get our attractions I cannot say, and when breast became idolized I cannot say either. Were cavemen attracted to breasts? Who knows?
And Howard, what exactly is “the subject that interests me the most”?
Alan, Not a sarcasm, you are the closest to a knowledgeable person on this matter we have writing here consistently.
To clarify, the article was talking about men and women’s breasts. Are you referring to men and men’s breasts?
Howard,
Still uncertain as to what “my favorite subject” is according to you (a direct answer would be most appreciated). And I am fairly certain that you don’t consider me an expert on anything though.
I am not referring to the article, but rather to your comment “Aside from the expected interest, I was amused that the writer seemed to think it was necessary to declare twice that this interest exists among “straight” men and boys. I would have thought that would be pretty simple to guess correctly, but, I am not a scientist.”
There are homosexual men who are attracted to womens breasts.
Alan, I will be happy to answer your question, but I don’t think you really would want me to if you knew what I am going to say.
The article says, “Evolution has selected for this brain organization in men that makes them attracted to the breasts in a sexual context,……”
If homosexual men are attracted to women’s breasts in a sexual context IN GENERAL, then, I am VERY SURPRISED indeed!
http://www.livescience.com/23500-why-men-love-breasts.html
Howard, I am pretty certain I know what you think of me, so please answer the question.
Yes Howard some gay men are sexually attracted to a womans breast. I would say it is not a large percentage, but they do actually exist. Attractions are different for different people.
So give me your best shot with answering my question. Don’t worry about hurting my feelings.
Alan, your favorite subject is any kind of denial of God unless the description of Him includes approval of active homosexuality. You have been commenting negativly here for over a year – a Catholic blog.
The reason I believe, is that if you deny the existence of God what follows is an automatic denial of the sin of active homosexuality.
LOL, not certain how that pertains to an article about attractions to breasts or to god.
But thank you for answering the question.
Few things.
I disagree with you, I attempt to not be negative, but sadly because I disagree with you I think you take every thing I say as negative. (but you of all people cannot really critique others for their negativity. Some here could, but you, well thats like living in a glass house and throwing stones)
I believe in god. I believe god belongs in our hearts, our lives and your churches. Not in our government or the rules for others.
I do not believe you are wrong for your beliefs. I just happen to believe that you cannot force your religion on others. I don’t believe I can force believing in god on others.
Yes this blog is written by a catholic. But it’s a blog open to all. Stacy wants it to be by a catholic for a catholic then she can fix it so it is so.
Attractions and sexuality are fluid. We all have things we are attracted to sexually and non sexually. If you want to have a discussion about this I am more than happy to. But really lets leave god out of that one.
Wait, are you saying god created men to be sexually interested in breasts?
“I believe in god.”
Alan, does he disapprove of active homosexuality?
one other thing Howard,
Notice I don’t comment on most of Stacy’s other posts. I don’t go on her religious post and be negative. The only time I post is when atheism or gay marriage or social issues are written about.
Im not here to offend, which is why I only post on the articles that are relevant to me.
So that is why you see me as a one trick pony.
But in many of Stacy’s anti atheism post I am not arguing about god accepting gays, but more so about Stacy and you all accepting that there are people out there who don’t believe in god and that’s ok. Their arguments are as reasonable, conceivable, imaginable and rational as yours for believing.
in my belief no god does not disapprove of the active homosexual.
You have verified all of my points.
New Year same old Howard. What can you do?
Happy new year Alan.
Got to go, some of God’s work.
Arrogant and rude, apparently God’s work now.
I should get started: Howard, you’re an ass.
Whew, that felt better; been holding that in since last night.
*High Fives Jesus*
LOL Mjeck
I too do gods work every day Howard. We have finally found something we have in common.
You both don’t know how much you honor me. I thought I was just not getting through your defenses.
Howard you talk nonsense.
We have no defenses.
I have always found the negative reaction of those that refuse to even consider the possibility that physical man evolved from the oceanic “slime” a bit disconcerting. My question to them has always been why couldn’t God use evolution(physical) as one of his tools in creation? Why could he not have created matter then placed evolution as his means of bringing about the different plants, animals, birds and the body of man himself, constantly evolving to the point where he finally said, “There! This is the body, the creature that I will place my image in and an immortal soul!” ? It just seems to me that the faithful who oppose evolution of the physical world, especially of man, place limitations on what and how God did and does things. I cannot see how the purely physical cannot have evolved from matter already present and the spiritual soul from God himself at the appointed hour of our physical development.
Science that tells me man is purely physical and is purely the result of evolution and randomness will find itself in my trash can. That I cannot agree with or believe.
Catholic, one reason why is that “evolution without God” is given as an answer to all questions biological. In my example above, what did babies eat before breasts and the “this is the way you eat neural circuit” evolved in those without them? If these things had to exist before they were needed, then is accident really a reasonable conclusion?
To continue, it is better said here by P12:
“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
…”in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” __”…and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”
Well, at least I got that right in my own particular way!
” If these things had to exist before they were needed, then is accident really a reasonable conclusion?”
Good point Howard, then again I’ve heard the argument that eons ago, some species evolved certain body parts or changes in their bodies due to pre-existing conditions such as changes in food supply and climate in order to survive.
Aren’t we really arguing about what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Too many times science in its efforts to prove or should I say disprove divine intervention in evolutionary theory such as this article attempts and consequently has Stacy scratching her noggin,
they inadvertently argue in circles, trying so hard to deny God’s role in all of this. I think much would be resolved if science dealt with the biological only, and for questions that science cannot answer in concrete ways that goes beyond the science of physics and biology, such as Stacy mentioned, metaphysical and the spiritual realms, then more would be accomplished between both camps rather than suspicion and name calling.
We are on the right path here.
Your answer to my point, what you have heard, is an example of lack of detail and evidence that even ignores logic to counter and shut down discussion that would insist on including Theology in finding answers to questions. Typical of evolutionist language, especially popular discussion and not well informed discussion.
We are indeed asking the chicken and egg question with this example.
The suspicion and name calling from both sides has to do with, I believe, the refusal to recognize truth by both sides. But, with the refusal to recognize “intelligent design” the pseudo-scientific world has alienated the religious world and made it defensive. Scientific investigation should not predetermine what form answers shall take. To specialize in only one kind of knowledge, and be praised and honored because of that specialization, leads to trying to know everything via that kind. Conversly, we have had great scientific understanding come from clerics.
“But, with the refusal to recognize “intelligent design” the pseudo-scientific world has alienated the religious world and made it defensive.”
Agreed, but on the other hand, with scientific evidence pointing to a physical creation billions of years old and the religious refusing to recognize that fact only adds to fuel the scientific community’s argument that the religious are shall we say “backwards” and primitive in their zeal for what they see as biblical truth.(six literal days of creation) In this way, the religious are not helping themselves. Both are condemning each other for the same reason. Both are deliberately blind to each others truths.
What seems to be missing is the same thing that we are witnessing today within the sphere of human genders. Men and women are equal in dignity in God’s eyes, each created for a different purpose and the means to achieve that purpose. In other words, males and females are complementary. Today, there is contention between the genders where none should be. If only science and religion viewed their roles in the same manner as being complimentary to each other and not contentious. Science can only tell about matter once it arrived on the scene whereas theology explains where this matter came from. Neither steps on the others toes.
I do think however, in the defense of theology, especially Catholic theology, scientists need to review history books and realize that many important discoveries were discovered BY Catholics, both clerics and laymen. If not for the Church, many scientific discoveries would never have seen the light of day. Contrary to popular opinion, the Church was never anti-science. If science ever had its toes stepped on its because it delved in matters that was beyond their purview (spiritual) and presenting these matters while denying divine intervention.
“However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure”…..
Ha!
When was the last time anyone saw a document from the PAS examining “favorable and unfavorable” observations for evolution.
Not a single syllable about the fact that Cretaceous fossils have soft tissue- multiple finds, multiple locations- not a syllable about C14 tests reporting relatively modern carbon ages for dinosaur bones.
No, there is not even a fig-leaf’s worth of attention paid to Pius XII’s admonitions.
Goliath is so large and frightening and becomes so angry when we point out that it is scientifically impossible for 80,000,000 year old fossils to present soft tissue, collagen, and hemes.
I agree mostly.
Intelligent design describes an aspect of God that is shared by all Christians and other major religions – a deliberate creation, not one that is accidental.
The age of things and the literal version of creation is only put forth forcefully by a faction, but this argument is used to condemn all religious thinking as nonsense even when they present scientific argument.
I think more in terms of science and religion not being complimentary, which still separates them and satisfies the need of the modern world. They are both a part of the same reality.
If one allows me to invent 99% of the universe in forms of matter never observed; if one allows me to invent an “inflation” which permits expansion to drastically exceed “c” just long enough to explain why the universe doesn’t look the way it should if the Big Bang proceeded without it; if one allows me to explain the astonishing fine-tuning observed in this universe, and its cosmological alignments with supposedly insignificant Earth, by having recourse to a “multiverse” which can never, even in theory, be an object of direct scientific observation……..
If one allows me only these things and a few more- for example, allow me to call nothing something, and insist that something naturally comes from nothing, as a matter of course- I can tell you exactly how old the universe is.
“Scientific investigation should not predetermine what form answers shall take.”
A variation of this is the example of global warming. Instead of your example of predetermining what form answers shall take, they provided their answer first, man-made production of CO2, then set out to find the evidence supporting their answer. Anything that did not conform to their predetermined answer was either tossed or not considered with the same importance as CO2 production. This is the same tactic used by some religious groups when they cherry pick verses out of context to prove a certain teaching they espouse is correct. Anyone could “prove” whatever they want using these methods.
In other words, paraphrased, scientific answers should not predetermine what form the investigation will take.
Great discussion! I think I understand where all three of you are coming from. We all have no difficulty with the guidance given by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. There’s no problem with scientists finding fossils and trying to reconstruct events that happened in the unrecorded past.
I’m interested in those questions, however, after reading articles like the one I linked (Howard’s observation that things are absurdly sexualized is the same as my experience, more on that later), I have little confidence that there is any genuine search for truth in the field of evolutionary biology — which is disappointing.
My daughter asked me in the truck this morning about the six days of creation and I told her what I plan to keep telling all my children.
“Was the world really created in six days?”
“The Bible says it was, and since God was creating days and nights, the time it took is really only known to Him. What matters is that He created everything out of nothing. Period. Besides, why do we need to know exactly what happened every single day in the beginning of time? Accept that time started, learn how to live your life better from lessons you learn, and focus on getting to Heaven and helping others along the way.”
IF evolutionary biologists put their science in that context, we might get some meaningful answers out of them. Based on what they put forth, they seem to have another agenda: 1) prove there’s no God, 2) get rid of morality so people can do what they want. (Both of which are the work of Satan)
Further, I know this: If I’d tried to publish wishy-washy conclusions like the ones in that article 15 years ago as a chemist, I’d have been escorted out of the lab and told to never come back. It would have been unthinkable to make up stuff to the extent that they do and put your name on it. The difference is, in chemistry, results are verifiable and must be reproducible because real life successes and failures in the industry depend on it. With evolutionary biology, as long as the conclusion is what it’s supposed to be, no one seems to care whether the path to get there is logical or not. Just say what you’re supposed to say, and all is good.
Although I would generally agree with everyone’s assessment of the current state of science; the conclusion (therefore, Catholicism), seems to be more of a search for loyalty, rather than truth.
“Was the world really created in six days?”
“The Bible says it was”
>> In every century of the Church up until the 19th, there would have been a period, not a comma, after this.
“and since God was creating days and nights, the time it took is really only known to Him.”
>> No. The time He took is stated, exactly, as “evening and morning”; that is, one day. So the time, known to Him, is made known to *us* as “evening and morning”.
“Besides, why do we need to know exactly what happened every single day in the beginning of time?”
>> Ask God, He was the One Who decided it was important to know what happened on every single Day. He chose the words “day”, “evening”, “morning”.
It seems to me the question ought to be: why would you insist that we do not need to know, what God has determined we *do* need to know?
Why on earth would anyone assume God meant something *other* than what He said, and what the Fathers believed with unanimous consent……unless of course one is persuaded that science has come along to correct the Holy Ghost on these matters.
I have always wondered if the “days” that God labored in creating were actually what we understand as days. The reason I say this is because elsewhere in 2 Peter 3:8 it reads; “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
This tells me that we cannot limit God within what we call time since He is outside time and space. So in Genesis, isn’t it possible that the reason the human writer refers to days is that it may have been inconceivable for him to think in terms of millions or even billions of years? Perhaps he wrote “days” because it fit into what he knew to be true, that the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, comprising of one day. We know the writer was divinely inspired as all the writers of scripture were, and so the Truth of Creation is still conveyed in the context of “days”.
The following verse seems to me to support the idea that humongous numbers were not in the repertoire of the ancients and they had to resort to other things that inferred an extraordinary amount.
In Genesis 22:17 we read what God said to Abraham; “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.”
That sure seems like a whole bunch to me. Perhaps God’s meaning of days when he inspired the writer was on His terms and not ours. Accept this as “random thoughts on the passing scene” as Thomas Sowell would say
“I have always wondered if the “days” that God labored in creating were actually what we understand as days.”
>> Many Catholics seem to be wondering about that lately. Strangely enough, no Doctors or Fathers at all, with the sole exception of St. Augustine, worried about that for nineteen centuries (Augustine supposed it might have been one Day, but he admitted his ideas were purely personal speculation, hence not Apostolic Tradition).
“The reason I say this is because elsewhere in 2 Peter 3:8 it reads; “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
>> Certainly. But God clearly means “evening and morning, one day”, when He specifies the evening and morning. We can confirm this by noticing that Adam did not spend a thousand years naming the animals, but instead “a day”; that is, evening and morning.
Don’t get me wrong- essentially every modern Catholic now leans toward the entirely novel, purely modern, “interpretation” of Genesis, and certainly the Church allows this.
I merely point out that the *sole* reason for this radical change in Biblical interpretation, is the scientific claim to have established a vastly older Earth and cosmos.
If this scientific claim is wrong, then woe to us. We have allowed the contingent propositions of science, to force us to abandon the plain meaning of the words of Scripture, *as they were unanimously interpreted by the Fathers*.
“This tells me that we cannot limit God within what we call time since He is outside time and space.”
>> However the heavens, the Earth, the Sun, the moon, the stars, the garden, Adam, and Eve are *not* outside of time.
They are *inside* of time, and when God chose to inspire the Scriptures, He chose to report to us that these events took place *inside* of time; that is, in *days* consisting of an evening and a morning.
It seems to be a really forced and gymnastic approach to insist that the words actually mean the exact opposite of what they say.
It seems it is only necessary to force the words in such a way, if one has determined in advance that science has disproven the narrative’s plain meaning.
“So in Genesis, isn’t it possible that the reason the human writer refers to days is that it may have been inconceivable for him to think in terms of millions or even billions of years?”
>> No, this is not possible. The Author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit,Who is very clear on the difference between and “evening and morning- Day One”, and billions of years.
“Perhaps he wrote “days” because it fit into what he knew to be true, that the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, comprising of one day.”
>> Bingo. That makes perfect sense. God inspired the human author to write down “day”, and went out of His way to make sure what a “day” meant: evening and morning.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Has always seemed pretty clear to the Church, up until very recent times.
“We know the writer was divinely inspired as all the writers of scripture were, and so the Truth of Creation is still conveyed in the context of “days”.
>> Only if we allow that God, having the choice of saying “billions of years”, or “morning and evening, One Day”, chose the latter because it was important that we understand that He meant exactly what He said.
“The following verse seems to me to support the idea that humongous numbers were not in the repertoire of the ancients and they had to resort to other things that inferred an extraordinary amount.
In Genesis 22:17 we read what God said to Abraham; “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.”
That sure seems like a whole bunch to me. Perhaps God’s meaning of days when he inspired the writer was on His terms and not ours. Accept this as “random thoughts on the passing scene” as Thomas Sowell would say”
>> Let us grant your hypothesis here. It would seem top have been quite simple for God to have inspired the human author to say:
“and there were as many evenings and as many mornings as there are stars in the sky or sand on the seashore: One Day”.
But He did not.
Rick, do you see any problems with the dating of the age of the earth from modern science? Or, the proported age of the first appearance of man.
“Rick, do you see any problems with the dating of the age of the earth from modern science? Or, the proported age of the first appearance of man.”
>> Oh, yes. The problems are very grave indeed:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/marys-bones.html
“Evolution Falsified, Once Again”. Very interesting Rick.
At first I thought you were talking about Mary mother of God! I have just returned from saying the rosary and I guess it stuck.
I can see from the article that there is intent by Mary Schweitzer to eventually prove how organic matter could survive that long in order to verify the ageing method of the bones.
These two claims below seem to be at odds. If we accept a million years as true, we have a new ball game on both sides!
“…science tells us that organic tissue could barely last 7,000 years,”
“Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so;…”
“Evolution Falsified, Once Again”. Very interesting Rick.
>> Indeed
“At first I thought you were talking about Mary mother of God! I have just returned from saying the rosary and I guess it stuck.”
>> God forbid! The Mother of God’s body, blood, soul, and humanity reign gloriously in heaven.
“I can see from the article that there is intent by Mary Schweitzer to eventually prove how organic matter could survive that long in order to verify the ageing method of the bones.”
>> This very interesting fact, by the way, constitutes conclusive proof that evolution is not a scientific research program. As Popper pointed out so insightfully way back in 1973, evolution is a *metaphysical*, not a scientific, research program.
Scientific research programs are based upon the principle of falsifiability.
Scientific experiments- if scientific- *always* represwent an attempt to *falsify* the theory being experimentally tested.
Since Mary Schweitzer has, in advance, ruled out one of the two possible scientific outcomes- that the bones are much younger than the theory of evolution requires- and has instead ruled *in*, in advance, the utterly unscientific notion that “some unknown process exists which allows collagen to be preserved for eighty million years, never mind that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes such a claim scientifically impossible”…………………..
Well.
We see that evolution is now- may very well have always been- nothing more or less than a counter-metaphysics.
All dressed up as if it were science, which pays better just lately.
“These two claims below seem to be at odds. If we accept a million years as true, we have a new ball game on both sides!”
>> Nope. See below.
“…science tells us that organic tissue could barely last 7,000 years,”
>> This is the author’s claim. We have C14 datings older than 7,000 carbon years.
“Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so;…”
>> Under *perfect* conditions. In field, they cannot last but a tiny fraction of that. But this is entirely irrelevant to the stupendous, smoking-gun falsification of the theory of evolution which Mary’s Bones represent.
Evolution does not work given a million years between Hadrosaurs and Howard.
It is completely, utterly, irretrievably falsified if only one million years are available to get from Hadrosaur to Howard.
At least sixty five million years are required.
Lacking sixty five million years, Darwinism is finished, utterly falsified.
Next.
“In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth;..”
+ 2013
“We have C14 datings older than 7,000 carbon years.”
Reliable dating how far back? Don’t we have to have items with verifiable ages in order to calibrate?
“In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth;..”
+ 2013
“We have C14 datings older than 7,000 carbon years.”
Reliable dating how far back? Don’t we have to have items with verifiable ages in order to calibrate?”
>>*Carbon* years, Howard.
To equate a carbon year with a solar or sidereal year involves certain assumptions, chief of which would be that the ratio of C12 to C14 has remained a constant over time.
There is extremely compelling evidence to the contrary, and of course, no evidence of such a stable ratio could ever be obtained scientifically to begin with.
To assert an identity between carbon years and solar/sidereal years is simply to assert the uniformitarian hypothesis in the first place, thus begging the question.
In my wondering of “days” above I must explain that I’ve always submitted to Church teaching in all facets of my faith to the best of my ability. When failing to do this it is not out of willful defiance but ignorance on my part until I am corrected. I may at times “wonder” about certain interpretations in scripture and my curiosity plays “what if” games to see how things fit, but always within the guidelines of my Church.
I do believe science to be a tool for us to learn much about our creation and Creator, however, I have to say that my trust of science has dwindle considerably in the past several decades, in that it has become politicized to some degree with different institutions of science fighting for federal dollars to provide research that will come up with the “right” answer. It’s become a nasty game and one has to discern much of what science tells us is fact today. This includes the age of the universe.
Does it matter to my faith whether the universe is really billions of years old or seven thousand years? My answer would have to be the same answer as my thoughts on the Shroud of Turin. Would it affect my faith if the Shroud is determined to be an absolute fake even though at this time I believe it to be true? Not at all, for my faith lies not in a death shroud, but in Christ and His Church.
How so, Mjeck? For me it was the other way around. I decided that if I really believed something to be true, then I had no other choice than to be loyal to it. Truth came first.
If you hold a belief, you’ve made it true.
There is nothing wrong with loyalty, however, would you follow truth no matter where it led?
Many of the criticisms made against science are the same that I hear Atheists make against religion.
Does this negate both? Is there something superior to both?
Something to consider.
“If you hold a belief, you’ve made it true.”
Then can I conclude that you are not sure if Jesus is actually the second person of the Trinity?
Howard,
That is a very specific question.
I’ve known about the Trinity since childhood and I still don’t quite understand how it works.
I asked several people on this blog to explain the Trinity, without even hinting at a paradox.
I had no takers.
Since contradictions don’t exist, does the Trinity exist?
I’m not sure why you ask, but to answer your question: Yes, Jesus is a person of the Trinity. The 2nd person? Ok.
Not sure what that accomplished
Why I asked is very simple. Either He actually exists and that is an objective truth and you believe it and you are loyal to Him, or it is as you say, only something that a person makes up and exists in his mind only.
Two problems with this:
One, I can’t point at the Trinity and say: Look, there’s the Trinity, it exists! It can only exist in the mind;
Two, I’ve grown to hate dichotomies. I can’t even think in this way, when a 3rd option is possible; or seven or even an infinite;
What you are describing is loyalty, not truth. There is nothing wrong with loyalty
Mjeck, how do you ever make it through the day?
The Trinity is a concept that links 3 actual persons. Just as your family does not exist outside of the persons that define it.
I’ll ask again, does He actually exist, is His existance an objective truth, do you believe it, and are you are loyal to Him?
does He actually exist,
Yes, but I don’t know where, or how.
is His existance an objective truth,
Yes, but I don’t understand what is objective to Him
do you believe it, and are you are loyal to Him?
Yes, but I have a lot of questions
What does this accomplish? Why do you care about my personal life with God?
I sort of understand your sort of commitment.
“Yes, but I don’t understand what is objective to Him”
What does this mean?
It means, Religion and Science get part marks for the answer to God. The only proof I have that God exists, is that I met my wife. The rest, I have no clue about. And, neither does anyone else, if they were going to be honest about it.
Off to see Anna Karenina, check in later
When you get back.
“The only proof I have that God exists, is that I met my wife. The rest, I have no clue about. And, neither does anyone else…..”
I get it. Your experiences and clues are the only valid experiences and clues that others are allowed to have.
I’m allowed to use my personal experiences to convince myself that there is a loving God who created all the cold invisible matter in the Universe, yet has a personal relationship to me.
That’s because I’m not trying to convince anyone else that God exists.
And BTW, that’s a very atheistic retort from you; to not accept my personal experiences as evidence of God. Very telling.
“That’s because I’m not trying to convince anyone else that God exists……that’s a very atheistic retort from you; to not accept my personal experiences as evidence of God.”
Mjeck, I’m getting confused, are you trying to convince me or not?
I’m not trying to convince you that God exists, and I shouldn’t need to.
Then why do you want me to “… accept my personal experiences as evidence of God”?
Often Christians will use their personal experiences as proof that God exists. Often Atheists will point out that this is not compelling or legitimate evidence.
Since everyone here is Christian, I thought I wouldn’t get an argument; and perhaps a nod or two, for my personal experience with God.
You asked me personal questions, I gave you personal answers
Mjeck, to an atheist no ones experiences are the proof they look for. I never doubted your sincerity. I commented on your statement that others are not telling the truth when they profess to know more or experience more than you do, because you find that not possible.
I’m always searching for knowledge and proof of the supernatural. If you have knowledge or proof, then I will listen and give the benefit of the doubt.
Mjeck, then keep reading this blog and the materials recommended here.
Mjeck,
“The only proof I have that God exists, is that I met my wife.”
That’s one of the best places to start!
I don’t know if you’ve read the book, but I read it and was so moved by it that I cannot see any movies of it. I’m worried that the most beautiful message of the book will be lost. I very much related to Anna and wanted to scream at her to wake up as I read the book, but her story is her own fault. I fully expect Hollywood to make her seem like a victim, which is a travesty. She was glorious, and she alone is to blame for not exploring the depths of her real passions. She’s so many women today…and I imagine many women will see the movie and long to be like her. They should long to be all that she could have been, for there’s no ultimate glory in throwing yourself under a train.
But that’s just me being all sentimental. I’d like to know what you think of the movie, and I wouldn’t just ask anyone.
The hero of the book is Levin. His last chapter is one of the most honest things I’ve ever read (even though it’s fiction). When I finished it, I felt like the tragedy of the book really all had to be explained just to make the contrast with the simple truth he discovers. Property, family, love and God. What you said about your wife is something I picture Levin saying.
I love Tolstoy, and I loved this movie. Worth going or renting. And yes, Levin steals the movie, somehow! He has all the most beautiful scenes, full of sincerity
I didn’t see Anna as a victim. She held her head high in spite of her shame. She wanted her cake and to eat it too. She wanted high society plus her lover. There is something brave but tragic about her decisions.
In contrast to Levin’s wife, who humbled herself for true love. True love is what Anna wanted, but wasn’t able.
We can’t have it all, but there is a place for each of us.
“She wanted her cake and to eat it too.”
Mjeck, I work with Catholic young adults. This was submitted by a 25 year old mother of three (under three) from New Zealand.
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/01/01/are-we-on-earth-for-our-enjoyment/
I love these young adults because they see things in life that I never did at their age.
Anna had two children. I was so sad at how she really, really loved them, but turned her back on them for temporal pleasures. It brought her no joy. Those children — they would have (fictionally) brought her joy, they desperately wanted her love and she desperately wanted to give it to them. And they were right in front of her, all she had to do was embrace them.
I see in Anna the modern woman (the old me), happy on the surface, dying on the inside. In Levin’s wife, I see what everyone, man or woman, wants to be — truly in love, and truly loved in return.
Kitty (Levin’s Wife), initially declined Levin’s offer. She came to her senses later and redeemed herself.
Anna was also given opportunities to redeem herself. Her husband always dealt with her fairly and honorably. She chose not to seek redemption.
I think Levin and many other characters reflect Tolstoy’s own life (and my own). Tolstoy wrote a book called, “Confessions,” which he describes his own redemption from a Moscow City poet with all the trappings (even alluding to murder); to later find the peasant life; a closer pathway to God.
I love Tolstoy.
Mjeck,
Ask us anything about the Trinity. I’d be happy to help explain it. The doctrine of the Trinity, literally, changed my life. It brought so many concepts about me and my relationships into focus. It’s one of my favorite subjects, and you have several others here like Howard, Jeff, Rick, and Mr. Ordinary Catholic (:-)) who can explain it too.
The starting place is Divine Revelation. Christ told us about the Trinity, scripture tells us. The work of theology/doctrine has been to articulate it correctly with logical rigor. But if you want something to point to, point to scripture. St. Thomas exhaustively references it. His approach is, “So this is what God revealed, how do we speak of it correctly and what can we learn about ourselves by trying to understand it.”
I can’t explain the Trinity as well as the Church and Her theologians.
What made it more understandable to me was looking in a mirror at my legs, my arms, and my torso and head but knowing that they are really just me (singular).
To have a tete a tete with someone about the existence of God or explaining some facet of our faith requires an open mind of the possibility that what is presented is true. In matters of faith, it is not sufficient to say that “this and this” is true because I believe it to be so and you have to accept it. Proving God exist is like presenting a case in court. Sometimes there may be no conclusive proof to make a case, however, there is evidence that can be presented that has to be weighed against evidence to the contrary. Another tool that needs to be used is reason. Does the evidence sound reasonable? Also is there a certain logic? It is always more the mere “proof” when it comes to God. Faith and reason goes a long way in providing “proof”. Circumstantial evidence has put men in prison, but circumstantial evidence about the existence of God can put a man on the path of faith.
No matter how much evidence or “proof” may point to God, or in this case, The Holy Trinity, in the final analysis one does have to make a certain leap of faith. There is no way around it. Our dilemma is whether there is enough evidence for us to have faith in what is unseen but in all probability does exist beyond any reasonable doubt.
One thing we must not do is to conclude that just because we do not understand a certain belief or concept that it is not true. I may not understand calculus but I know its a valid mathematical process because people I know and trust whom I believe to be trustworthy tell me it is valid and have used it in certain calculations. My faith may have began from people I know and trust and love with out having their understanding, but in my search for the Truth, I have not only increased my faith but also, my understanding has grown. And I am afraid this also is a dichotomy. One needs to believe and have faith first, understanding comes afterwards.
There is a story of Augustine? walking the beach one day contemplating the Trinity when he met a little boy that had dug a hole in the beach sand and filling it with water from the ocean. When Augustine asked why he was doing this the little boy answered he was trying to put the whole ocean into that hole. Impossible Augustine answered, then realized his own dilemma. In contemplating the Trinity, Augustine was trying to capture the whole concept of the Trinity into his limited mind and concluded, as he did with the little boy, that it was impossible.
The Trinity is a mystery, meaning that its Truth is beyond a “complete” understanding to man, yet God provides hints of it in revelation.
I am a son. I am a husband and I am a father but one man. Three distinctions who perform a role different from the other two but originating from the same person, me. From this one being (me) emanates love of others. My love differs depending on whether I am being a son, a husband or a father but that love still comes from one heart, one source, me, and for the same reason. To love and the hope to be loved in return.
As simple and incomplete that the above example is, and it does not even scratch the surface of the Trinity, it provided me with a way to beGIN to understand. Dear Stacey seems to have more confidence in my ability to explain the Trinity than I do. I always tremble when having to try
I figured it was you! Thank you for that comment. That happens all the time!
I love that story about the little boy and the beach. Thank you! Explaining the Trinity makes me tremble too, you see light and know that you cannot see it all, but still…you cannot look away. You must keep going because a little more light is better than no more light at all.
Love it! Thank you TOC!
Sometimes dogma is explained with very little substantiation in scripture. When I come across these cases I ask myself, how many times do I have to be told. Especially if it is a quote from Jesus. Like we say to our children, “How many times do I have to tell you?”
I believe that the existence of God can be convincing with only one good, solid, piece of reasoning. If that is accepted as true, then what is the point of piling on more? Water is wet, wet, wet, wet, wet.
Yep…Wet!
Silly me, the post by anonymous was mine but forgot to put my name. Sorry
Oh, the Trinity, I’m not kidding, changed my life. Not just in a “oh, wow the world is so beautiful” kind of way, but in all the ways I approached my relationships. The Blessed Trinity is God telling us how to live in peace, telling us that He created that desire in us to know and be known, to love and be love, to belong. We want what the Trinity is. We must seek, it’s in all of us to do so.
If we seek love and knowledge without seeking God, we’ll never be satisfied. But when we do seek God, we get those things in abundance. Why do you think I titled my blog what it is? It’s about Trinitarian life.
I have so much to say about this. Thank you all for the discussion. It’s wonderful!
“The Blessed Trinity is God telling us how to live in peace, telling us that He created that desire in us to know and be known, to love and be love, to belong.”
“Let us make man in our image…”
The Trinity was the first community and we were made in His image, that is why “man was not made to live alone” but in the companionship of others. You’re right, he created that desire in all of us. Thanks Stacy.
Stacy,
I appreciate your explanation to your children about how long it took god to create the world.
I am uncertain about intelligent design. As a young catholic there was no such thing. I also seem to remember being told evolution was wrong. So how have we moved from evolution being incorrect in the 60′s/70′s to the theory of intelligent design (mid 80′s), which accounts for evolution by claiming it was gods plan?
Ordinary Catholic, are you saying that you can understand why people do not believe in god? That is how I am reading what you wrote. The evidence and proof that convinces you may not be enough for others.
Howard,
Oh good grief. I don’t whether to laugh or cry. I finally read that article. And then I found out they are writers at HuffPo.
Here, this is terrible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-young-phd/breasts_b_1910401.html
I guess we’re all just a buncha dumb animals.
I don’t see me being able to write anything useful about this. I don’t know where to start. Maybe I’ll hand the article to my husband, sit down, and take notes. He’d probably not stop talking for an hour, and it would be funny to hear. He can get, uh, animated. Hahaha.
You should’ve heard him when I showed him the article about a research team that spent months in the forests of Uganda digging through chimp poop to conclude that males with less testosterone had fewer worms, and were therefore more desirable to female chimps.
On a serious note, I noticed a while ago that the current beneath these evolutionary biology conclusions seems to be that men are worthless and there’s no such thing as morality, especially when it comes to gender and sexual behavior. “Hey do what you want…it’s not your fault, it’s just your genes.”
If you don’t mind Stacy, I’d like to offer a correction on what you said about the chimp study. I’m assuming this is the study you’re referring to:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/scienceshot-the-downside-of-manliness.html
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/positives-negatives-high-ranking-chimp/
If so, the finding was that higher-ranking chimps had more testosterone and parasitic worms, not less. And since females often choose the alpha-male, it follows that the females find males with more testosterone, and also more parasites, more desirable.
I’m also wondering, what’s wrong with examining chimp poo and attempting to better understand why they behave the way they do?
As far as evolutionary biology goes, it is concerned with discovering the history of our species as well as the other species of plants and animals on the Earth, not painting humans as “worthless” or destroying morality. That’s ridiculous. To many, many people, learning about how the human species relates to others does not in any way make us or any other species worthless. It’s the opposite, really. To me, increasing my understanding of the natural world makes it all the more wondrous and amazing, thus helping fuel my desire to learn even more. Trying to unravel the history of our planet and universe does not mean that we start treating everything as worthless or unimportant. If we did, why would we even be attempting to learn in the first place?
Stacy,
Well the kicker came in the last sentence, “…. is an unconscious evolutionary drive prompting us to activate powerful bonding circuits….”
I guess this is similar to overdrive on my truck. I can switch it’s circuit on and off with one finger.
I hope that the chimp poop expedition was not one of those government grants, or a derivative, that adds to our Nat. Debt.
OK, John, something like that. I was going from memory. That is the study.
It was this:
“Like many male primates, male chimpanzees compete to establish dominance—and decide who gets more access to females. Higher-ranking chimps have more testosterone, which is associated with aggression. But testosterone isn’t necessarily healthy. For example, it suppresses the immune system. Researchers watched 22 male chimps in Kibale National Park in Uganda, waited for them to poop, and collected fresh fecal samples.”
You don’t find that a little bit of a stretch, and a little bit disconcerting? They do these studies to learn about humans.
I’ve heard that “it’s all just so beautiful” justification before, and I agree with you, there’s a beauty in nature. But more and more I’ve noticed some really weird conclusions, mostly with a sexual nature that translates to human behavior, and it leaves me a-wondering.
Did you see the one where they saw some counts of female chimps carry sticks, and concluded they were playing with dolls?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just ask little girls why they play with dolls?
“That’s ridiculous.”
Well, I’ve been in my share of discussions with people who use those studies to try to show me that teens having sex and needing contraception is just teens following their instincts. I’ve heard all kinds of justifications for abortion because animals do it.
Stacy,
Your comment “…mostly with a sexual nature that translates to human behavior,…” has been echoed in your link here:
“The Downside of Manliness” and “Like many male primates….”
There does seem to be a subtle blending of species here.
No, I don’t find that study disconcerting or strange at all. No more strange than all the research conducted by Jane Goodall. We are the universe looking upon itself. Why shouldn’t we examine chimp poo?
And no, I don’t agree that this study was done primarily to learn about humans. It was done to learn about chimps. If we were trying to learn about humans, wouldn’t we be examining human poo? However, there is something to gained in our understanding of the history of homo sapiens by studying chimps because they are our closest living relatives. I think there’s a lot we can learn about how our behaviors relate to the behaviors of chimps.
As for the chimps with dolls study, no, I’d never seen that before. Thanks for pointing it out; it was pretty interesting. No, it wouldn’t make more sense to ask little human girls why they play with dolls because, again, the researchers were studying chimpanzees, not humans. They simply made new observations that they hadn’t seen before. Also, there’s part of a Wired article on this study that I’d like to point out (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/chimp-dolls/):
“It’s also tempting to think of chimpanzees as snapshots of an earlier stage in human development. But chimps have also evolved, culturally and biologically, in the 3.7 million years since our branch of the primate tree split.
Maybe the Kibale chimp dolls don’t represent an echo of ourselves, but an example of cultural convergence, with two species separately developing the same behavior, just as biological features like wings and eyes have evolved in similar but independent ways.
Whatever the origins of playing with dolls, it seems to be — along with tools, grief, love and warfare — one more thing that humans and chimps have in common.”
So there might not even be a direct human-to-chimp connection there. It may just be the case of the same behavior developing separately in different species. Something to keep in mind.
As for your last point, it’s a little hard to comment on because I don’t know any of these people that you’ve talked to and have made that point, but I’m betting they’re just normal people. So the important distinction to keep in mind is that they aren’t the scientists who actually did the research. So my point still stands. The research is done in order to learn about various species, not to justify irresponsible teens.
John,
There’s a big difference in Jane Goodall’s work and this new wave of non-human primate anthropomorphism. Goodall did this to some extent, and there was controversy over it. This isn’t about us being part of the universe and looking at ourselves, it’s about us looking at other animals and denying ourselves.
“And no, I don’t agree that this study was done primarily to learn about humans.”
Well, it certainly was interpreted that way by Science magazine. “Manliness” refers to humans.
“Whatever the origins of playing with dolls, it seems to be — along with tools, grief, love and warfare — one more thing that humans and chimps have in common.”
Very problematic statement, it all gets back to my point in the OP. This is all directed at proving God does not exist. If human rationality/reason just sprang from the primordial irrationality/un-reason, then there is no aspect of the human being that is not physical, and thus, there are no spiritual beings, and thus, no God.
Also, did you happen to notice the stats and methods in that study. It was ridiculous. They counted a very low number of these behaviors and, basically, just made up the doll theory. Not science, that is not science.
Based on their reasoning, I expect a future study about how a handful of chimps picked up flat rocks and it means they want to use iPads .
(Being snarky.)
“The research is done in order to learn about various species, not to justify irresponsible teens.”
Are you suggesting that scientists are not trying to show how ethical behavior is a matter of evolution. I can give you links to books written about this dating back to at least Darwin.
Read just this page: HERE. (Long link, google books)
“Ordinary Catholic, are you saying that you can understand why people do not believe in god? That is how I am reading what you wrote. The evidence and proof that convinces you may not be enough for others.”
Alan, as unique individuals we are on different levels as far as belief or non-belief in God is concerned. As a Catholic, I believe faith is a gift of God given to each of us in whatever abundance God decides each of us needs according to his will, however, with all graces offered, we have to be open to them and cooperate with His grace in our lives. On the other hand, God extends the grace of faith to all of us, and we are free to accept or reject. Those that reject it do so for reasons that are different from one individual to another.
There are hard core atheist that refuse any idea that argues for a higher being whom we call God no matter how convincing some evidence is presented to them. They, as I mentioned, are those with a closed mind on the belief of God. It is in my view, like arguing with a brick. We find this in other areas and topics in life, not just about religion.
I understand to some point why some people believe and others don’t. However, as I pointed out, an individual who agrees to have an open mind about the subject of God and will not immediately go on the defensive and shut down as soon as a discussion is started has given him or herself an opportunity to possibly hear SOMEthing that they did not hear before that may start their wheels turning and then realize that yes, that IS plausible, that makes SOME sense to me and so forth.
There is what I consider good evidence about God existing. I agree with you Alan that evidence that convinces one may not another because we all have different needs, but is that not true about many things in life? We all have moments where we try to work out a problem and myriads of people try to help and nothing comes of it, then all of a sudden, something clicks, and it is like a veil that is swept away and we all of a sudden there it is! How could I have missed it! Faith can work like that, or slowly, over time.
And in answer to your question about my understanding why some people do not believe in God I would have to say yes in many cases but not all obviously because I cannot read the hearts and minds of people. My job in this world Alan, is be a witness to the faith in word and deed. I cannot convert anyone nor is it my job. I am here to testify to the Truth. Conversion involves the heart, mind and soul, to which I am not privy to, but God is. He is the one that gives us new hearts. I hope I’ve made it a bit more clear Alan, and thank you for your question.
thanks Ordinary catholic
one point for you to think about.
You state “There are hard core atheist that refuse any idea that argues for a higher being whom we call God no matter how convincing some evidence is presented to them. They, as I mentioned, are those with a closed mind on the belief of God. It is in my view, like arguing with a brick. We find this in other areas and topics in life, not just about religion.”
But you must also allow that your mind is as closed to the existance of god as theirs is. Just in the opposite direction.
For me I don’t see any evidence in the existance of god. But the lack of evidence doesn’t to me negate the existance of god.
“For me I don’t see any evidence in the existance of god.”
>> No. You do see unequivocal and conclusive evidence for the *necessary* existence of God. You simply don not think logically.
The conclusive evidence for the necessary existence of God, is the existence of the cosmos. It cannot have brought itself into existence (this is a logical certainty; it is not susceptible of refutation on grounds at all, and can be denied only on the basis of stupidity or dishonesty).
These matters have been understood thoroughly for at least eight hundred years, and only the incredible metaphysical incompetence of the Endarkenment and its victims necessitates the retreading of the basic course.
” But the lack of evidence doesn’t to me negate the existance of god.”
>> This is not a question of “maybe”. It is not a question of “things are not conclusive one way or the other”.
Any mind which is prepared to deny the existence of God is required to insist upon the absurdity that the cosmos brought itself into existence; that is, that something can cause itself to exist, that something can bring itself into existence.
This is so stupid that one can only either laugh, or weep, at the stupendous incompetence of the Endarkened modern mind.
So what you’re basically saying is that science hasn’t demonstrated how the Universe began, therefore God created it. All you’ve done is make a god-of-the-gaps argument. It’s not proof of anything.
“So what you’re basically saying is that science hasn’t demonstrated how the Universe began”
>> John, science is not competent to tell us how the universe began, since science competently deals only which is susceptible of the scientific method.
The essence of the scientific method requires, first, a metaphysics which provides the foundation for science.
For example, science requires a metaphysical basis that there exists a world “out there”.
It requires the world to be lawful; that is, the world must proceed according to discoverable principles.
The principles must be falsifiable; that is, some experiment must always be conceivable, under which a given scientific hypothesis might be falsified.
Otherwise it is not science.
Science has nothing whatever to say about the truth that a thing cannot be its own cause.
Science is incompetent to do anything more than notice that this is in fact true.
Inductively, science can show, again and again, ad infinitum, world without end, amen, that no thing can bring itself into existence.
But science does not prove this.
Logic proves this.
Logic is prior to science, and in the absence of logic, science is a grotesque, misshapen absurdity, reduced to insisting that nothing is actually something, and that something is really nothing, from which nothing something comes.
Please understand.
Once one has been reduced to uttering such an absurdity, one has departed not only science, but logic, and reason itself.
Once one is forced to the defense of absurdities suych as this, one is merely demonstrating the fact that one is superbly incompetent to do science, or logic, or reason.
No further proof is required, this is a definitive self-contradiction, nothing more can be done or said for the victim of such catastrophic idiocy.
It is an inductively unanimous outcome of all scientific experiment, that no thing can be its own cause of existence.
Obviously, if there were one single experiment that proved the contrary, then the scientific method itself would have proven itself inadequate to describe the natural order.
But the *proof* that no thing can be its own cause of existence, is not scientific, but is of a higher order of knowledge; that is, it comes to us from metaphysics and logic.
“therefore God created it. All you’ve done is make a god-of-the-gaps argument. It’s not proof of anything.”
>> To the contrary, Alan. What has been proved is that you do not possess a consistent, well thought out basis upon which to engage in that characteristically human process called “thinking rationally”.
Rick
Exactly how old are you?
John A, there is no such thing as a ”god-of-the-gaps“ argument to a Christian or Jew or Muslim, there is only an answer.
That saying has been constructed by atheists to confuse the argument. We here do not try and fit “god” into a hole. A hole that science is not capable of filling by using the methods common to modern scientific investigation. That “lets fit it” attitude presupposes an understanding of what God is, then consider whether He fits into the hole? Naturally, this approach is not convincing.
We here see the beginning, that science and reason tells us cannot begin itself, as only being answered by intelligence.
There is no gap.
Howard,
Actually, the idea of “gaps filled up with God” was created by a Christian theologian, Henry Drummond. I am using the term properly. It refers to the practice of finding holes in our scientific knowledge and proposing a god instead. Henry was expressing his opinion that other theologians should not do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Again, that’s what Rick has done.
And yes, there is a gap. We don’t know how the Big Bang began. However, that is a more intellectually honest answer than proposing a god. It’s ok to say “we don’t know.”
You are probably right about the origin. But, my argument remains true. It is used as a counter to actual logical thinking, when, the argument itself is illogical. It insists that the ONLY acceptable answer is one that can be provided by physical examination.
It uses a physical metaphor – gap. How else do you perceive a gap? Change the word maybe, but that is not what is being done. We are talking about a beginning, something already has happened, it is over. We see the results in the Bang and try and reason the physics backward. When we are forced to stop we are left with nothing physical to examine.
Think about the 2 approaches I have given you to answering this question (gap). Again, there is a rather dead, unexciting, elusive, unconvincing, misty, and dark understanding of what God actually is. We are used to matter filling gaps. How can anyone put this kind of unknown into a gap?
Approach 2. Reason what is NECESSARY to begin a world, then give it a name.
John A.,
I hope you read that whole wiki.
If you understand what Rick, Howard, and TOC are saying, you would understand that they are not relegating God to just things science can’t explain. It is a major tenet of Catholicism that God created everything out of nothing.
How can anyone take “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth” to mean God is just our explanation for gaps in science?
What they are more trying to impress on you, I think, is that a chip off the ol’ block can’t be the whole block.
“To the contrary, Alan. What has been proved is that you do not possess a consistent, well thought out basis upon which to engage in that characteristically human process called “thinking rationally”.
I mean really how old are you? In case you missed it the first time I asked.
You believe “thinking rationally” is beleiving in god. And then you attempt to insult those who disagree with you. Plus really you don’t believe in god, you believe in the catholic church. They are completely different.
The cosmos do not prove the existance of god.
Perhaps less attempts at insulting?
“I mean really how old are you?”
>> Is it really relevant?
Obviously not.
Argumentum ad hominem- yet another in your steadily growing concatenation of logical fallacies.
“In case you missed it the first time I asked.”
>> It was no more relevant then.
You believe “thinking rationally” is beleiving in god.
>> Yes. It is impossible to think rationally without recognizing that no natural thing can be the cause of its own coming into existence.
The rest follows quite logically.
“And then you attempt to insult those who disagree with you.”
>> It ain’t an insult if it’s demonstrably true
I am glad you feel insulted, however.
You can either mope, or address the logic of my arguments.
I expect you will mope, since you have no logical coun ter to the arguments.
Hence- argumentum ad hominem.
Simple.
“Plus really you don’t believe in god, you believe in the catholic church. They are completely different.”
>> Non sequitir.
You are a walking encyclopedia of illogic, Alan.
I believe atheists sffer first and foremost from a lack of education in logic.
“The cosmos do not prove the existance of god.”
>> I have already shown that it proves exactly that. You have not been able to refute this, nor can you.
“Perhaps less attempts at insulting?”
>> Truth hurts, Alan.
It is a kindness I show you here.
where to start Rick?
I will follow your lead and copy and paste what was written and respond.
“I mean really how old are you?”
>> Is it really relevant?
Obviously not.”
Your opinion is it is not. Mine is that you are arguing like a petulant child. I’m right, your wrong. It really is a silly way to argue, plus you provide no facts.
“Argumentum ad hominem- yet another in your steadily growing concatenation of logical fallacies.
Wow you know some big words. Not impressed. I married a genuis. He knows lots of big words.
““In case you missed it the first time I asked.”
>> It was no more relevant then.”
Still a petulant little boy you are.
“You believe “thinking rationally” is beleiving in god.
>> Yes. It is impossible to think rationally without recognizing that no natural thing can be the cause of its own coming into existence.
The rest follows quite logically.”
Actually this is your opinion and nowhere near fact. While it may be true that no natural thing can be the cause of it’s own coming into existance, that does not mean that god is the cause. The cause is still unknown. God is not necessarily the logical answer, and actually if thought out god is not logical at all, really nor is god expected to be.
““And then you attempt to insult those who disagree with you.”
>> It ain’t an insult if it’s demonstrably true”
Well then again you are a petulant little boy. It’s not an insult because it is demonsrtably true.
“I am glad you feel insulted, however.”
For knowing a lot of big words you sure need some help on reading retention. Attempting to insult. I am not the least bit insulted by you. I don’t give you that power as your opinion of me is not a factor in my life.
“You can either mope, or address the logic of my arguments.”
No moping for me, just like there is no logic to your argument.
“I expect you will mope, since you have no logical coun ter to the arguments.
Hence- argumentum ad hominem.”
Again present a logical argument and I will attempt to counter it. You have yet to do that.
Simple.
“Plus really you don’t believe in god, you believe in the catholic church. They are completely different.”
>> Non sequitir.”
No, actually it’s a Truth. Unless you aren’t a catholic?
“You are a walking encyclopedia of illogic, Alan.”
Your opinion is not fact. Not sure why you keep insisting it is. I think it is more likely I am a logical thinker because I actually think about things, rather than just relying on god as the answer to all. You just regurgitate what you have been told to think. That is not logical at all.
“I believe atheists sffer first and foremost from a lack of education in logic.”
Again your opinion. Plus not being an atheist this doesn’t affect me.
““The cosmos do not prove the existance of god.”
>> I have already shown that it proves exactly that. You have not been able to refute this, nor can you.”
Actually you have not shown this. You have said the cosmos could not create itself, therefore god created it. Not proven at all. I cannot tell you how the cosmo’s was created. It is unknown. Perhaps it was god, perhaps it was not, but there is no conclusive evidence that it was god.
““Perhaps less attempts at insulting?”
>> Truth hurts, Alan.”
Truth can hurt Rick,this is very true. But you have not shown truth. And I am not hurt by your words. I think you continue to show the kind of person you are in your responses. The fact you would be happy to hurt me tells me that perhaps you are not the true christian that you want to be. I mean really to intentionally attempt to hurt another, that has got to be some kind of sin no?
“It is a kindness I show you here.”
Rick, you have done many things but showing kindness to me is not one of them. Nor have you even attempted to show kindness to anyone who disagrees with you. Nor do I think you want to.
I actually think you are amongst the least christian person blogging here (who claims to be christian). You attempt to bully us into seeing your point by trying to use what you see as your superior intelligence. Sure you may know more big words, heck you may even be better educated than me, but at the end of the day it sure doesn’t make you smarter.
So Rick now I ask, how freaking old are you?
“While it may be true that no natural thing can be the cause of it’s own coming into existance,”
>> It is certainly, knowably true. It is not probably, likely, 99.9% true.
It is one hundred per cent certain.
“that does not mean that god is the cause.”
>> Actually it does. Sin ce no natural thing can be its own cause, a supernatural cause is required. The supernatural cause must itself be:
1. Uncaused
2. Simple (not contingent)
3. Eternal
Those three attributes are sufficient to establish the God of the Philosophers, as the *necessary* cause of the existence of the natural order.
This has been established for at least eight hundred years (actually much longer than that).
“The cause is still unknown.”
>> To the contrary, the cause is knowably possessed of certain attributes, a few of which are listed above. Those three alone are sufficient to determine that the Cause is One, Self-Subsistent, Eternal.
This is precisely the state of Being which the philosophers termed God, in completely independent lines of inquiry from those of the Hebrews, who received from God the revelation which affirms His Oneness, His Self-Subsistence, and His Eternity:
“I am that I am”.
“God is not necessarily the logical answer, and actually if thought out god is not logical at all, really nor is god expected to be.”
>> God is the answer, in fact. The only logical answer. I have provided you with certain elementary aspects of the question above.
You can consult Thomas Aquinas for the full treatment, should you ever desire to examine actually logical thinking on these issues.
“Again present a logical argument and I will attempt to counter it. You have yet to do that.”
>> To the contrary. My arguments stand above.
Simple.
“Rick, you have done many things but showing kindness to me is not one of them.”
>> To the contrary. I have shown you the kindness of allowing you to see how catastrophically illiterate it would be to deny the logically necessary existence of God.
I would say that is a great kindness, whether or not you recognize it as such.
“Nor have you even attempted to show kindness to anyone who disagrees with you. Nor do I think you want to.”
>> Ah, I see. You think kindness involves simpering confirmation in whatever bit of illogic you wish to advance.
I am sorry, I do not think that is kind at all.
“I actually think you are amongst the least christian person blogging here (who claims to be christian).”
>> Says the antichristian
“You attempt to bully us into seeing your point by trying to use what you see as your superior intelligence. Sure you may know more big words, heck you may even be better educated than me, but at the end of the day it sure doesn’t make you smarter.”
>> Agreed. My arguments make me no smarter than you.
They merely demolish your arguments.
You might be very smart, and simply uneducated.
Kindness would involve seeing to the lacunae.
“So Rick now I ask, how freaking old are you?”
>> And I answer again:
It is completely irrelevant.
I sincerely hope- I mean this with all my heart- I sincerely hope I am much older than you are.
Oh Rick
Supernatural does not equal god.
You write “This has been established for at least eight hundred years (actually much longer than that).” Were this true there would be no need/room for debate.
I definitely would not call me antichristian. I appreciate all of the worlds religions, and the followers who see that while they follow their religion the whole world need not.
I appreciate the people who understand god, not their religion, but god and honor god.
You don’t do that. Sorry but no amount of your big words, attempted insults or “kindness” will make you that.
You still have proven nothing, so I guess maybe it is time for us to end our interaction?
“Oh Rick
Supernatural does not equal god.”
>>One, Self-Subsistent, Eternal equals God.
“You write “This has been established for at least eight hundred years (actually much longer than that).” Were this true there would be no need/room for debate.”
>>Oh, not at all. Einstein established that every argument Galileo advanced to show a motion of the Earth was false, as a matter of experimental science.
A hundred years later this simple fact brings about complete shock and rejection by those who have not carefully looked into the matter.
The consensus is irrelevant.
The scientific evidence is completely certain and conclusive:
Not a single one of Galileo’s proofs were true.
Scientific truth is not a product of consensus.
Scientific truth is a product of experimental demonstration.
“I definitely would not call me antichristian.”
>>I use the term as it is defined in Scripture, 1 John 2:22:
“Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son”
“I appreciate all of the worlds religions, and the followers who see that while they follow their religion the whole world need not.”
>>See above.
“I appreciate the people who understand god, not their religion, but god and honor god.
You don’t do that. Sorry but no amount of your big words, attempted insults or “kindness” will make you that.”
>>You are certainly correct in noticing that I am not a syncretist, but instead a Christian.
“You still have proven nothing”
>>To the contrary, my arguments stand unengaged, much less refuted.
“so I guess maybe it is time for us to end our interaction?”
>>As you wish.
“But you must also allow that your mind is as closed to the existance of god as theirs is. Just in the opposite direction.”
Actually no. I cannot allow that to stand. That would be like saying mathematician’s minds are closed once they learned 2 plus 2 equals four and no argument would make them believe otherwise. That is not having a closed mind, but choosing to accept what they know is true and holding on to that truth unless something else comes along and totally demolishes their understanding of 2+2 when presented with a viable alternative. No atheist has ever been successful in swaying me to believe otherwise in their attempts simply because what they offer lacks credibility. In fact what they offer is more difficult to believe than my believing in God as the source of all things. If I were to believe that we exist simply because of random acts, that our brains developed to this degree again, from random acts, then I would have to believe that you could blow up a house and all the debris fall back to earth in nice little piles of 2×4′s, 2×6′s and 2×8′s all nicely stacked by size, and all the nails fall neatly into their own little piles according to size, windows unbroken, etc. for that is what our universe demonstrates: Order. I at least had a mind open enough to allow the possibility of a spiritual world and realized that there are more unanswered questions about our existence than science or atheists can answer simply because the minds of many scientists and atheists are closed when it comes to the spiritual world.
My belief in God did not come about from wishful thinking. I came to believe from seeing evidence in the natural world that weighs more in favor of God existing rather than not. Who in their right mind would put their whole heart and mind, in fact their whole being in a belief unless they believe it to be true? Who would deliberately would put themselves at odds with people and invite ridicule by incorporating this belief into their lives just to suffer for it if they thought that belief could be wrong? I don’t, do you? I do not believe in God simply because I want to, but because I had an open enough mind to realize what we see isn’t necessarily all there is in creation.
Atheist seem (to me at least) to believe that in order to add 2+2 to equal four then one needs apples(the physical) to do the equation and refuse to see there is a concept(spiritual) that makes this equation possible to work with other objects. In short, atheist are stuck with their apples. I on the other hand, am enjoying other fruits because I do have an open mind.
Ordinary Catholic
Your answer is exactly what I would expect.
But of course my statement stands, and it still stands true. You are no more likely to see an atheist point then they are to see yours. You believe what you believe for whatever reasons.
“Who in their right mind would put their whole heart and mind, in fact their whole being in a belief unless they believe it to be true?”
The above statement is rather silly. Why would you believe something to be true that you thought untrue. Of course you believe it to be true, that however does not make it true.
” Who would deliberately would put themselves at odds with people and invite ridicule by incorporating this belief into their lives just to suffer for it if they thought that belief could be wrong?”
An atheist can make the same statement and it would be as factual as you making it. You ridicule them, they you. And believe me us gays know ridicule. So you definitely will not win me over with this one.
” I don’t, do you? I do not believe in God simply because I want to, but because I had an open enough mind to realize what we see isn’t necessarily all there is in creation.”
I agree with the last part, what we see isn’t necessarily all there is in creation. But that in and of itself does not prove the existance of god. And of course you believe in god simply because you want to. You choose to let the “evidence” help you believe. But in the end your mind is not open to any evidence to the contrary. You can use all the fruit you want, but that is still the case. It’s irrelevant how you got there, but currently your mind is simply not open to it.
I think the thing missing here is god needs no evidence of gods existance. You all are looking for it so you can “prove” to others god exists, but really you simply believe or you don’t. And in my opinion that is the way god intended it.
Welcome to the world of “theists”, “atheists”, “agnostics” and those who seek “designer gods”. I haven’t come up with a good name for that yet.
Not to be confused with the “God that designs”. More like the god banquet of Greco-Roman times. More modern. Greco-Roman-Chinese perhaps.
Pick a feature from column A and one from column B and two from column C.
I’ll take the “Marriage is whatever you want” feature. And the “The value of human life is what you want it to be” feature. Throw in the “I can’t be proven to exist” feature. Don’t forget the “You won’t be required to apply any feature in public life” feature.
I also like the “Add/change” feature. It leaves the future open for me.
I’ll make more picks as time goes by and I realize the true strength of my weaknesses.
That was well written and honest.
Can you describe what God is exactly, in the same common speak dialogue, so I’m never confused again?
This is an honest question, because if you can be so candid about what God is not, then I would like to know exactly what God is; in this exact same candor and ferver.
Mjeck, this is what God is, your creator who has told you everything you need to know! Notice the word “become”.
“As St. Athanasius the Great reminds us, “God became man so that man might become like god.””
“We are called into Communion with God; this is why we are created. God created us in His Image and Likeness—and it is only in joining into a relationship with Him that we find fulfillment and purpose. Yet, with each time we sin, we break that relationship. And it is this brokenness that Christ, in His Love for us, comes to heal. We receive this healing by participating in our Lord, Jesus Christ through partaking of His Body and His Blood. We are all called to approach the Holy Chalice every time it is offered—just as we are all called into Communion with God. And the only way to participate in that Holy Communion, is through Jesus Christ. When we receive this beautifully loving and sacrificial Gift of Christ—we enter into a union with Him as His Body—and so doing, enter into the One Loving Relationship with the Holy Trinity itself!.”
http://mychristmycare.wordpress.com/
from
http://www.serborth.org/
These were your words, Howard:
“Mjeck, this is what God is, your creator who has told you everything you need to know!”
The rest is a quote, not your words, not your candor, not your fervor.
If he’s told me everything I need to know – Then I know God. You need to respect that.
If that’s not what you meant, then take another try and answering the question
Mjeck, I very carefully said to you pay attention to the word “become”.
Being told is not the same as hearing or knowing or understanding or following. Having kids will teach you that.
Do you deny that we have been told what He wants us to hear?
Can you answer the question?
Explain to me what God is, in your own words.
Mjeck, my words would only be a restating of what I quoted above. Why do the words matter when the meaning is the same?
Answer my question. Do you deny that we have been told what He wants us to hear?
I do believe that God has told me everything I need to know.
I know God. You need to respect that.
“I know God. You need to respect that.”
The only respect that should matter to you then is God’s.
That’s right, Howard. Thank-you, have a good day.
You’re welcome. You have a good day to.
Howard, you do of course realize that you also chose the god you would worship (and by doing so chose from column A, B and C).
You are catholic, not muslim, protestant, episcopalian or jewish. Each believes in the same god, just differently.
Why did you chose catholicism?
Who are you?
Mjeck,
You asked somewhere up there if we were willing to follow truth wherever it leads. Emphatically — YES! Speaking for myself, conversion was a matter of will. I wanted to know God and know myself better. When I was ready to ask questions about what everything the Church teaches means, I had abundant resources (Catholicism is big on recording!) and that’s exactly what I did, followed truth. Sometimes I wasn’t sure why a teaching is what it is, but I learned to trust that there’s a good reason and I learned to trust that authority. There are always answers, you have to will to find them.
It seems to me that a lot of antagonists in this discussion not only refuse to search for truth, they’ve just decided that opinion = truth, and with people like that, you can’t really get anywhere. (Which is one reason I pretty much ignore Alan, until he complains or something.)
(Which is one reason I pretty much ignore Alan, until he complains or something.)
I should have followed your lead
Originally, it was in context between following loyalty and following truth. Truth can often be hard and lonely and unpopular; which you acknowledged.
Faith has a long history of questioning said faith. I respect Atheists and their logic because they have a firm grasp of where God is not. Howard has a firm grasp of where truth/God is not; he must have learned that from somewhere.
I like Alan, I find him highly intelligent. He enjoys the antagonist minutia that some other’s *cough* *cough* enjoy on this blog.
You are right Mjeck. It’s all still (I hope) in friendship. Like Howard said one time — it would be pointless to have discussions if everyone agreed.
yes you all should ignore me, it’s the adult thing to do.
Sorry if you don’t like people pointing out the obvious to you, but hey what can I say.
Howard, that was me, sorry didn’t realize my name came up.
Glad to know I get to Stacy enough to ignore me. Like Rick being happy he insulted me this makes me happy.
In rereading I realize the last part was unnecessary. I am not happy Stacy ignores me. Saying that was childish and I apologize for it.
Thanks Mjeck
I appreciate that.
I drive my husband crazy by coming here (and it appears many others) but I do enjoy the debate.
I don’t get angry about being insulted here.
Ive never intended to offend, but rather would like people to open their eyes.
Isn’t that what you want me to do?
Alan,
You do say that truth = opinion, no?
That’s not debate. That’s not opening eyes. It’s not an insult to repeat what you said.
Alan, I think we would just be riding on the merry-go-round again. Enough fun for one day.
Mjeck, when you are raised by wolves you recognize the scent.
yes Stacy, I do say the truth = opinion. In this situation.
There are truths of course. If you throw and object up in the air it will come down. If you don’t eat, drink and breathe you will die.
But sorry, god is not truth. It is to you, but that is your belief. Others believe differently. Are they wrong? Because they don’t think they are.
Alan, I have a few minutes.
What would it take for an opinion of mine or yours to be as true as objects falling to the ground?
Howard are you stating it is not truth that if you throw something up in the air it will fall back down again?
Let me start by saying thank you to you all. In a strange way you have helped me more firmly understand myself in my beliefs.
I beleive god exists, and you all have helped me strengthen that opinion.
I take issue with the arguments of logic, reason and evidence. I still feel there is no evidence god exists. But there is no evidence god does not exist either. See god needs no evidence. You believe or you don’t. It’s not logical to believe in god. God doesn’t need proof or evidence (but I could continue to argue against Stacy’s use of the definition of proof being “to produce belief in its truth” as that is far to arbitrary depended on the person assessing the evidence). Because we cannot say how the cosmo’s came into be does not prove god exists. The big bang theory does not negate the existance of god.
Faith defined from dictionary.com
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
So while you debate reason, logic and truth I merely want you to see it’s pointless. You have faith. We believe what we believe.
Ordinary Catholic, I’m sorry if you see me saying your mind is closed is insulting, but it’s a truthful statement. You wont see any argument against the existance of god.
Rick, you think the cosmo’s are proof, but sadly they are not. Yes they are an unanswered question. Yes I believe they were created by god. That does not make it fact though.
Howard. You nailed it. I am agnostic. I pick and choose. I take from column a, b and c. I don’t need some authority to tell me god exists. I know god does in my heart. Yes Howard, I am gay, and I don’t think god has any issues with that. I think god made me gay. I think god brought my wonderful husband into my life. I beleive god wants us to be together. Trust me it’s not a bad thing.
Stacy, you ignore me because you don’t like me. You don’t know me but you don’t like me. I’m ok with that. I don’t really give you any reason to like me. If you really knew me you might like me, or you might not. I just wish you would admit it.
Stacy you once asked about my beliefs in god. I didn’t want to tell you frankly because I didn’t want to see them mocked by you, Howard, Rick, Jeff and any others. You all are really good at telling people how they are wrong (a trait I see that we all share) but not so good at seeing what people say (another trait we all share)
So here is is.
God exists. God is good. God created us all. God does not get the credit for the good and bad that happens. That’s all on us as humans. God did not cause Sandy or the Newtown massacre. God does not pick and choose who dies in natural disasters because he has something for them to do.
God is neither male or female. If we were created in his image then we all were. Male, female, white, black, asian.
I see god more like the hypocratic oath. First do no harm. So that is why I see murder, stealing, rape, pedophelia as immmoral.
God does not belong in our schools, our governments or our societies. God is already there. God doesn’t need our acknowledgement. God just needs us as individuals to believe. But I think god is ok if we don’t, as long as we still follow the golden rule.
Sorry this is long. I think most won’t read it, and if they do they will mock my silliness. My stupidity. My lack of logic, knowledge and reason. But I’m ok with that.
Because if you do any of those they will be your truth, not mine.
” your truth, not mine”
Perhaps you might, one day, be able to prosecute a lawsuit against whatever indoctrination camp falsely advertised itself to your parents as a school.
Oh Rick, I should have known you would be the first.
it’s funny as you tell me me asking your age is irrelevant, but you go right back to the school yard with attempts at insults. In case you don’t understand that means going to insult is childish. Should you have read what Stacy wrote you would understand that “your truth, not mine” meant your opinion, not mine.
So again I ask (relevantly) how old are you?
Lol, no I am not insulted at all, in fact I expect you to see me as closed minded because you think I do not look at all facets of life or at the arguments that atheists or science throws at me trying to convince me that there is no need of a god and that I refuse to even consider them. The fact is, I have looked at their arguments and found them wanting. Simple as that. I look at both physical and spiritual. They don’t. That my friend is closed minded.
I will pray for you.
Thanks Ordinary, I guess we all need prayers.
And it is not intended as an insult.
“The fact is, I have looked at their arguments and found them wanting. Simple as that. I look at both physical and spiritual. They don’t. That my friend is closed minded”
Let me ask you this, are you assuming they are not looking at your arguments because they come to a different answer than you?
and if you will indulge me another. Do you enter all debates/discussions with the idea that god is always the answer?
“Let me ask you this, are you assuming they are not looking at your arguments because they come to a different answer than you?”
Not at all! They are not even looking at my arguments simply because my arguments come from both the physical world and the spiritual world. They do not even consider the spiritual world as part of the equation, hence my arguments are simply brushed aside, and please, don’t tell me most don’t, I’ve experienced it more than once. That’s like arguing with a fish that life exists outside the oceans when it refuses to even consider that there is dry land out there.
When one claims that Truth=opinion, then there is little left to debate. “So that is why I see murder, stealing, rape, pedophelia as immmoral.” That is simply an opinion.
Summed up, I believe they come to a different answer than I do simply because they use only half the equation of our being.
At this point I have to say that we are now beating a dead horse and it is time to move on. I appreciate the opportunity that Stacy provided in her blog so that I could articulate my beliefs. Thank you Alan and especially Stacy.
Ordinary catholic,
I understand what you are saying.
Please understand that to them there is not spiritual side so no need to consider it.
And please read where I wrote there are truths, and example being if we don’t breath we die. Religion and god simply are not truths (but rather opinons of what we think are truths). There is a difference.
Alan:
Your indoctrination camp deserves to be insulted. It has disfigured your intellect so drastically, that you are prepared to type, right out here where your fellow human beings can read it:
“your truth, not mine”.
This is a catastrophe.
Whomsoever rendered you able to type such a catastrophe ought to be convicted of child abuse.
You have been greatly damaged by those who falsely claimed to be your teachers.
Best of luck in recovering your God-given ability to recognize absurdities before you adopt them as axioms.
Rick
No one deserves to be insulted. That is what makes you a child.
Sorry sunshine, catholic church ain’t truth, capitalized or not. It simply isn’t.
But you have an outstanding day.
oh and I’ll pray for you.
One more time lol;
“Religion and god simply are not truths (but rather opinons of what we think are truths).” Is that the truth? Absolutely? Cya
Oops…I did it again. Anonymous is me up there
Thank you,
Have a wonderful weekend.
Alan,
Someday maybe you’ll realize that you hurl insults and then act surprised if anyone remotely suggests you are off base. I’ve tried, and so have others, really hard to hear you out and to see things through your eyes, but you stubbornly insist on hyperbole and language that shuts down discussion.
do you have an example of me hurling insults? Because I don’t believe that is true at all. I am sure I have at some point, but hurling them about is, well, hyperbole, and usually when I do insult (which again I don’t think I do that, sure I may be rude and snarky, but you have basically say snarky is ok by some of your responses) it is in response to someone else’s insults towards me.
And oh so many times I have been called out by you on it. I think Edward has as well. Haven’t seen anyone else be called out on it though.
Stubbornly insisting on hyperbole, well you got me there. I try to fit in on that one. Please oh please don’t tell me you don’t realize you have a tendency to be hyperbolic (schooling a phd in philosophy on not only grammar but also philosophy)? That Howard doesn’t? That Rick doesn’t?
And I often get responses to my posts, so how does that shut down discussions?
I feel as strongly about my opinions as you do Stacy. You only look for the “bad” in me, and as I have stated I am ok with that.
Now how about a little talking to for Rick. You clearly can see he has on multiple occasions attempted to personally insult me (attempted only because I don’t take them as the insults they were intended). Or do you agree that it is ok for him to insult my intelligence and upbringing?
Back after more of, in my opinion, God’s work.
“Howard are you stating it is not truth that if you throw something up in the air it will fall back down again?”
Alan, I am not saying something between the lines. I am asking a question. What would it take for anyone of our, yours or mine, opinions to be as true?
Howard, you seem to like avoiding answering the questions asked of?
I asked my question so we could discuss further truths.
But here goes.
You ask “what would it take for anyone of ours, yours or mine, opinions to be as true?” Well it would take them being actual truths.
There is your answer.
Now your turn. Are you stating that it is not truth that if you throw something up in the air it will not fall back down again?
Alan, calm down. Easy there.
I did answer you. NO I AM NOT STATING IT IS NOT A TRUTH, ETC, ETC.
“Well it would take them being actual truths.
There is your answer.”
Now, the next question I have (think of you schooling me) is, how would we know they are actual truths?
Howard, actually that is not what you wrote. And please, what is the intent of your “etc etc etc”
Interesting question. It is also why I say so much of this is our opinion.
We can do a test to see if we throw something in the air that it will fall down. But we have to believe that the sky on a sunny day is blue. Because it’s what we see. The earth is round. We can see this from space. If you stop breathing you will die, you can be revived but there is no debate that you will be dead.
So I guess some case of demonstration could be helpful in proving something to be truth or not.
But so much of it is up to one’s interpretation of truth. I can lie to you and tell you it is a truth. If you believe me does that make it a truth?
Alan, it is important that we know how to determine truth.
Your examples give us a method. Physical observation. My eyes, if normal, see blue. No problemo.
What about a harder problem. We each have an opinion. There is no way to verify the truth by looking at something. How do we then tell? Must we say that our opinions cannot be proven, therefore cannot be true? What do you say?
Howard
“Your examples give us a method. Physical observation. My eyes, if normal, see blue. No problemo.”
I am glad we can agree on something.
“What about a harder problem. We each have an opinion. There is no way to verify the truth by looking at something. How do we then tell? Must we say that our opinions cannot be proven, therefore cannot be true? What do you say?”
Is there a way to verify the truth period (beyond just looking)? I guess my answer is a wishy washy yes and no. We can use the senses in some cases (an orange may look sweet but indeed be bitter) and then soome concrete evidence. But it does get tricky. We both know that opinions are not always truth. I say there is no proof of god, you say there is. I say homosexuality is not a sin, you say it is. Those are both our “truths” but at the end of the day they cannot be proven. So to me they are our opinions.
I am sure this will not make any sense, and Rick will again attempt to tear me apart, but it’s the best I can do to try to answer.
Don’t pay attention to Rick right now, he has been watching too many episodes of “House”.
I have to go. Lets continue this later.
“We both know that opinions are not always truth.”
Very true!
Alan, is it possible that you and I are wrong and opinions are always true or always false even if we cannot prove it?
Alan, so what you really meant when you told Stacy that opinion=truth is that we think our opinions are true, not that they necessarily are true.
So I guess the important thing I am getting from our conversation is that the truth of the opinion is judged outside of the opinion giver. You and I can be wrong. Truth is external to us however we figure it, even if we can’t figure it. objective as people say.
Howard,
You wrote “Alan, is it possible that you and I are wrong and opinions are always true or always false even if we cannot prove it?”
Anything is possible Howard. I think we have a tendency to think our opinions are in deed truth, and sometimes they may not be.
then you wrote “Alan, so what you really meant when you told Stacy that opinion=truth is that we think our opinions are true, not that they necessarily are true.”
Yes this is what I meant.
then you wrote “So I guess the important thing I am getting from our conversation is that the truth of the opinion is judged outside of the opinion giver. You and I can be wrong. Truth is external to us however we figure it, even if we can’t figure it. objective as people say.
No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying, what I have said before is that we generally seem to think what we see as truth often can be our opinion.
As I have tried to state we all know that some things are just true. If you throw an object in the air it will eventually fall (unless you add Rick’s zero gravity, but then that provides another whole set of truths). The sky looks blue. If we stop breathing we die. But not everything we think is true is true.
Does this make sense?
“But not everything we think is true is true. Does this make sense?”
Yes it does.
May I offer a way to know a truth without throwing balls.
Say for example, I say that the Cubs are going to win the World Series this year. My unintelligent, dull, sloppy friend says that they will not.
Despite my superior attributes only one of us can possibly be correct.
Assuming the Series will be played, I could be correct. In any case my dullard friend could be correct. We have declared a truth, only one of us can be right. Our beliefs have nothing to do with this truth and we have not thrown any balls into the air. We will during the series, but, this is only necessary to determine which of us is correct. Our truth is not dependent on the outcome. The truth is that there would be an outcome of some sort and only one outcome is possible.
How more true can that be?. Ain’t it beautiful.
Howard,
That makes sense in a way. However when you say the twins will win that is an opinion. It’s not a truth. It may indeed become one, but at the time of saying it you know it to not be a truth. Rather it is your belief. If they lose was your belief truth?
Alan, I know you have got to read slower. The TWINS!
Yes my belief had to become true.
The validity of our beliefs was not what I was after. In this example baseball is irrelevant and my pick is irrelevant to the truth I was trying to illustrate.
There could have been only one of us that was right, was the truth. Nothing physical told us that. Everything involved leading to this conclusion had originally been only concepts. The design of the game is conceptual. We could play virtual baseball online. The fact that we came to two opposite conclusions when only one is allowed says something about our picking ability but it also says something about how our world works. We both new how it worked and picked accordingly. We can reason our way through problems with logic.
Sorry Howard, I will always be a Red Sox fan. Born and raised here, I know no other way.
You are indeed correct, in the end, in a baseball game, only one of you can be correct. Only one of your truths will become an actual truth.
And the end of that game you should have a demonstrable outcome agreed to by all. A concrete answer for all to see.
But now the question remains. When you said the twins would win was that a truth or an opinion?
Alan, when I said the CUBS, CUBS, CUBS, CUBS, CUBS will win it was obviously an opinion. It could have only been an opinion by definition, the games have not been played.
Again, it is not the truth of my opinion that concerns me now. It is, you are correct, where we are going. But, a long time from now if ever.
What I am trying to achieve is a way we both can look at a truth and know that is truth without throwing a ball into the air.
Didn’t my last comment ring true regarding that question?
Howard
“What I am trying to achieve is a way we both can look at a truth and know that is truth without throwing a ball into the air.”
Is this the last comment meant to ring true?
If so I fear the answer is there is none in some situations, except for after the game has been played.
Stacy, can I borrow a cup of jello?
LOL sorry Howard
Believe I am reading and listening to what you say. I appreciate the thoughtful and non harsh conversation.
Just not sure what to say to you about this. I’ve answered this question honestly and to the best of my abilities. But you wrote “Again, it is not the truth of my opinion that concerns me now.” and I think the biggest thing to be concerned about is the truth of our opinions, or more importantly if our truths are indeed truths or opinions.
Keep in mind if you put that jello in a shadow box you could nail it to the wall and it would be art…………
“Believe I am reading and listening to what you say.”
If that is so, you have some convincing to do.
Start with why do I get Twins back instead of Cubs?
LOL Sorry Howard, I guess I just can’t imagine anyone betting on the Cubs? Not sure how I read Cubs as Twins, but at least I had the right sport. I do the same with numbers, I see what I see and my mind wont change it back.
Sorry about that.
I swear I read the rest though.
Alan, betting on the Cubs would truly be “blind faith”. But we can hope.
It is only 9:40 in the morning here and I am already tired out.
Can we put off continuing our discussion for another day or thread? Re-read it and see if you have misread some of the concepts.
I’m going to relax now and play with some jello.
Howard,
Have a great day.
Alan,
“Stacy, you ignore me because you don’t like me.”
That’s what I’m talking about (in addition to name calling and demanding people tell you private information that is none of your business) you make false accusations.
I told you why I ignore you. You say things like truth=opinion, that God is just something for each person to opine. I can’t argue with someone who says that. Hanging jello on a wall would be easier.
I don’t think I have called anyone names, nor have I demanded private information from anyone.
AS I have stated many many many times (which you seem to ignore) most of what is argued/debated here is opinion, which many are arguing as truth. What I have said is the catholic church is not truth. Much of what you claim to be truth is not truth, but is in fact rather opinion.
There are truths, we all know that. I have said that many times, yet you and Rick continue to ignore that. Can we move past that and come to an understanding of both what I said and meant?
“Hanging jello on a wall would be easier.”
>> Bingo.
On Truth:
There is a hierarchy of knowledge.
At the low end of the hierarchy is that which is sense-certain.
We toss a ball up.
It comes down.
Induction allows us to predict the ball will always come down.
This works until we expand our operational domain to zero-gravity environments, which reminds us why inductive science can never give us anything other than provisional truth.
Next up the scale is metaphysical truth.
We know something is metaphysically true because existence is not logical unless that something is true.
No natural thing can bring itself into existence, is a classic example of a metaphysical truth.
This is a higher sort of truth- it is certain.
One need not expriment endlessly, trying to inductively affirm this truth.
The assertion is true because it is illogical to assert the contrary.
The higherst level of truth is theological: it is True on the strength of Him Who reveals it.
If God affirms that He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit, consubstantial, co-eternal, distinct only in relations of origin……..
Well.
There is no experiment that can affirm- or even address-this.
There is no logical metaphysical necessity that God should be triune, consubstantial, co-eternal, distinct only in relations of origin.
We could never know this about God, unless He chose to tell us.
Having chosen to tell us, we can rely with absolute certainty upon its truthfulness, since He is, of metaphysical necessity, Truthful.
These categories of knowledge were understood and universally taught the greatest geniuses in the history of the human species, until quite recently.
Now they have been replaced by Nobel Prize winners who want us to believe that something, which is nothing, comes from nothing, which is something.
They have the math to prove it, and how terrible it must be to not have the intellectual tools by which to recoil in horror from such blithering idiocy.
I’ve read this several times through, and this appears to be an expression of opinion, rather than truth.
You have three tiers, each separate, each making large leaps without any connection between.
Truth is self-evident and factual; and neither appear in your post.
Although, I’m fascinated by your theories.
“I’ve read this several times through, and this appears to be an expression of opinion, rather than truth.”
>> It is an expression of knowledge; that is to say, none of the assertions above can be logically contradicted, and none of them is in contradiction to observation.
“You have three tiers, each separate, each making large leaps without any connection between”
>> The leaps are as small as they can be, and there is obvious logical connection between them. Sense-certainty is provisional (inductive); metaphysical certainty is logically necessary; theological Truth is certain on the strength of God revealing.
As far as I know there is no other form of knowledge available to us.
“Truth is self-evident and factual; and neither appear in your post.”
>> Self evident? Factual? But this is absurd. Were truth self evident we should have no disputes about its nature or content.
You might assert that it is a fact that gravity exists, as a spherically propagating force of attraction between bodies.
Certainly the vast majority of humanity would agree, and assert this as factual.
Instead, the assertion is an occult metaphysical hypothesis at solar system scales, close enough for rock and roll, and falls apart drastically- it is literally off by 99%!- on any scale larger than a stellar cluster.
The world was self-evidently motionless at the center of the cosmos until Copernicus; now it is self-evidently in motion on at least three different axes; its own rotation, its orbital motion around the Sun, its motion along with the local group with respect to the Great Attractor, etc.
Neither the first, nor the second, set of assertions is either self evident, or factual, on any scientific or metaphysical grounds (theology does provide us an answer, but this domain of knowledge is affirmable only by Faith).
“Although, I’m fascinated by your theories”
>> My theories are worth exactly as much as any other theory, that is to say, insofar as it is a theory, it is worth precisely nothing. All theories, as Popper memorably demonstrated, have exactly the same probability of being true; which is zero.
Theories are useful fictions, to assist us in bootstrapping our way up the mountain perhaps, but all of them are wrong.
For Truth, we can look only to metaphysics and theology.
In the end, you seem to confirm what I wrote.
(If) we can only turn to Metaphysics and Theology for truth, this is unsatisfactory; the only reason they are true is because you hold your theology and metaphysics to be true.
The only shared truth between us is the physical world (tier one of knowledge according to you); which you seem to be saying is very unreliable and easily falsifiable.
We are left with my opinion vs. your opinion.
Your theories fascinate me. What you seem to to be saying is that everything went wrong since the 16th Century. What should the world look like if it were to go right?
“(If) we can only turn to Metaphysics and Theology for truth, this is unsatisfactory; the only reason they are true is because you hold your theology and metaphysics to be true.”
>> Demonstrably false. I have gicen an incontrovertibly, necessarily true metaphysical statement:
No natural thing can bring itself into existence.
This is true whether one were Hindu, or animist, or atheist, or Muslim, or vegetative.
This truth is absolute; that is to say, it does not depend upon the agreement of any experiment, or the vote of any scientific review panel.
It is true, necessarily, because it’s opposite is fatally self-contradictory (illogical).
So your thesis is refuted, on grounds of the certainty of metaphysical truth.
Theological truth, while higher than metaphysical truth, is not affirmable on grounds other than Faith.
Therefore, the highest level of knowledge is inaccessible to those who do not have the Faith.
So, for purposes of your argument, we can dispense with consideration of theology- it is inaccessible to anyone who does not first possess a true metaphysics, which you have claimed is a matter of opinion, and I have conclusively demonstrated is not.
“The only shared truth between us is the physical world (tier one of knowledge according to you); which you seem to be saying is very unreliable and easily falsifiable. We are left with my opinion vs. your opinion.”
>> As we see above, we share knowledge of both the first and second tier, and the second tier is neither unreliable nor falsifiable in any way at all.
This, again, represents a conclusive knock-down of your objection.
“Your theories fascinate me.”
>> Which theories? So far I have advanced no theory upon this thread.
“What you seem to to be saying is that everything went wrong since the 16th Century.”
>> Ironically, sometimes grievous errors yield great benefits, along with catastrophic damages. This is the case with regard to the Endarkenment. We have developed an incredibly powerful tool in the scientific method, the Wonder Hammer itself. We have done this at the price of cutting ourselves off from the higher domains of knowledge.
The good news is that the scientific (Copernican) project has now reached the point of its own self-falsification (the “multiverse”) and the resurgence of metaphysics and theology is at hand.
“What should the world look like if it were to go right?”
>> The world goes right when the Catholic Church is subject to pitiless and awful persecution at the hands of the principalities and powers. It is at times like those when the Gospel displays its supernatural power, and entire nations are converted.
We happen to live at a time when this persecution is at hand, and so the world will very soon be seen to be going right again.
“No natural thing can bring itself into existence.”
You are unable to prove this to be true by the standards you’ve created for your first tier of knowledge.
What you have is an agreed opinion that you share with every other metaphysical religion.
Mjek:
I think we have come to the end of the road here.
The second tier (metaphysics) is superior to the first (sense-certainty), precisely because opinion has nothing at all to do with the valid propositions of the second.
We can pick this up once you have internalized this.
Have a great week.
If we both agree that 2 + X = 5; or that Truth + X = God; that does not mean we get to put whatever we like as X, so long as the answer is always God.
I think I’m clear on all three tiers, but your premise is flawed. You also have difficulty communicating your ideas with others.
Still, I like your theories.
The second tier (metaphysics) is superior to the first (sense-certainty), precisely because opinion has nothing at all to do with the valid propositions of the second.
We can pick this up once you have internalized this.
Have a great week.
Also, repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true
That is correct, Mjek.
2 plus two always equals four, no matter how many opinions might be expressed to the contrary.
No natural thing can bring itself into existence, no matter how many opinions might be expressed to the contrary.
We are able to know, without the slightest doubt, that any person- even a person with a Nobel Prize, or fifty one per cent of the vote- who proposes the contrary, is wrong.
Hope this helps.
“No natural thing can bring itself into existence,”
How do you know this is true? Your first tier can be falsified, and your next two tiers can never be questioned.
You might accept that 2+2=4; but beyond basic arithmetic, you consider modern math to be “blithering idiocy”
Mjek: Modern math does not propose that zero equals one.
If it were ever to bcome so modern as to propose this, then it, like modern ” something from nothing” cosmology, would have descended into blithering idiocy.
We know that no natural thing can bring itself into existence, because if it could, it would exist before it existed.
These are really simple truths, and please wake me up when you are able to assent to them.
There is of course no hope at all for any intellect that finds itself unable to assent to these two propositions:
1. Zero is not One
2. No natural thing can bring itself into existence.
2. No natural thing can bring itself into existence.
The only proof you’ve offered is that, it’s true because you said it’s true.
Your theories require more work.
As for 0=1, you might want to look into the blithering idiocy of imaginary numbers. If you’ve ever flown in a plane, you can thank their blithering idiocy for a safe trip.
Remarkable.
Planes land safely because zero equals one.
Yes, I do think we have come to the logical end of the road here, Mjek.
Thanks for a fun exchange.
I think so too.
You can’t know truth, if you’re unwilling to learn.
This is true, Mjek.
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to understand, as personal knowledge, exactly what method Gauss used to prove the fundamental theorem of algebra (which proof involves the rigorous physical derivation of imaginary numbers)?
If you don’t, please believe me when I tell you that there is nothing, whatsoever, in any imaginary number theory or derivation, that involves the absurdity 0=1.
All the best.
i^0 = 1
It might be blithering idiocy to you, however it has real world applications, including tracking planes with radar.
time to hit the books, Rick.
You have yet to make one true statement
Mjek:
Please tell me you grasp that i does not equal 0.
Please tell me you grasp that i does not equal one.
Given these facts, we see that 1 does not equal 0 in your above equation.
Are we in agreement on this point?
imaginary numbers break the rules of mathematics and has real world applications.
That was my point.
for example, i^4 = 1, from what i understand, could mean 0=1.
Your understanding is drastically wrong.
I would suggest examining how Gauss physically derives the imaginary numbers.
The square root of -1 does not exist. Yet it does. and is useful.
If you have insight into how Gauss derives imaginary numbers, then do so.
The square root of -1 most certainly exists.
Gauss has derived it rigorously, as a *physically meaningful action*.
I would be happy to teach you how he did this, but first you must tell me that you agree that 0 does not equal 1, under any circumstances whatsoever, and that no natural thing can bring itself into existence, under any circumstances whatever.
These two triumphs of intellectual truthfulness having been acknowledged, I will show you why the square root of -1 certainly exists, and can be physically generated.
I can agree that 0 does not equal 1, to move the conversation along; however I cannot agree that no natural thing can bring itself into existence because, although this might be true, you have not proven this to be true.
By your own standard, this can be falsified, and/or never questioned.
The only proof you’ve offered is that it’s true, because you said it’s true; and now you are making me say it’s true, because you are telling me to say it’s true.
It is not a true statement.
This is a true statement: Stacy is a Mother.
It is self-evident and factual and easily proven.
Mjeck, just as a quick tangent, I’ve even argued with atheists (particularly pro-choice ones) about being a mother. This is one ploy the abortion advocates use all the time. I recognized that I was a mother before I gave birth, you know, like I wore maternity clothes and went to the maternity ward. You’d think it’s pretty obvious that a pregnant woman was already a mother, but people advocating for abortion reject this.
Quoting a pro-choice woman addressing me:
“Trasancos no, being pregnant doesn’t make you a mother.” (Facebook thread, Loretta Riddle, charming woman)
This is why it is important to recognize objective truth and refuse to let people say it’s all just opinion. The “gay rights” movement also pushes such ambiguity, mothers and fathers are whatever you want them to be, gender is just an illusion, marriage means whatever, everyone just do what you want. Things that are obvious are blurred. There are people who would argue that I’m still not a mother because I’m really a homeschooling abusive witch.
They just change the definitions and say, you can’t prove you’re right. (Ergo the point about jello.) When you think about it, no one can be forced to look at a rock and admit it’s a rock.
Stacy is a Mother is a true statement.
We can all agree; we can even all agree that you are a good mother and even called by God to be a mother.
However, this truth is not universal, but a personal truth,
I can also state that Howard is a Mother. Or that Howard is called by God to be a mother.
We can even all hold this statement to be true.
However, this is not a true statement.
We each hold personal truths, not shared by others, but still true between the individual and God.
Mjeck, I resent the profanity, but appreciate the defense.
I apologize, Howard, and thank-you
Mjeck, so you admit that it was profanity?
how so?
Mjeck, was it or was it not? What is the truth of what you meant?
i didn’t think it was profane when i wrote it.
I made my meaning clear in my last sentence.
“i didn’t think it was profane.”
Prove it.
why?
Because we are in a philosophical discussion and I asked. Just answer this, can you prove what you meant?
Mjek:
No, I am afraid that won’t do.
To assert that a thing can bring itself into existence, is to assert that the thing exists before it exists.
This is impossible.
It does not require experimental demonstration- though of course all experiments will confirm it.
Now if you would like to learn a truly astonishing thing about imaginary numbers, and why they are anything but imaginary, be so good as to agree with me that no thing can exist before it exists.
Yes?
Sorry, Mjek, I posted this below in the wrong place so I repost it here now.
************
Mjek:
No, I am afraid that won’t do.
To assert that a thing can bring itself into existence, is to assert that the thing exists before it exists.
This is impossible.
It does not require experimental demonstration- though of course all experiments will confirm it.
Now if you would like to learn a truly astonishing thing about imaginary numbers, and why they are anything but imaginary, be so good as to agree with me that no thing can exist before it exists.
Yes?
Don’t hold knowledge for ransom, Rick, it makes you look petty.
Neither you nor I know, nor can describe what happened before the creation of the Universe.
You have a statement that I’m willing to accept tentatively; however, I do not accept your work or proofs that get you to that statement
If you were in a dark street and a 250 lb guy overheard you and his name happened to be Howard. And, this guy grabbed you by the neck and said, “What did you say?”
Would you not be trying to convince him the only way you had. Trying to reason with him? “Look you didn’t hear the first part of what I said. The word was just a continuation of that thought. You misunderstood me. I don’t even know you. I don’t usually use that kind of language.”
Sometimes we only have arguments that are not physical, but still reasonable. Aren’t the reasons above good ones? Isn’t using reason a part of your everyday life? Why do you insist that the following be “proven”, I assume you mean physical evidence of something not happening.
“…however I cannot agree that no natural thing can bring itself into existence because, although this might be true, you have not proven this to be true”
“Don’t hold knowledge for ransom, Rick, it makes you look petty.”
>> I am afraid you do not understand. I hold nothing for ransom, I merely insist that if you suffer from the intellectual delsuion that something can exist before it exists, further examination of these, or any other, matters pertaining to logical thinking would be a waste of both our time.
“Neither you nor I know, nor can describe what happened before the creation of the Universe.”
>> This is exactly as true as it is irrelevant.
“You have a statement that I’m willing to accept tentatively; however, I do not accept your work or proofs that get you to that statement”
>> Until you are willing to affirm the simple truth that no thing can exist before it exists, it will be impossible to remedy you of the habits of thought which led you to assert that zero equals one, above.
Up to you.
Howard,
This conversation is about truth.
Truth is self-evident and factual and easily verified.
Rick has not proven that his statement is self-evident or factual, or easily verified.
His first tier of knowledge, by his standard is falsifiable, and his other two can never be questioned.
Rick holds a belief that is true to him.
Stacy
“The “gay rights” movement also pushes such ambiguity, mothers and fathers are whatever you want them to be, gender is just an illusion, marriage means whatever, everyone just do what you want”
Is this a truth?
Answer…..no.
The gay rights movement does not push ambiguity.
We understand the difference between a mother and a father.
Are you confusing gender with sex? One needs a male and a female to create a baby. No one questions that now do they? But thats sex, not gender.
And as you have been told before, most of us hold marriage in high regard. So it’s not about doing “whatever we want”, it’s about honoring our commitment to each other the same way you do.
You are no expert on the gay rights movement in the same way I am no expert on catholicism.
that we have personal truths? Yes, I believe so. That i can prove it to you… almost certainly not. I’ve never convinced you of anything.
“that we have personal truths? Yes, I believe so. That i can prove it to you… almost certainly not.”
“Truth is self-evident and factual and easily verified.”
Mjeck, how do you reconcile the two statements?
How are they not reconcilable?
Stacy is a woman, I am a man.
Two personal truths; self-evident, factual, easily verified.
Very slippery.
The first quote was your answer to my question I asked you was it not?
What is your answer in that light?
Are you denying that Stacy is a woman and I’m a man?
I believe that your only interest here is dominance, not honest discussion. Rick is wasting his time. Back to the jello.
“that we have personal truths? Yes, I believe so. That i can prove it to you… almost certainly not. I’ve never convinced you of anything.”
Thank-you Howard, you’ve just proven both of my statements to be true, in the most absurd way
You said that no natural thing can bring itself into existence – Not that no thing can exist before it exists.
What is this, the bait and switch?
You have not proven your statement to be true
They are one and the same statement, Mjek.
Think about it.
Evolution is not even science. Science essentially means facts/knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. They have no ‘real’ evidence that we evolved and I would even posit it is anti-science. They must deny that 2nd law of thermodynamics so that they can claim things are evolving up instead of down. They must deny reason… For example, you cannot give what you do not have. I do not have a million dollars to give you so I cannot give you a million dollars. Take this reasoning and put it into practical usage and we could not have evolved. Even if there was a bowl of soup that contained life… If this bowl of soup does not have intelligence, reason, and morality to give us then it didn’t give it to us. Science and reason tell us intelligence cannot spawn out of matter either. This has never been observed nor can it be proven. Reason tells us it is impossible. Intelligence begets intelligence. Evolution is anti-God, Anti-Science, and Anti-Reason.
Bernard,
“For example, you cannot give what you do not have.”
That pretty much sums it up! Thank you.
Your welcome!
I used to do a lot of research on evolution and the age of the earth but now I realize these people are only promoting their life philosophies which contradict reason. What really bothers me is how a Christians can except what the Atheist Scientist claim on Evolution, when these same people claim there is no God. Haven’t you heard the word… The Truth is not in them and the fool hath said in his heart there is no God. If they lied to you about that then why wouldn’t they lie to you about evolution or the age of the earth.
I would suggest any Christian to get their scientific information from people who are not promoting materialism and secular humanism (Which is a Religion). There are plenty of good sources out there and christian scientist. Walter Brown is a great example of a qualified creation scientist. I would also recommend answersingenesis and reading books on creation. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support a literal creation and a young earth.
I would also posit that the Devil and his Minions are going around saying that the earth is very old. The Devil tries to promote the antithesis of the truth. For example, God Exist and the Devil says God Does Not Exist. So if the Devil is promoting an old earth then the earth must be young. Of course this paragraph here is completely unsubstantiated but it is a personal observation I made when learning about these issues. It’s obvious the goal of evil is to lead people as far away from the Truth as possible.
Bernard,
The more I think about evolution, I find myself asking, “Who cares?” Why would a Christian care? We know why an atheist cares, like you said, his religion. But the Bible tells us what we need to know, and whether this or that died in this year or that year, really…matters not.
It is important for Christians to know the Truth. When these people claim this stuff as fact it destroys the Bible. If you can’t trust the first chapter then why believe the story of adam and eve or any other part of scripture. It creates doubt.
Not to mention the horrible theological errors involves with accepting theistic evolution. It ruins the whole concept of God and Original sin. For example, Adam and Eve brought Death into the World when they sinned against God. If you believe in Theistic Evolution then Death was already in the World thus again destroying the Bible.
If Death came before sin then in the beginning it was not Good as God says it was. It was horrible, living dieing living dieing living dieing (Evolving). Basically ruins the concept of original sin and fallen nature of man and makes God a liar when he says, “In the beginning everything was Good.”
For more information you can check out this article from the Kolbe Center.
http://www.kolbecenter.org/a-summary-of-theistic-evolution/