God still allowed to help Americans
We read:
"A federal judge in Washington, D.C, dismissed a case yesterday brought by Michael Newdow and the American Humanist Association seeking to ban prayer and the phrase "so help me God" from presidential inaugurations.
Newdow, a California attorney who pushed a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsuccessful effort to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, previously joined Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and others in an attempt to obtain an injunction barring pastors Rick Warren and Joseph E. Lowery from praying at Barack Obama's inauguration.
As WND reported, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton refused to halt Inauguration Day prayers and rejected Barker and Newdow's requests to stop Chief Justice Roberts from saying "so help me God" at the end of the presidential oath.
In court yesterday, Judge Walton again ruled against Newdow and company in the atheists' attempt to ban prayer and "so help me God" from future inaugurations.
The Pacific Justice Institute, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, represented pastors Warren and Lowery in the case. Brad Dacus, president of PJI, told WND, "We are pleased that the court has made it clear that religious expression by individuals at public gatherings and public forums is not a violation of the Constitution."
Source
38 comments:
The American Humanist Association? What, they don't like being called atheists any more? Those who choose to believe in religion should adopt Newdow's tactics, and force our beliefs on them via the courts. Perhaps that would cause them to embrace reality. Nah, i don't think so either.
Believing in an invisible dude in the sky is embracing reality?
4:27 AM - yes, it is a reality for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, world wide.
Let those who believe, believe. Let those who don't leave the others alone.
If it is found that God does not exist, then there is no harm to those who chose to believe in him. We will all just die.
However, if it is found that God really does exist, then what is your backup plan? All the believers will be with God. All the non-believers will be, well, NOT.
Seems to me there is less harm in believing that there is in non-belief.
"Believing in an invisible dude in the sky is embracing reality?"
---I ask you the same question about science. I'm not a religious person, but you secularists make me mad. When was the last time your scientists cured an actual disease instead of telling us how to prevent it?
Atheism offers nothing.
And what the hell is wrong with mentioning God once in a while? What are we supposed to worship? The state? Trees? Bees? Obama?
I am not worshiping that halfbreed you call president!
Why do you feel the need to worship anything? Are you that inadequate?
Anonymous said...
"Believing in an invisible dude in the sky is embracing reality?"
Sure it is. To believe in something is reality. To believe in nothing simply makes you a liberal.
Hello Good Gentles All!
I offer the following for whatever you think it is worth:
"The celebrated astronomer Athanasius Kirchner had a friend who did not believe in the existence of God, and frequently asserted that the orbs of heaven were self-existent. One day, when this friend visited the astronomer, he noticed in one corner of the room a globe which displayed the hand of a skillful workman. "Who made that globe?" he inquired. "No one made it," Kirchner answered, "it is self-made." And when his friend seemed angry at this answer being given him, he added: "If the immense orbs of heaven are self-existent, why not this insignificant little globe?" The unbeliever looked thoughtful, and presently acknowledged that he now saw that his principles were false."
Anecdotes and Examples for the Catechism, Rev. Francis Spirago, page 3, 1903
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
InFides
Believing in an invisible dude in the sky is embracing reality?...
Jesus is God in the flesh. Emmanuel means God with us. Was He invisible when he turned water to wine? Was He invisible when He gave sight to the blind, and when He made the lame to walk? Was he invisible when He walked on water, when He resurrected from the dead and was seen by more than 500 people at the same time?
Joey,
How can you be sure all that happened 2,000 years ago? There are no witnesses alive today that can verify those claims. Only a written history that was written a couple of hundred years after those alleged events. I would sure like to believe, but I need some proof.
Hello Good Gentles All!
"How can you be sure all that happened 2,000 years ago? There are no witnesses alive today that can verify those claims."
How can you be sure of what happened 200 years ago? How about 1000 years ago? All those people are equally dead.
BTW, the Romans kept excellent notes and archives many of which we possess. I might also add that a contemporary Jewish historian named Josephus attests to the fact that Jesus was a living person.
"I would sure like to believe, but I need some proof."
Your original argument was that there is no God. You appear to now be changing your argument about God generally and are now speaking about the existence of the second person of the Trinity.
BTW, did you read my previous post and what is your reply?
In any case, you miss the whole point. I have no doubt God could part the heavens and say for the whole world to hear that He exists. However, facts do not require faith. I do not have faith that 2+2=4 because it is axiomatic. Neither do I have faith in gravity because I experience it continuously.
Jesus said, "Blessed are they who believe and have not seen."
I do not wish to have proof of God's existence and if offered it I would reject it. Why would I do this? Because my faith is my humble gift to God. If I had proof I could no longer make this gesture to Him from Whom all blessings flow.
I love and respect God enough not to require Him to perform modern day miracles to prove what is obvious to me, that He exists.
I accept that you can only believe what your eyes tell you but how do you manage to believe in the electron, gravity, sub-atomic particles, neutrinos and et. al. when you have never seen any of them either. Our science suspects those things are there but no one actually has seen them.
We have only seen the effects of their presence and have concluded that the effects speak to their existence. Is that not the same argument for the existence of God?
Pax,
InFides
The existence of atoms and sub-atomic particles can be established scientifically - "God" cannot, and according to you it isn't necessary as faith alone is enough. Why not believe in Zeus then or some other deity? - faith without proof can justify believing in anything.
There are no contemporaneous records of Jesus or first-hand accounts. There were many around that time claiming to be prophets or the messiah, and one may have claimed to be the incarnation of God. So you can believe that if you want, but you are on shaky ground historically speaking. And as for Josephus, you must know the references are in doubt or later embellishments, and proves nothing about the divinity or miracles of Jesus. A record is not itself proof of the claims reported. Do you believe reports of people who have seen space aliens? Maybe they have, maybe they are deluded!
And more to the point - why do people feel the need to believe in such things - either space aliens from last week, or a god-man from 2000 years ago in the middle-east!
Hello Good Gentles All!
"The existence of atoms and sub-atomic particles can be established scientifically - "God" cannot,"
The scientific proof of these things is in their effect not in their direct observance. I logically assume they are there because they must be for things to make sense. (If the wind is blowing I do not see the wind but I see its effects. But who would argue that the wind is not there?) The same is true of God. The entirety of existence is here and that is proof of God (Creator.) Remember the laws of thermodynamics?
The first law of thermodynamics: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed but merely changed in form.
The universe is full of a lot of energy and matter and if thermodynamics holds true (and it does) then from where could all this enormity of energy and matter come?
Let me ask you this.
Do you accept the existence of 'Love' (as used as a noun?) Do you love your mother and father? Do you love your children? Do you love your country? Does love exist in your philosophy Horatio?
If you accept the idea of love as a thing, true and existent, then how do you manage since you can not see it?
If your child is about to be run over by a car and you lose your life saving his would you say that your motivation to save his life was something that does not exist?
We can not see love but we can feel its presence. We can see its effects.
We speak of falling 'in' and 'out' of love as if it were a physical thing. Not a thing to be touched with the hand but a thing to be touched with the mind.
God is many things, all of them perfect and infinite, such as all wise, all just, all knowing, all powerful and all loving. God is love through and through and His Love is perfect and unbounded.
If you can accept the noun 'love' then the noun 'God' should present no challenge.
" and according to you it isn't necessary as faith alone is enough."
True. Faith is enough. God as a general concept of a Being can be logically deduced. Even the Catholic Church accepts that the Trinity can not be proved logically, it is an act of faith. When speaking of God I am speaking of the Supreme Being from Whom all existence flows as a direct act of His will. When I speak of Jesus, the Trinity, or God the Father I am speaking of what can only be accepted on faith.
" Why not believe in Zeus then or some other deity?"
If, for the sake of argument, you wish to call the Supreme Being and Creator of all things Zeus then I would not dispute that. The reason we do not use the name Zeus in Judeo-Christian theology is that Zeus was born or created. How can the eternal God be born? He always was, always is, and always will be. For God in the Judeo-Christian sense Zeus will not work because he is not eternal as the God who created all of existence must be.
" - faith without proof can justify believing in anything."
True. But faith with proof is no longer faith. You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word 'faith.'
faith –noun
2. belief that is not based on proof.
(The Free Dictionary)
The moment there is proof faith ceases to exist. If God made Himself directly known to you would you need faith to accept His existence? Of course not, you have no need of faith because you have proof. If you relate your experience to others who were not present when God revealed Himself to you and asked them to believe they would have faith while you would only have proof. I use the word 'only' deliberately to show how great a loss you suffered by losing your faith and having mere proof.
I might mention that proof does not mean much to mankind anyway. Consider the Israelites during the Exodus. How many times did God show His power and prove His existence to them? Yet when left alone by Moses for 40 days they corrupted themselves and served false gods. These were people who had absolute proof and still they rejected God.
If the fact that God continues to love us and help us, even after all of our disobedience, is not proof of His profound love for us all I do not know what would be.
"And as for Josephus, you must know the references are in doubt or later embellishments, and proves nothing about the divinity or miracles of Jesus."
I am confused. I thought you were asking whether Jesus was a living person. I did not cite Josephus to prove His miracles because they are articles of faith.
As I have said there are many sources both pagan and Christian who mention 'Jesus' or 'Christ' and speak to His having been here. They are valid sources and too many to ignore. If you chose to ignore them I will certainly not gainsay your right to do so.
"A record is not itself proof of the claims reported."
An absolutely correct statement and one with which I do not disagree.
"Do you believe reports of people who have seen space aliens? Maybe they have, maybe they are deluded!"
True. Of course, this speaks to the notion of faith. Remember doubting Thomas:
"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
Book of John, 20:25-20:29
Faith is not like proving that the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees or that the atom (which we can not see but can measure) when split will yield a certain amount of energy related to its sub-atomic particle content.
We have no apparatus other than our minds by which to perceive the Creator of all things.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Plank, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Chesterton, Churchill et. al. believed in and accepted the existence of God. If these men are deluded then I prefer to stand with the crazy people than with sane men such as yourself.
A belief in God is one thing but a belief in the Trinity is another. One is logically deducable, the other is an act of faith.
I am sorry with all my heart that you have no faith. Faith truly moves mountains and fills one's life with meaning and a sense of order and serenity that is unknown and unknowable by the atheist.
I will be happy to remember you in the Mass and pray for you if that is what you desire. If you wish me to not pray for you I will respect that.
I bid you all peace.
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
InFides
Hello Good Gentles All!
"And more to the point - why do people feel the need to believe in such things..."
And even more to the point is why is it so important to people like you that I not believe?
By my faith I hurt no one. I do you no harm nor disservice but you begrudge me my faith and would seek to deprive me of it.
I do not feel the need to believe in God. I believe in God, just as Einstein and the others I listed previously did, because my mind tells me He must exist in order for myself to exist. From nothing can come nothing. There is no such thing as spontaneous generation of matter or energy, 1st law of thermodynamics. The creation of matter must therefore be accomplished by One who is outside of the conventional existence and indeed time itself as we understand it. Matter must come from One who transcends the notion of time and space and who always existed. Decartes explained it well and I refer you to him.
You would have me simply accept that all of existence just happened somehow without bothering to explain 'somehow' or that things always existed but conveniently skipping the part that there must be a time when they did not and how did they come to be after when they were not since from nothing can come nothing. The singularity produced the big bang but from where did the singularity come?
You would go a long way towards supporting your argument if you could answer some of these questions. I wish you luck. Better minds than yours have not been able to explain it and the best minds of all humanity for all time say it is God.
Pax,
InFides
Debating an atheist is a waste of time, Infides, their fetish is challenging believers. They need believers because it gives them someone to put down, they need the bible to take verses out of context and ridicule the faithful, you can't convince them because their mind is made up.
The reality is that most atheists are very insecure in their unbelief and seeing believers makes them angry.
I can understand them, I'm sure it burns when you hear someone say "God bless America" and you don't believe in God.
Ann Coulter describes them very well in Godless.
Bobby - an unfair characterization and generalization of atheists, who could say the equivalent about you. Why not discuss issues and not just diss' people ?! If you are Christian I shouldn't have to mention it.
Fides - you can call the origin of the Universe "God", but you then ascribe to "God" all manner of attributes which is just speculation, including identifying "it" with the god of the Hebrews as described in the Bible. That is certainly a leap of faith. When I said "faith without proof" I should have been more clear and said "faith instead of proof". However, I see no virtue in believing in things without good reason. I think your reasons have more to do with your culture, upbringing, and personal psychology. My world view will have equivalent reasons. Pray for me if you like. I will "pray" for you too :)
PS. Despite what Bobby seems to assume, I am not an "atheist".
"Bobby - an unfair characterization and generalization of atheists, who could say the equivalent about you."
---Well, while not all atheists are fanatics, many are. You have people like Richard Dawkins ridiculing religious people, you have atheists websites ridiculing the bible and believers, you got the ones that want to secularize Christmas and remove every mention of God from society. I call it Deusphobia - fear of God/religion.
"Why not discuss issues and not just diss' people ?! If you are Christian I shouldn't have to mention it."
---I'm not a Christian, my religion is of no importance since my spirituality is a private matter, by choice.
However, I don't want atheists fanatics to secularize everything. I hate the term "winter holiday," call it Christmas Holiday! I hate atheists that can't stand seeing the ten commandments in a court of law, I abhor the persecution religious groups face in high school.
At the college level, sometimes religious groups are forced to accept people they don't like. That isn't right, if a group doesn't want you, then that group is not for you!
Society needs balance between secular pleasures and the spiritual realm.
I'll fight for your right to watch porn, drink alcohol, do drugs, hire prostitutes, watch obscene horror movies, gamble in Vegas, play violent video games and all the other sinful pleasures consenting adults can and should be able to enjoy.
But that doesn't mean I'll support the forced secularization of society. I will not worship the State!
Hello Good Gentles All!
"... you can call the origin of the Universe "God", but you then ascribe to "God" all manner of attributes which is just speculation, including identifying "it" with the god of the Hebrews as described in the Bible."
You embark on an interesting discussion. The attributes I ascribe to God are those which a reasonable person would expect given the definition of the word 'God.'
Let us begin with the definition of the word 'God':
god - noun
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
(The free Dictionary)
You will notice that this definition speaks only to God as understood in a monotheistic religion, not specifically or exclusively Judeo-Christian.
The key concepts in the definition are:
perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
Perfect: Incapable of error.
Omnipotent: Capable of all actions both in time and out of time and for whom no action is impossible.
Omniscient: Possessed of all knowledge and fact, aware of everything both in time and out of time and to whom nothing is hidden or unknown.
When I ascribe certain attributes to God, I can do so with confidence because of what God is, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient.
"all wise, all just, all knowing, all powerful and all loving."
These are all aspects of what God is in His very nature and by the definition of what He must be given His place in the order of things. For God to not possess any of these attributes would mean He is not God.
I do not have faith that God is perfect, omnipotent and omniscient for the same reason I do not have faith that 2+2=4, it is part of what He must be if He is God.
"That is certainly a leap of faith."
The leap of faith is believing in the Trinity. I accept that. Belief in God is logically deducable and I refer you Descarte as a starting point for exploring that.
"When I said "faith without proof" I should have been more clear and said "faith instead of proof". However, I see no virtue in believing in things without good reason."
I have every reason to believe in God. In fact, I have more reason to believe in God than those who say the universe just happened somehow. At least I have an explanation. To assert that 'there is no explanation' is a better explanation than God is rather odd. How does one account for something appearing from out of nothing? If you have an answer I will listen.
"I think your reasons have more to do with your culture, upbringing, and personal psychology."
The great irony in that statement is that my family never attended church on a regular basis. I rejected the Lutheranism in which I was, albeit haphazardly, raised.
I am more convinced of the existence of God than ever and this is due to my mind telling me so. I am a logician by training and temperament and logic tells me something happens because something causes it. If you can explain the spontaneous generation of matter from nothing then I will conceed no need for God.
"My world view will have equivalent reasons."
I believe that it is the responsibility of every man to try to understand the world. I ask only this of you, that you keep an open mind. If the hard questions can not be answered by your atheism or agnosticism then perhaps you might want to at least consider the possibility that there is more to existence than we suspect. That maybe, man is not the measure of all things and that we may, in fact, be the loving and loved creation of One whose very nature is beyond our true understanding.
"Pray for me if you like."
I will remember you in the Mass.
"I will "pray" for you too :)"
I thank you. I am always thankful to those who would seek God's help for me. But I am curious, to whom will you pray?
"... I am not an "atheist"."
Hmm. Dare I ask what you are since you have no belief in God?
Pax,
InFides
InFides - So you can define God! I can define Zeus, but that doesn't mean Zeus exists or in a form that I can imagine. You extrapolate on your definition of God to make "Him" all-loving - that is anthropomorthizing a God (but of course your religion does just that as it sees Man as a mirror of God or in his image).
So you think any explanation of the Universe is better than none! There is of course an explanation but you really believe yours is the best out of all other possible ones?
What your mind tells you is what you believe in and you call it God speaking. It might also be delusional.
For my part I do not presume to know the secrets of the Universe - whether by faith or reasoning - call that "agnostic" if you must categorize people in such a way. I call it being open-minded to what may or may not be true. However, I don't think your anthropomorphic derivative religion does seem likely to come close to the "truth" - sorry to be blunt - no offence!
Sine ira
"I can define Zeus, but that doesn't mean Zeus exists or in a form that I can imagine."
---Interesting you bring greek mythology, you seem to argue that religion defies reason, yet the land where philosophy and reason comes from was full of Greek gods that people worshiped and believed in.
In fact, atheism seems to be a rather modern phenomena, I don't know any society in the world that hasn't had some form of god. Even tribes in the amazon, untouched by civilization, worship things that can't be proven by science.
Thanks for the observation Bobby - so what does any of that have to do with "ultimate reality". Ancient and more modern peoples have believed in, or approved of, a lot of things that I suppose you wouldn't subscribe to.
- sine ira
"I call it being open-minded to what may or may not be true."
If you continue to reject religion in its entirety, I do not think your "agnostic" attitude does seem likely to come close to being "open-minded".
No offense, Christophobe.
Hello Good Gentles All!
"InFides - So you can define God!"
I did not define Him, others much more capable than I have. The same way others defined the electron; something which can not be seen but whose effects can be measured and for which the definition fits the observations.
" I can define Zeus,"
True, although Zeus has an accepted definition. If you chose to change that definition then you have ceased to speak about Zeus and are merely using the name Zeus as a handle to refer to something else.
" but that doesn't mean Zeus exists or in a form that I can imagine."
I am not suggesting that I can imagine God in His true form.
However, if we have existence (and we do) then we can begin to speculate as to how it came to be. You say it sprang forth from nothing, I say God made it. That is the debate. It is odd that I have yet to see you defend your position. You continue to assail mine and I am happy to defend but a little argument in support of your position would be a nice change of pace.
God has the attributes contained in the definition because they are a natural and logical outcome of His existence. If we reject the notion of effect without cause then we can begin to make reasonable and reasoned assumptions about the nature of God.
For example, God can not be moved.
How can I make such a statement? I can speak thus because if God is God then it is not only a possible but an ineluctable result of His nature.
If, God, is all-encompasing then that statement must be true. To move something is to convey it from where it is to where it is not. However, if the premise of an all powerful being is true then there is no place where God could not be because if there were then that being is not God. Thus I can not move God because no matter where I can conceive to move Him He is already there.
"You extrapolate on your definition of God to make "Him" all-loving - that is anthropomorthizing a God"
Not so. I am not suggesting that God loves as we do, that would be an absurdity. The assertion logically stems from the nature of God. God necessarily loves Himself. This stems from His perfection.
God loves His creation in so far as they participate in His creation. God, by virtue of His perfection, would not create that which He did not desire. To create that which He does not desire would be a mistake and a perfect being makes no mistakes.
I am being necessarily brief but, hopefully, not obtuse.
" (but of course your religion does just that as it sees Man as a mirror of God or in his image)."
Whoa!, big error on the facts. Christianity in no way sees man as simply a mirror of God. Our being created in His image has to do with such things as an immortal soul (spiritual existence), volitional behavior (free will) and ability to reason and etc. Any Christian who sees God as a 'bearded man in the sky' errs in his Christianity in fundamental ways too numerous to expound here.
Furthermore, my argument can be separated from Christianity. My argument would be acceptable to Einstein, Newton, Franklin, Plato or others who believe in a Supreme Being but are not necessarily Christian.
I have said it before and it bears repeating, God is logically deducable, the Trinity is not. I can confine myself to an argument concerning God without resorting to the Trinity. In fact, if you review my arguments I am not using Christian arguments but merely arguments concerning the nature of God generally and not necessarily in a Christian sense.
I am a Christian but that does not mean that I am unable to logically deduce God's existence.
"So you think any explanation of the Universe is better than none!"
No, that is not even remotely what I said. What I said is that your assertion that effect (the creation of the universe) has no cause (just happened somehow, or was somehow just always here) is an explanation that contradicts all we know (1st law of thermodynamics) or all that our reason tells us.
" There is of course an explanation but you really believe yours is the best out of all other possible ones?"
What I am saying is that it accounts for the facts. That God created existence violates no law of physics or thermodynamics which both steady-state and spontaneous generation of existence, matter and energy (your supported hypotheses) do.
"What your mind tells you is what you believe in and you call it God speaking."
What my mind tells me, based on logic and physics, is that existence can not spring from nothing. I have yet to see a practical demonstration of the spontaneous generation of matter or energy from nothing. In all my years studying physics I have yet to even hear of a credible theory or hypothesis supporting spontaneous generation of matter or energy.
I put it to you plainly. I will accept even a credible (or even merely plausible) theory or hypothesis of the spontaneous generation of matter or energy, I do not even require a demonstration, just a credible explanation will do.
You ask me to accept that from absolutely nothing something can be spontaneously created.
Do you really think that that assertion requires any less faith?
If I were to ask you to accept that you could leap from an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and not worry that you have no parachute because one will spontaneously appear on your back you would probably call that delusional.
Now you are asking me to accept that all of existence sprang forth from absolutely nothing. And that is not delusional?
"It might also bedelusional."
I confess, I am delusional. I am delusional just like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Plank, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Chesterton, Churchill et. al. Yes, I am one wild and crazy guy, just like them.
I must ask, do you think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Plank, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Chesterton, Churchill et. al. were delusional?
Could it also be that maybe the limit of their vision might be farther than yours? Could it be that maybe they are on the right track and that your refusal to even consider the possibility might be a delusion itself?
Sherlock Holmes said, "That when everything else is eliminated then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the answer."
A direct question:
What is more improbable, spontaneous generation of matter and energy from absolutely nothing (effect without cause) or that God created existence?
"I call it being open-minded to what may or may not be true."
Hmm. Open minded to everything except the possibility of God. Open minded except to the possibility that all those brilliant minds might be right and you might be wrong.
"However, I don't think your anthropomorphic"
Remember, I am speaking to God not the Trinity. I accept that the Trinity is an act of faith. But do not confuse the one with the other. I can speak of God (not the Trinity) to Enstein (Jew) or Franklin (deist) or Plato (pagan) and we would agree.
I am surely enjoying our debate. No, I am not offended in any way whatsoever. I welcome debate, I thrive on it. I fully accept that men may be of different opinions. We can debate and poke fun and I am sure we will understand each other very well.
Pax,
InFides
P.S. I remembered you in my prayers. To whom did you pray for me? I am curious to know.
I
Thanks for the observation Bobby - so what does any of that have to do with "ultimate reality".
----What is ultimate reality? Ever studied quantum physics? Even the scientists can't agree on the laws of the universe. The speed of light itself has been calculated in different ways since the concept was ever invented. You worship science but science contradicts itself, changes, one day they tell you that this food is bad and the next day they'll say that food is actually food.
Religion however has truths that may not make sense at first but make sense when you study them well. Old testament commandments like washing your hands before eating prevented the spread of disease and sickness among millions of followers. Men who circumcise are less likely to suffer from penile cancer and other infections since the uncircumcised don't always wash well their body parts.
Science is so simplistic, did you ever read the Exorcist? It is a true story. The scientists who treated her where unable to help her. It was a priest who was able to exorcise the demons that had invaded her.
Science of course would dismiss her as schizophrenic, they just put a label on things they can't understand.
There are so many examples of demonic activity, ghosts, apparitions, people who open spiritual gates that can destroy their lives, yet scientists do everything they can do dismiss it.
Yet, they demand complete faith of the global warming dogma and they chastise any scientist who dares to question human guilt regarding that phenomenom.
And don't take me wrong, I love science when it works, whether it is for breeding, genetic engineering, drugs, laser surgeries, etc. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to dismiss God and the spirit world.
The world is too complex to put all our faith in the scientific mafia.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Bobby!
Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis that you might find interesting:
"Besides being complicated, reality, in my experience is usually odd. It is not neat, not obvious, not what you expect. For instance, when you have grasped that the earth and the other planets all go round the sun, you would naturally expect that all the planets were made to match — all at equal distances from each other, say, or distances that regularly increased, or all the same size, or else getting bigger or smaller as you go farther from the sun….Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity….it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have."
This quote is cited in Mary Eberstadt's "Loser Letters." I strongly encourgage everyone to go to the National Review web site archives and read the entire series (in chronological order to get the proper experience.) I promise that you will consider it time very well spent.
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDYzNg==
"I love science when it works,..."
It is a great tragedy that there is this false war between science and religion. It should not exist.
God created the physical universe and it operates according to laws He established. The hostility between science and religion is false because God would not establish a physical creation that is contrary to His will or against His spritual law. God is not divided against Himself and it is foolish and false for us to operate on the premise that He is.
Pax,
InFides
Great quote, Infides, thanks.
Fides/Bobby - You seem to want to misrepresent what I say or confuse me with another poster as I never maintained that matter came from nothing, nor have I said "God" was impossible - as the definition of an agnostic surely indicates. You seem to argue points with your impression of what an agnostic or atheist is or thinks, and not necessarily with what I think or have actually said.
I also don't have time for the long-winded posts you (Fides) make, most of which is irrelevant to what I was saying. Btw. listing the names of famous people to support a position is called "argument from authority". Just because the persons were prominent in a particular field doesn't mean they were correct in all their opinions, especially about religion.
This thread will run out and really I have no more to say on the matter. I repeat I am an agnostic and thus I am open-minded to what may or may not be true. But I have no reason to believe in what seems to me untrue, and I have only my own brain to rely on in the end even if it isn't as "clever" as yours or Einstein's!
Sine Ira
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
"You seem to want to misrepresent what I say or confuse me with another poster ..."
Mea culpa. I certainly admit that sometimes I am not sure which of the many Anonymouses I was adressing. I just lumped them all together because they saw fit to all use the same name. Perhaps if you were to select a name I could address you directly as I am willing to do.
" as I never maintained that matter came from nothing, nor have I said "God" was impossible - as the definition of an agnostic surely indicates."
If I erred I am sorry. My experience has been that those who do not accept the notion of God as the creator of the universe seem to either accept steady-state or spontaneous generation of matter as their premise. If you are arguing some other method of creation I would be thrilled to hear it. I am always open to pursuasion.
Furthermore, I think a fair read of the posts in response to mine would indicate that the Anonymouses adopted the contrary position and thus it was reasonable for me to assume such.
Since no counter arguments were offered and only criticism of my position what was I to do? The only reasonable thing is to attempt to divine the unstated and unargued position of my opponent and respond as best I can. What would you have done in my place?
"I also don't have time for the long-winded posts you (Fides) make, most of which is irrelevant to what I was saying."
Sorry, if my answers are long. I try to be precise and complete because in my work it is expected of me and duty trains well.
I also erred in assuming that we were having a rough and tumble, give and take, free for all debate about something many people find important. I was unaware that reading my longs posts (which I admit are very long) was tiring to you. I only like to be complete and address issues directly. That is why I cut and paste so that I can do justice to the arguments put to me. I owe anyone and everyone the courtesy of addressing the points.
Frankly, I was looking forward to each and every one of your replies, it is such a pleasure to have a good debate. Had I known I was only just offending you I would have demurred. But if you did not want replies why ask me questions? I must confess that puzzles me. BTW, I do feel that the term irrelevent is off base bacause I reiterate every question in order to respond directly. I sometimes use example and analogy and I assumed the relevance of the examples would be apparent to someone of your demonstrated abilities.
" Btw. listing the names of famous people to support a position is called "argument from authority". Just because the persons were prominent in a particular field doesn't mean they were correct in all their opinions, especially about religion."
Very true. I should have mentioned that I cite these names as people whose arguments are worth considering. But you are correct that merely saying someone said something as a proof (even if it is within their field of study) is falacious. I cited them not as proof but as sources of argument to be investigated (which I ought to have said clearly) as I did with Descartes.
"But I have no reason to believe in what seems to me untrue, and I have only my own brain to rely on in the end ..."
Fair enough, and I agree. All men should investigate what they believe and not just accept without consideration. Though I lay no claim to possessing anything like Einstein's intelligence.
Could you at least consider answering a couple of questions? I have asked many and you (whichever Anonymous you are) have addressed none of them so far as I can tell.
I recognize that you now claim that these are not your positions but you do not need to accept these positions merely to answer the questions about them. You can preserve your agnosticism while still answering them.
"You ask me to accept that from absolutely nothing something can be spontaneously created.
Do you really think that that assertion requires any less faith?"
"What is more improbable, spontaneous generation of matter and energy from absolutely nothing (effect without cause) or that God created existence?"
I am curious to know what you think the origin of all things might be. I have laid bare for the whole world to see and criticise my understanding of things. I have defended my position to the best of my, quite limited I admit, abilities. But as Shaw said, "A critic is someone who runs around the battlefield after the war is over and shoots the wounded." I have taken my place in the line and defended my position. What about you?
I bid you all peace.
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
InFides
Hey 2:08 AM, to avoid confusion when you post, check Name/URL and just write a fake name.
You don't have to put a website, you can remain anonymous without calling yourself anonymous, otherwise it's hard telling who's who.
"You seem to argue points with your impression of what an agnostic or atheist is or thinks, and not necessarily with what I think or have actually said."
---Well, that may be true. As a libertarian conservative, I'd rather focus on the argument than the arguer. It's not always easy to keep track of who said what.
Cheers
Well, I was using "Sine Ira" as a tag in emulation of your latin one (InFides).
As to the origin of the Universe, I take note of currect scientific thinking which has evidence that it expanded (and continues to expand) from a singularity - a minute point in space-time that unfurled in 3-dimensions through time. Where the singularity came from may be impossible to establish scientifically but may have come from another universe or another dimension. You could say "God" was in that dimension, but it doesn't say much about what that "God" is or what the process was.
Everyone's idea of "God" is pretty subjective even if they try to agree on some common ground by forming religious denominations, sects or cults, and this has more to do with humans than "external reality". Religion evolved as a survival tactic or coping mechanism for humans, both as individuals and as communities, to give purpose and order to a seemingly chaotic and dangerous world. It also gave cohesion to societies if they had a common world view and was also useful to rulers and governments to give them divine authority, which is why most countries have had state religions. Even in the US most politicians and all would-be presidents have claimed to believe in God and to belong to a recognized major religion, which for historical reasons has been Christianity. Indeed, Christianity only "got off the ground" because the Roman emperor Constantine saw the advantage of making it a state religion. If he had chosen another religion, Christianity might have died out like other cults of the time.
In other words religion is a reflection of humans more than "ultimate reality". The latter exists in some way, but humans can only guess at it, or convince themselves they know something about it.
I hope I have made my position more clear for you.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
"Well, I was using "Sine Ira" as a tag in emulation of your latin one (InFides). "
I can certainly respect anyone who uses his Latin. Perhaps that might be a good handle for you, just offering a suggestion.
"As to the origin of the Universe, I take note of currect scientific thinking which has evidence that it expanded (and continues to expand) from a singularity - a minute point in space-time that unfurled in 3-dimensions through time."
That does seem to be the consensus. The observable evidence seems to show it. The peculiar thing is that the expansion is speeding up. This is quite contrary to what was expected. It is acknowledged that the universe is finite but unbounded so the end result seemed one of two possibilities: Not enough matter continuing expansion gradually slowing. Enough matter and slowing expansion with eventual reversal resulting in a big crunch. Scientists are at a complete loss to understand why the expansion is accelerating. Some suspect K though Einstein said K was his biggest mistake. At least K posits an explanation. More observation is needed.
" Where the singularity came from may be impossible to establish scientifically "
I agree.
"but may have come from another universe or another dimension. You could say "God" was in that dimension, but it doesn't say much about what that "God" is or what the process was. "
Well said. As you say, many men, equally as many opinions about God.
"Indeed, Christianity only "got off the ground" because the Roman emperor Constantine saw the advantage of making it a state religion."
Not sure I agree. 300 years of deadly persecution and it survived. It probably would have continued but its spread would have no doubt been slower.
The historically accepted reason that Constantine adopted Christianity is that he had a vision which told him if he placed the cross of God on his men's shields they would be victorious in battle. Never hurts to have God on one's side.
Pax,
InFides
PS. Not to be groveling, but I think both of you(InFides and Bobby) seem like very nice guys, and I've enjoyed our wee "chat".
- Sine Ira
Hello Anonymous!
Me, too. It is not grovelling to admit admiration for another person, which I freely admit I have for you. I have always loved the rough and tumble of debate and I always seem to get more than I give and from that I hope to be a better person going forward.
BTW, I have been considering your hypothesis and I have one quick question:
From where do you derive your 4th dimension?
Pax,
InFides
"Where the singularity came from may be impossible to establish scientifically but may have come from another universe or another dimension."
Of course, of course. The multi-universe hypothesis which is of course impossible to scientifically prove.
All you have to do is have faith.
*Sigh* When will they learn...?
3:23 - a hypothesis is a hypothesis - you don't need to have "faith" in it or invest emotion in it. You should seek objective evidence for the hypothesis and abandon it or modify it accordingly.
InFides - the "4th dimension" is usually regarded as "time". If you mean other dimensions - look into current scientific hypotheses on the subject. I am not qualified to summarize them nor do I need to subscribe to them, but they are interesting.
Sine Ira
InFides - with "time" as the 4th dimension, then "someone" in just the 5th dimension would see us and the whole 3-dimensional universe through all of "time" as just one "solid block" as we see any 3-dimensional object. So that would kinda correspond to your view of "God" as being outside of space and time and thus "is, was, and always". "He" could always see the "future" in the same way as we see the present and the past. The "future" exists but we can't see it until it unrolls in front of us (that is not to say it's "pre-destination" as such, because we can shape that future while we live in the "present"). Hope that makes any sense :)
Sine Ira
Post a Comment