Can the Pope change Catholic Church doctrine?

Quote: FrGamble

If you read the Book of Acts it looks like Jesus' followers invented socialism so you're in good company.

However I think the point of establishing the moral order on God is NOT to scare people into doing good, that would indeed be a weak argument and poor motivator. Human beings are much more inspired to do good by being loved than by being threatened. The biggest problem is that without God I believe you lose the ability to say something is truly good or truly evil. We quickly fall into moral relativism and as already pointed out by Twirdman's examples in a previous post that degrades into selfishness and disaster for all. I recently came across this quote from the philosopher Richard Taylor that summarizes what I'm thinking:

"The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion."

There are plenty of ways to evaluate right or wrong and say things are objectively good or evil without them I have pointed out multiple moral philosophers who have done this.

Again though if you believe morality cannot exist outside God then answer this challenge. It God tells you to burn down an orphanage, and don't say he won't there are cases of genocide in the bible and even if there wasn't this is a thought exercise, what would you do. If you wouldn't do it then you admit there is a source of morality distinct from God. If you would do it you're a monster and basically everyone would agree you have failed to make the moral choice.

Though outside of that people like to think of moral relativism means individuals should decide what is right and wrong but outside of quake philosophers like Rand no one suggest this. The only people advocating moral relativism do it from a societal standpoint and as such its meaningless to say it would devolve into greed and murder unless you think the majority of people are evil and would be willing to hurt others and steal for purely personal gains. Not just that you'd also have to presuppose that they all believed they could protect property from other evil people and again these things simply are not the case.

Quote: Wizard

However, I'd like to think that most conservatives would help an old woman trying to lift a heavy object into her car if he had the chance.

Do you think that they would help her if they had to repeatedly do it? BTW, I believe that I am probably more conservative than liberal, but this current batch of narrow minded conservatives just bug the hell out of me. Sorry for the bit of ranting. I will now stop. I hope that some day they find a cure for their myopia.

Quote: Twirdman

There are plenty of ways to evaluate right or wrong and say things are objectively good or evil without them I have pointed out multiple moral philosophers who have done this.

Again though if you believe morality cannot exist outside God then answer this challenge. It God tells you to burn down an orphanage, and don't say he won't there are cases of genocide in the bible and even if there wasn't this is a thought exercise, what would you do. If you wouldn't do it then you admit there is a source of morality distinct from God. If you would do it you're a monster and basically everyone would agree you have failed to make the moral choice.

Though outside of that people like to think of moral relativism means individuals should decide what is right and wrong but outside of quake philosophers like Rand no one suggest this. The only people advocating moral relativism do it from a societal standpoint and as such its meaningless to say it would devolve into greed and murder unless you think the majority of people are evil and would be willing to hurt others and steal for purely personal gains. Not just that you'd also have to presuppose that they all believed they could protect property from other evil people and again these things simply are not the case.

Its interesting that your challenge is followed by a good critique of moral relativism because to answer your challenge one has to seemingly become a moral relativist, which I think we both understand is as scary and ugly as the scenario you present. If there are true objective values as good and bad then they have to have a foundation that is truly good. Your challenge as presented becomes the equivalent of asking me to draw a square circle because like relativism you are asking to change a bad into a good which is non-nonsensical.

I do not think there are a majority of people who are evil, I believe and know that exactly the opposite is true! I hope you will agree though that granting even one sociopath the enjoyment he wants by hurting or torturing people is wrong. Herd morality or moral relativism is fine for the majority but for the little ones, the ones who are victimized, poor, needy, unborn, discriminated against - tell me how those advocating moral relativism on a societal standpoint can live with themselves when even one human being is hurt because for a small majority or even one person thought it was a moral good to burn orphans?

Quote: FrGamble

Its interesting that your challenge is followed by a good critique of moral relativism because to answer your challenge one has to seemingly become a moral relativist, which I think we both understand is as scary and ugly as the scenario you present. If there are true objective values as good and bad then they have to have a foundation that is truly good. Your challenge as presented becomes the equivalent of asking me to draw a square circle because like relativism you are asking to change a bad into a good which is non-nonsensical.

I do not think there are a majority of people who are evil, I believe and know that exactly the opposite is true! I hope you will agree though that granting even one sociopath the enjoyment he wants by hurting or torturing people is wrong. Herd morality or moral relativism is fine for the majority but for the little ones, the ones who are victimized, poor, needy, unborn, discriminated against - tell me how those advocating moral relativism on a societal standpoint can live with themselves when even one human being is hurt because for a small majority or even one person thought it was a moral good to burn orphans?

The thing about good that your arguing though was discussed by Socrates and abandoned because it leads to the argument is something good because it is commanded by God or does God command it because it is morally good. If it is the first then there is no reason God couldn't ask you to burn down an orphanage he is solely responsible for defining morality. If it is the next then you have to admit there is a source of morality above God and if you do this why interject God at all. As such it is meaningless to say that God is the ultimate source of morality.

The thing I presented about Moral Relativism was just a critique as you were presenting it a purely personal philosophy which it was never meant to be. Again though you are rejecting what moral relativism is in your paragraph. No moral relativist outside of hacks like Rand argue that burning an orphanage is good society has deemed it evil and it becomes so. Doesn't matter that 1 person believes it is good it does not become good. To become good a moral relativist argues that society as a whole has to believe something is good so you would have to argue society as a whole would thinking burning an orphanage is good. This will never happen, but again even if it did I never argued moral relativism follows directly from a lack of God.

Would you argue that God is necessary to prevent the world from going into math relativism. I mean if there is no God how can we say 2+2=4. The statement is nonsensical on its face 2+2 simply is 4. Just like maximizing utility simply is morally good. The Aquinas argument that an ultimate truth giver or good giver is necessary has the problem that it fails to prove the truth giver has any of the attributes we'd attribute to a God. It need not be capable of thought or anything else truths may simply be truths as a consequence of logic which is true without any justification. Aquinas's argument have been discussed by philosophers because of these reasons and many are largely rejected. I mean all he did was inject God into Socrates argument of the pure forms of existence. God did not need to be injected and hence God can freely be removed. You can argue that there is an ultimate source of goodness but how do you give him any of the attributes you want him to have to call him God let alone the Christian God.

Quote: FrGamble

We quickly fall into moral relativism and as already pointed out by Twirdman's examples in a previous post that degrades into selfishness and disaster for all.

If I may ask, are you a Universalist? If the main reason for religion is to give people an absolute morality, don't other religions accomplish that as well? Wouldn't that make all religions that that preach the "love your neighbor" message morally equal, more or less?

I also wonder what your thoughts are on why at least some atheists have found a code of morality on their own? Is that just imposed on them by society?

Finally, I would argue that with a "get into Heaven free" card, Christians are free to do whatever they wish without divine consequence are thus just as morally dangerous as an atheist. In fact, if I were a Christian, I might be tempted to sin more, since somebody else paid for my right to do so.

Quote: FrGamble

If there is no God then it stands to reason there is no objective truth.

Nope, this argument does not follow. God is not required for an objective truth.

Morality is possibly not even Universally Objective, though I go along with the thought that it is. The argument that God is the Universal Objective Truth doesn't led us to the conclusion that he is omnipresent, knowable and personally involved, either. That's a different set of revelations to argue for.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Just wanted to point these out to you:

Post 1, Post 2, Post 3, Post 4, Post 5, Post 6

Be sure and read the whole thread for context not just someone's isolated examples. I sure don't have a problem with it. Nope, none at all.

edit -- not sure since the thread was split if it can even be followed in context.

Quote: Wizard

If I may ask, are you a Universalist? If the main reason for religion is to give people an absolute morality, don't other religions accomplish that as well? Wouldn't that make all religions that that preach the "love your neighbor" message morally equal, more or less?

You can ask anything because you da man! Anyway I am not a universalist, but I am a man of the Church and Vatican II clearly teaches that there are sparks of truth present in all religions that lead to God. While I believe the fullness of truth and surest path to God is the Catholic Church I acknowledge along with Vatican II the many people who honestly follow other paths leading to God. All roads lead to Rome they say.

Quote: Wizard

I also wonder what your thoughts are on why at least some atheists have found a code of morality on their own? Is that just imposed on them by society?

I'm always very glad to hear that some atheists have found a code of morality. I pray that it is not based on atheism itself because inherent in the idea that there is no God is that we as humans are only cosmic dust that has randomly come together, somehow gained a consciousness, but nevertheless is doomed to nothingness like everything else in a purposeless universe. In the long run I don't know how an atheist coherently makes the argument that an insect has more value than a human being. Ultimately, every advance in science, every loving sacrifice, means nothing. Hence if an atheist founds his/her moral code on that belief system I am very worried. However, I admit that I have never met an atheist who truly let this belief system influence his moral life and have found all of them, for example the good people on this forum, to be outstanding individuals. So where does that code of morality come from in an atheist? I believe it is imposed on him/her by the goodness in their hearts that they are created with and by the implicit influence of religion without their knowing it.

Quote: Wizard

Finally, I would argue that with a "get into Heaven free" card, Christians are free to do whatever they wish without divine consequence are thus just as morally dangerous as an atheist. In fact, if I were a Christian, I might be tempted to sin more, since somebody else paid for my right to do so.

You are not the first to think that. In chapter 6 of Romans St. Paul twice directly addresses those who think God's grace gives them the freedom to sin. Instead he points out that God gives us freedom from sin. Sin is an awful slavery and a bad way to live, giving unhappiness to us and those around us. I don't think generally that people would want to sin more just because they thought they could get away with it. Talk about a weakness. In this way you can turn your critique about God fearing Christians being weak on its head. In your understanding of Christianity you seem to think Christians can get away with doing anything and yet they still strive to be good. Isn't that a sign or moral strength that no longer motivated by fear of any punishment they still strive to do what is right?

Twirdman, first of all thanks for this conversation it is a good distraction as I continue to take a break from Christmas preparation. I am also glad that we both reject moral relativism as a personal philosophy or as a means for society to establish its moral norms.

I don't see why we cannot avoid the problem Socrates puts us in by simply equating God and good. You seem to do that by earlier defining good as that which is most utilitarian. So is something good because it maximizes utility or does it maximize utility because it is morally good?

I think with the arguments presented by Aquinas for example we have to remember he is not trying to hit a home run. In one swoop he is not trying to prove that there is a "good giver" and that this entity is the one and only Santa Claus, um I mean Christian God. He is just hitting a single. First step for anything is to acknowledge that objective moral truths really do need some objective reality and whatever you call this being or force - Jehovah, Allah, The Triune God, FSM, or truth-giver - we need to start there.

And finally yes I do think that God is needed for math certainty or any certainty at all. If we believe that the universe just popped into existence randomly, without purpose and without being created than what is to stop a different reality from popping into existence tomorrow where 2+2=5 or for no reason whatsoever some of the constants physics depends upon change overnight. We cannot imagine such a reality, but without some grounding in creation and purpose the math and constants we perceive are whimsical fantasies that could be here today and gone tomorrow. For math and science to make sense I think we need to recognize them as eternal truths that speak to the reality of God as well. Hence some of the best mathematicians and the greatest scientists have more often been men/women of faith. Who eagerly studied our world not as a random happening of chance that could change at any moment but as an exciting way to experience a different form of divine revelation that teaches us about ourselves and God.

Quote: FrGamble

First step for anything is to acknowledge that objective moral truths really do need some objective reality and whatever you call this being or force - Jehovah, Allah, The Triune God, FSM, or truth-giver - we need to start there.

I will start with myself. Since all of the entities mentioned are merely man's creation, I will skip the middle"man" and decide for myself what my objective moral truths are.

Quote: FrGamble

And finally yes I do think that God is needed for math certainty or any certainty at all. If we believe that the universe just popped into existence randomly, without purpose and without being created than what is to stop a different reality from popping into existence tomorrow where 2+2=5 or for no reason whatsoever some of the constants physics depends upon change overnight.

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about such things because, like the gods above, that doesn't exist. What does exist is the universe that we live in. It's not important why it was created. We are an accident of its existence. It may give one comfort to create an invisible friend and infuse that friend with almighty power and infinite love and incomprehensible purpose but it's still just an invisible friend.

Quote: FrGamble

For math and science to make sense I think we need to recognize them as eternal truths that speak to the reality of God as well.

Why? There is no need for a god in math or science. Adding a god only masks the truth.

Quote: FrGamble

Hence some of the best mathematicians and the greatest scientists have more often been men/women of faith. Who eagerly studied our world not as a random happening of chance that could change at any moment but as an exciting way to experience a different form of divine revelation that teaches us about ourselves and God.

That's projection and self delusion. Albert Einstein once said about quantum mechanics, "The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." We now know that the gods do indeed play dice with the universe.

Quote: FrGamble

Hence some of the best mathematicians and the greatest scientists have more often been men/women of faith. Who eagerly studied our world not as a random happening of chance that could change at any moment but as an exciting way to experience a different form of divine revelation that teaches us about ourselves and God.

The problem with saying that most of the greatest scientist and mathematicians have been followers of some religion is it ignores the fact that for much of recorded history the majority of people were believers. For instance some of the greatest scientist in the world have been men. It is not due to their maleness instead it happens to be an artifact of the time. At that time most of the people being educated were men. So it makes sense that most of the great scientist would be men.

The idea of God is not creating an invisible friend or an unnecessary addition to existence it is simply following things through to their logical conclusions. Descartes...um excuse me I mean s2dbaker, you seem content to stop or start at the middle man and go no further. You are undoubtedly the recipient of either the amazing accident of existence or the gift of creation, why stop there? You did not cause this yourself yet for some reason you don't wish to take the next step to ask that old one question. I don't blame you, many people, even Einstein, don't want to ask the old one because it takes us out of our comfort zone, away from the observable facts we like to cling to. Use your mind to its fullness, let go of the math and science and explore what the observable universe we study might be telling us or teaching us. It may give you comfort to think the created universe is an uncreated accident but it still has an invisible creator (who yes I believe is a friend).

FrGamble, just so you know, you're dealing with a lot of intellectually dishonest people who are incapable of admitting when they're wrong. They just post because they like to hear themselves talk. But I should add that there are a handful of intellectually honest guys around here with whom you can have a constructive conversation. For example, thecesspit and I disagree on just about everything, but he's a good guy. A very strong debater, too.

Quote: FrGamble

The idea of God is not creating an invisible friend or an unnecessary addition to existence it is simply following things through to their logical conclusions.

There is nothing logical about your gods.

On the contrary there is nothing logical about your denial of God.

Quote: FrGamble

Use your mind to its fullness, let go of the math and science and explore what the observable universe we study might be telling us or teaching us.

You do realize that studying the observable universe IS maths and and science, right?

Using only your mind, well, that ends up with Descartes deciding that 'I think, therefore I am'. You do know, I assume, Descartes famous utterance was the start of his own logical progression to the existence of God. But using -just- the mind is fraught with dangers and logical traps. It's incredibly common for us to deceive ourselves and what we think we know, and not using an outside source (maths, science, etc) then we can follow into odd pits of untruth.

Quote: FrGamble

On the contrary there is nothing logical about your denial of God.

I understand that you've dedicated your life to telling everyone who cares to listen about your invisible friend and how it wants them to live. You even manage to get the suckers to fork over cash so that you can live comfortably in your delusion. But you can't say that your invisible friend is logical. That's just infantile.

Quote: s2dbaker

I understand that you've dedicated your life to telling everyone who cares to listen about your invisible friend and how it wants them to live. You even manage to get the suckers to fork over cash so that you can live comfortably in your delusion. But you can't say that your invisible friend is logical. That's just infantile.

Post of the Year!........If I typed what s2dbaker typed.......well that would be it for me....

Quote: thecesspit

You do realize that studying the observable universe IS maths and and science, right?

Using only your mind, well, that ends up with Descartes deciding that 'I think, therefore I am'. You do know, I assume, Descartes famous utterance was the start of his own logical progression to the existence of God. But using -just- the mind is fraught with dangers and logical traps. It's incredibly common for us to deceive ourselves and what we think we know, and not using an outside source (maths, science, etc) then we can follow into odd pits of untruth.

studying the observable universe should go beyond measuring it and experimenting on it. It should move us into metaphysics and to ask the bigger eternal questions that math and science can only point us to and encourage us to explore.

Yes Descartes does attempt to prove God's existence but in my opinion does one of the worst things ever in the history of philosophy or theology by making the center point on which all else depends - himself?!? This shoots any of the good work he does to prove God's existence in the foot and makes a decisive egotistical turn for modern thought and philosophy to start focusing in on self as the sole arbitrator of what is true, right, or good. I think it takes a return to classical thought or the introduction of phenomenology to free us from this subjective and self absorbed look at reality.

Anyway, you do know, I assume, that our senses are far more often deceived then our minds or logic. Mistakes made in logic are also much more easily identified, discovered, and avoided than the strange notions our very weak and fallible senses can lead us to.

Quote: s2dbaker

I understand that you've dedicated your life to telling everyone who cares to listen about your invisible friend and how it wants them to live. You even manage to get the suckers to fork over cash so that you can live comfortably in your delusion. But you can't say that your invisible friend is logical. That's just infantile.

I have dedicated my life in service of God and neighbor and to tell everyone who cares to listen that there is a God who has created them, loves them, forgives them, has a joyous plan for their lives that leads to happiness, and gives them eternal hope. I reach out to the poor and needy, the grieving and troubled, the sad and lonely to help them in any way I can. I appreciate that generous souls give of their own free will so that I can live a simple life and the ministries of the Church can continue. I am really and truly sorry that you cannot see the fairly obvious logic and reason behind a belief in God for those who are willing to at least seriously consider the important question. I am also sorry that you seem to have such bitterness towards God and religion.


"The people who walked in darkness
have seen a great light;
upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom
a light has shone." (Isaiah 9:1)

Quote: Beethoven9th

FrGamble, just so you know, you're dealing with a lot of intellectually dishonest people who are incapable of admitting when they're wrong. They just post because they like to hear themselves talk. But I should add that there are a handful of intellectually honest guys around here with whom you can have a constructive conversation. For example, thecesspit and I disagree on just about everything, but he's a good guy. A very strong debater, too.

Beethoven, you must be perfect, because you have never admitted you've been wrong about anything, but thanks for the troll and your valuable contribution to this debate.

Do not confuse contempt for bitterness. You can be good without a god. What you have convinced yourself to be comforting those in need, I consider preying on the vulnerable.

Quote: FrGamble

studying the observable universe should go beyond measuring it and experimenting on it. It should move us into metaphysics and to ask the bigger eternal questions that math and science can only point us to and encourage us to explore.

Yes Descartes does attempt to prove God's existence but in my opinion does one of the worst things ever in the history of philosophy or theology by making the center point on which all else depends - himself?!? This shoots any of the good work he does to prove God's existence in the foot and makes a decisive egotistical turn for modern thought and philosophy to start focusing in on self as the sole arbitrator of what is true, right, or good. I think it takes a return to classical thought or the introduction of phenomenology to free us from this subjective and self absorbed look at reality.

Anyway, you do know, I assume, that our senses are far more often deceived then our minds or logic. Mistakes made in logic are also much more easily identified, discovered, and avoided than the strange notions our very weak and fallible senses can lead us to.

FrGamble, math and sciences have dabbled greatly into the world of metaphysics. Many have attempted to measure the transfer of the "soul" physically into something else. There have been attempts to measure metaphysical things such as the existence of angels, demons, ghosts, goblins, the soul, etc. They have found nothing yet so far.

The fact is that there is no mathematical or scientific proof of God's existence, and absence of knowledge (of how the big bang started, for example, among many other things that we don't know) doesn't indicate that God exists. Humankind will always strive for knowledge. And we can't have math and science be an enemy to God either, and even if we knew every fact about the physical universe, it doesn't deny the existence of God as there is always room to explain god's existence through coincidences, "miracles", and very unlikely events that will help or punish us in some way that doesn't seem to make sense.

We have the bible which tells the story of God's creation and fables and tales (some of which are undoubtably true) throughout, culminating to the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This story was told almost 2,000 years ago and there are obvioulsy no living eyewitnesses to the story. We have a choice to believe these stories as the Word of God and indeed this story has been rammed down our throats for the last two thousand years which makes it a difficult to say no to.

Plus, we all want a glorious afterlife and the physical universe doesn't offer that to us. We die, and in 150 years or so, none of us on earth will not know who FrGamble or Boymimbo was (including our closest relatives, by the way). The promise of a glorious afterlife draws us to the idea that there is life after death, because that is a story most of us want to believe.

Therefore, we have faith alone to believe that Jesus Christ died for us (and I am strongly in that camp, by the way). We also have faith alone to believe in Santa Claus, Gandalf and the flying spaghetti monster.

Quote: boymimbo

FrGamble, math and sciences have dabbled greatly into the world of metaphysics. Many have attempted to measure the transfer of the "soul" physically into something else. There have been attempts to measure metaphysical things such as the existence of angels, demons, ghosts, goblins, the soul, etc. They have found nothing yet so far.

Does the Higgs boson count? Just kidding :)

Quote: FrGamble

studying the observable universe should go beyond measuring it and experimenting on it.

Still describing science and mathematics (which is just a branch of science, really)

Quote:

It should move us into metaphysics and to ask the bigger eternal questions that math and science can only point us to and encourage us to explore.

Why should? What 'bigger question' is outside the realms of obervation, study, recording and experimenting? The acceptance that there are questions that cannot (presently or ever) be answered is fine to me. The unknowable (see: heisenberg, for one) is part of the wonder of the universe, and there is no need to create a creator to answer a question where there is no answer. The fact it is unknowable is fine. One can still study to find out if the unknowable can be known at a later stage. That's the story of human progress. Putting down a fullstop with answering the metaphysical question with 'God' is not observing, studying, measuring or considering the universe itself. It's stopping there and then turning inwards again to follow the teachings that (some flavour of) God has written, without considering if they are objectively -right- or moral.

Quote:

Yes Descartes does attempt to prove God's existence but in my opinion does one of the worst things ever in the history of philosophy or theology by making the center point on which all else depends - himself?!? This shoots any of the good work he does to prove God's existence in the foot and makes a decisive egotistical turn for modern thought and philosophy to start focusing in on self as the sole arbitrator of what is true, right, or good. I think it takes a return to classical thought or the introduction of phenomenology to free us from this subjective and self absorbed look at reality.

I've not done too much reading on Descartes, but the idea one can consider God exists based -only- on the 1 axiomatic fact 'I exist' is clever and fascinating. He actually gives a route for the egotistical to consider a meta-being that is beyond them. I think Descartes found it quite liberating.

Quote:

Anyway, you do know, I assume, that our senses are far more often deceived then our minds or logic. Mistakes made in logic are also much more easily identified, discovered, and avoided than the strange notions our very weak and fallible senses can lead us to.

I do. But also even our minds are fallible. Logic, less so, as it gives us a common language to explore the basis of our thoughts and observations. Recording and measuring allows us to share what we perceived with others to check, with their logical minds as well. Thus, I made the obvious criticism earlier where it does not follow the God is required for a Objective Morality, it is not 'obvious' from a logical series of steps that god exists. You have not proven the existence of God via Logic. I have not proven his non-existence by logic either, but I claim he is currently unnecessary given the observed facts of the universe, or the question posed has a (currently, or permanently) unknowable answer.

The Prime Mover theory is all well and good, but relies on various axioms, that still do not result in a single, knowable, personal God. And just because the randomness of space dust seems an unsatisfactory answer to human existence, it does not make it wrong. It's more compelling than the answers to question like 'why does God allow suffering' and 'if God is all knowing and loves everyone and created everything, why did he make the nematode worm that burrows into people's eyes and blinds them'. His plans being 'unknowable' is the same answer I would give as 'why does the universe exist'. I feel my answer is much more intellectually honest, as we know the universe exists, but we don't KNOW God exists, just some people choose to believe it to be so.

And take those beliefs as knowledge. I used to say I -knew- there was no God. I was wrong. I believe there is no God, based on the evidence and study I have done. That still makes me an atheist, with a belief system. But it no longer gets in my way.

Math, science, and theology are not enemies. They are all on the same team pursuing truth. They have different roles and abilities but only by working together can we truly reach truth. The math and sciences failing at metaphysics is because that is not their role and they are helpless to observe, quantify, or experiment on that which cannot be observed with the lower senses. Theology has failed at science and math at times as well because that is not its job. If we kick theology off the team because it can't do math or verify experiments then we will condemn ourselves to materialism, which is not the fullness of truth.

I really do have to get to work on this Christmas homily now and to be honest I got to say I'm hurting a little from the attack from s2dbaker and treetop. God Bless and Merry Christmas everyone!

Quote: FrGamble

Math, science, and theology are not enemies. They are all on the same team pursuing truth. They have different roles and abilities but only by working together can we truly reach truth. The math and sciences failing at metaphysics is because that is not their role and they are helpless to observe, quantify, or experiment on that which cannot be observed with the lower senses. Theology has failed at science and math at times as well because that is not its job. If we kick theology off the team because it can't do math or verify experiments then we will condemn ourselves to materialism, which is not the fullness of truth.

I really do have to get to work on this Christmas homily now and to be honest I got to say I'm hurting a little from the attack from s2dbaker and treetop. God Bless and Merry Christmas everyone!

I object to theology being there should honestly be philosophy of which theology is just a part. The fact is though there has been no satisfactory philosophical proof for the existence of God either they all have been refuted. I will admit there have also not been irrefutable philosophical proofs against the existence of God but I do believe they are on stronger ground.

Quote: FrGamble

I really do have to get to work on this Christmas homily now and to be honest I got to say I'm hurting a little from the attack from s2dbaker and treetop. God Bless and Merry Christmas everyone!

And have a happy new year, too.

Quote: FrGamble

If we kick theology off the team because it can't do math or verify experiments then we will condemn ourselves to materialism

That makes no sense unless you believe that people are inherently evil and selfish unless they have a god looking over them.

Quote: FrGamble

I really do have to get to work on this Christmas homily now and to be honest I got to say I'm hurting a little from the attack from s2dbaker and treetop. God Bless and Merry Christmas everyone!

You're such a victim! I shall pray for you.

Quote: Twirdman

I object to theology being there should honestly be philosophy of which theology is just a part. The fact is though there has been no satisfactory philosophical proof for the existence of God either they all have been refuted. I will admit there have also not been irrefutable philosophical proofs against the existence of God but I do believe they are on stronger ground.

See Russell's Teapot

Quote: s2dbaker

See Russell's Teapot

Russel's teapot while interesting really doesn't provide a proof that God doesn't exist and simply shows that blind faith in God makes no sense. There are actually fairly strong arguments against the existence of God and in my opinion very weak argument for many of which simply are presided on poor understanding. Feel this is the time I really have to attack William Lane Craig and his simultaneous hubris and ignorance concerning mathematics and infinity.

Quote: boymimbo

Beethoven, you must be perfect, because you have never admitted you've been wrong about anything

Sure have. Here's but one example. Too bad you can't say the same.

Quote: boymimbo

but thanks for the troll and your valuable contribution to this debate.

Let's see...this is like the third time you've chimed in using the word "troll" when I wasn't even talking to you.....yet I'M the one trolling?!?! Yeah, that's a good one. LOL! You trying to join your whiny friend or something? ;)

Quote: Twirdman

Though was hilarious response.

...ἀληθῶς.

Quote: FrGamble

You are undoubtedly the recipient of either the amazing accident of existence or the gift of creation, why stop there?

Here's why.

When you raise the possibility that we're an "accident," what you seem to mean is that we're created without intent. So what is intent? As far as I can tell, intent requires personality. I know, without begging the question, of no personality other than a few apes on one pale blue dot. I expect that there it might exist elsewhere, but I would imagine it could only be of similar size. It's very much a temporal thing, as every personality - everything capable of having intent - evolves and considers, taking in more and more input. It's also a capricious thing, under which the rules governing the world should be expected to undergo unpredictable violation. Indeed, although there's some structure to it, this was the idea of most theists throughout history.

Most importantly, in every example we have evidence of, it is a small thing. Here we are, hurtling on this rock, and we imagine ourselves created in the image of the being that created the universe. Although few seriously believe this, we link him to a legendary being that was scared a ziggurat might get too tall, one whose favored tribe were, though explicitly well in his favor, defeated by superior steelmaking. This being is going to destroy the universe, "like a carpet," as part of an experiment involving one species, whom he gave a part of himself, yet whose behavior, as far as anyone can articulate coherently, looks to have evolved organically.

Does this seem amazing to us? Of course it does - we're swimming in it. And when the universe seemed smaller, when we began to understand how it fit together in the way our own machines did, it was natural to project onto it that which was all we knew. But just as we've learned that the stars, which look so small, are greater than we are, we need to realize that the traits our intuition tempts us to ascribe the universe are only pills on the universe's cuff. It's not an unwillingness to seek something greater, but the ability to see how cheaply your awe is bought.

Quote: FrGamble

Use your mind to its fullness, let go of the math and science and explore what the observable universe we study might be telling us or teaching us.

"Let go of science?"

This is why the way people are first taught science needs to be changed; it's not about beakers and test tubes, walls of equations and grants. All science, properly understood, is is an extension of the everyday process of inference that you use in every sphere of your life. There is nothing "outside" science. If there were a godhead, then the study of its nature would be a science; the fact that one can't say so, like many humanities disciplines, is a quiet admission of absurdity, because when you do something as simple as look about your kitchen, when you do anything at all that rests on evidence, you're doing the same thing. It's the approach you take in every sphere of your life, except when you put it aside for the sake of the "eternal."

And here's the thing: it's the same process taken thousands of years ago, when people perceived this universe very small to us and very great to them, its rules showing a kind of order but a capricious one, and saw in themselves a similar kind of capricious order, and imagined it ruled by superbeings. As recognition of the unity of all things grew, it was by the same process that in much of the world these superbeings became one, but this caused its own problems in that this one being could only be a schizophrenic monster - or a brainless cosmic functionary. And so those propelled by the inertia of these old priests end up arguing black is white and up is down, setting coherent thought aside for those who wish to study the universe they live in 167 hours a week.

Merry Christmas.

Quote: FrGamble

Math, science, and theology are not enemies. They are all on the same team pursuing truth. They have different roles and abilities but only by working together can we truly reach truth. The math and sciences failing at metaphysics is because that is not their role and they are helpless to observe, quantify, or experiment on that which cannot be observed with the lower senses. Theology has failed at science and math at times as well because that is not its job. If we kick theology off the team because it can't do math or verify experiments then we will condemn ourselves to materialism, which is not the fullness of truth.

I really do have to get to work on this Christmas homily now and to be honest I got to say I'm hurting a little from the attack from s2dbaker and treetop. God Bless and Merry Christmas everyone!

I disagree that theology is teaching "truth". What I don't like about Christianity is its definition that it is the only path to an afterlife. I don't think that this is true and the only "proof" that it is true is faith that the bible is true.

Math and sciences will tell you that there is no such thing as metaphysics and certainly there is no evidence for such malarky. Theology needs to account for all metaphysics and Christianity selects only one form. It's like physics ignoring quantum mechanics.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Sure have. Here's but one example. Too bad you can't say the same.


Let's see...this is like the third time you've chimed in using the word "troll" when I wasn't even talking to you.....yet I'M the one trolling?!?! Yeah, that's a good one. LOL! You trying to join your whiny friend or something? ;)

*facepalm* Good one! I'm still waiting for your contribution to this debate that doesn't involve insulting another member.

Quote: boymimbo

Good one! I'm still waiting for your contribution to this debate

This is a continuation from another thread. Go check it out. You'll find what you're looking for.

I been a little busy the last 24 hours but I'd like to get back to some of the previous posts:

Twirdman - If you are not a fan of William Lane Craig I highly recommend John Lennox. He is a mathematician and a very good Christian apologist. It is interesting that I feel the opposite of you in regards to the arguments against God and for God. I simply have never heard any argument against the existence of a creator or supreme being that makes any sense at all. I think the arguments for the existence of a creator God are very strong. What often people conflate is the arguments for the existence of a personal God or the Triune God with the existence of a creator. I feel that these are two very different discussions. The existence of a creator rests on science, logic, and reason. The existence of the Holy Trinity rests on philosophy, logic, reason, and very importantly on trust in Divine Revelation.

s2dbaker - thanks again for your prayers. I wonder why in one of your previous posts you seem to think materialists are evil and selfish people? That is not the case I know many very good people who are caught up in only material things, just like I have gotten to know many good atheists, like yourself. People can be good and generous despite their wrongheaded beliefs.

24Bingo - First of all I thought your post was beautiful and at times poetic, thank you. I do think I need to define what I understand by "accident" better. I'm content with accidental existence referring to creation with or without intent. The key word is creation. I think it is a huge step when people acknowledge that all matter, the universe and all it contains, needs to be created. No matter what we call the creator or even if people ascribe creation to an impersonal force without purpose or intent it is a huge victory of pure logic and honest reason to reach this point. It is amazing to me the links some atheists will go to avoid the fairly benign and neutral point that the universe was created. As with Twirdman many people get very scared of Dr. Craig's cosmological argument and instead of conceding this point invent all kinds of parallel universes, wormholes, eternal matter, and become cozy with an infinite regress. N.B. I recognize you do not believe in a personal God, you don't need to in order to recognize all of creation had a beginning. If we can agree with this it would save you and us from a what I must say is a very poor job of exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In my understanding "inference" is not strictly science. Inference for me is knowledge that is gained by examining facts (from scientific experiments or experience) and extrapolating from them the discovery of other truths you can trust in. For example it is the use of inference that allows us to eat a meal at a restaurant. We have learned what foods are safe and what bad food looks like or smells like. We also have learned from experience that people do not poison your food at restaurants, but we also know how to recognize a dive or dangerous place to be on our guard. So we enjoy the food set before us. All this happens in an instant, it is how we live our lives. To use science to enjoy that meal we would have to break out the beakers and microscope test the food, examine and watch the cooks who made it to be sure without a doubt that the food was safe to eat, by that time it would be cold. Life is cold under a microscope. Life is lived by inference outside the strict purview of science. Let me be very clear - science and the knowledge it provides is essential to helping us make the millions of decisions we make in life, but it provides only the foundation that our higher functions build on so we can actually live our lives. When you say nothing is outside science, I would say that while science is the foundation for everything, all of life is lived outside of science. This is why we can say that metaphysics, faith, theology and all the humanities are the higher sciences, not because they are better, but because they take the knowledge and facts Science provides and use it as a launching pad to infer and learn things strict "science" simply cannot reach.

Quote: FrGamble

I been a little busy the last 24 hours but I'd like to get back to some of the previous posts:

Twirdman - If you are not a fan of William Lane Craig I highly recommend John Lennox. He is a mathematician and a very good Christian apologist. It is interesting that I feel the opposite of you in regards to the arguments against God and for God. I simply have never heard any argument against the existence of a creator or supreme being that makes any sense at all. I think the arguments for the existence of a creator God are very strong. What often people conflate is the arguments for the existence of a personal God or the Triune God with the existence of a creator. I feel that these are two very different discussions. The existence of a creator rests on science, logic, and reason. The existence of the Holy Trinity rests on philosophy, logic, reason, and very importantly on trust in Divine Revelation.


24Bingo - First of all I thought your post was beautiful and at times poetic, thank you. I do think I need to define what I understand by "accident" better. I'm content with accidental existence referring to creation with or without intent. The key word is creation. I think it is a huge step when people acknowledge that all matter, the universe and all it contains, needs to be created. No matter what we call the creator or even if people ascribe creation to an impersonal force without purpose or intent it is a huge victory of pure logic and honest reason to reach this point. It is amazing to me the links some atheists will go to avoid the fairly benign and neutral point that the universe was created. As with Twirdman many people get very scared of Dr. Craig's cosmological argument and instead of conceding this point invent all kinds of parallel universes, wormholes, eternal matter, and become cozy with an infinite regress. N.B. I recognize you do not believe in a personal God, you don't need to in order to recognize all of creation had a beginning. If we can agree with this it would save you and us from a what I must say is a very poor job of exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I am not scared of Craig's cosmological argument it simply rest on faulty premises. To argue that a true infinite doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your understanding of the world is simply childish. It would be like a blind person arguing that the color purple doesn't exist since clearly it does not fit their experience of the world. If God can exist eternally uncreated why can't we say the universe simply exist eternally uncreated. You feel the need to shift from the universe to God because thinking the universe has existed forever creates some problem for you but it makes perfect logical and scientific sense. Also trust in Divine Revelation rest on the premise that Divine Revelation exist and hence already presupposes God. Just as I wouldn't trust someone who claims to speak to an invisible pink unicorn as definitive proof that an invisible pink unicorn exist someone saying that they have spoken to God is not proof that God exist.

Actually an eternally existing universe doesn't pose a huge problem, it was the prevailing thought before modern science started pointing us towards a beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas for example assumes an eternal universe. He probably wouldn't have even wasted his time coming up with all his proofs and discussing the question of a creator if the prevailing scientific theory of the Big Bang was known back in his day. It almost makes it too easy.

To argue that a true spiritual being doesn't exist because it does not fit your experience of the world is also childish I would think. I think God, the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, or what ever you can it is very different than the universe. A spiritual reality can by its definition exist eternally uncreated, for the universe of created matter to exist eternally would be a unique exception to what we know about it. I do not see how it makes any logical or scientific sense to believe in a universe that simply exists eternally uncreated.

Divine Revelation rests on its credibility. I wouldn't trust someone who claims to speak to an invisbile pink unicorn either unless there was actually historical proof the unicorn existed and that after some 2,000 years the entire world seems to stop to celebrate the birth of that unicorn. Then I would take that person and the unicorn a little more seriously.

Quote: FrGamble

Actually an eternally existing universe doesn't pose a huge problem, it was the prevailing thought before modern science started pointing us towards a beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas for example assumes an eternal universe. He probably wouldn't have even wasted his time coming up with all his proofs and discussing the question of a creator if the prevailing scientific theory of the Big Bang was known back in his day. It almost makes it too easy.

To argue that a true spiritual being doesn't exist because it does not fit your experience of the world is also childish I would think. I think God, the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, or what ever you can it is very different than the universe. A spiritual reality can by its definition exist eternally uncreated, for the universe of created matter to exist eternally would be a unique exception to what we know about it. I do not see how it makes any logical or scientific sense to believe in a universe that simply exists eternally uncreated.

Divine Revelation rests on its credibility. I wouldn't trust someone who claims to speak to an invisbile pink unicorn either unless there was actually historical proof the unicorn existed and that after some 2,000 years the entire world seems to stop to celebrate the birth of that unicorn. Then I would take that person and the unicorn a little more seriously.

I don't argue such a being doesn't exist based on experience there are some philosophical arguments based on logical truths that I think disprove God but that is quite different from saying I don't think a spiritual being exist so it doesn't. Also why would the universe or specifically the matter and energy that constitute it existing eternally be an exception to what we know. Energy and matter are not created or destroyed merely changed. Again though even if you claimed the universe had a beginning and an "unmoved mover" you can say nothing about it. Specifically you can't even say it has a mind and if it doesn't have a mind its meaningless to say it is God.

Also if divine revelation is credible simply because people believe it than all religions are true. Not just all currently existing religions but all religions that have ever existed. Odin, Zeus, Vishnu, and plenty of others have all been believed at one time or another. Even if you go with historical figures both Jesus and Mohammed are beings who most likely existed even if you doubt the historicity of many of their stories. Both have roughly a billion followers+ and both are celebrated figures claiming divine revelation. So fits exactly what you want. Christianity claims that there is a Trinitarian God and Jesus was the divine son of God Islam rejects both of these. How can you choose which is right with any measure of certainty. And thats just citing 2 Abrahamic faiths which agree on multiple fronts. Then you have Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, and countless others which have fairly large followings and completely disagree with the teachings of Christianity. So again the only way to say that divine revelation proofs Christianity right is to presuppose Christianity is right.

Quote: FrGamble

A spiritual reality can by its definition exist eternally uncreated, for the universe of created matter to exist eternally would be a unique exception to what we know about it. I do not see how it makes any logical or scientific sense to believe in a universe that simply exists eternally uncreated.

Let us reverse those two statements.

Quote: Paraphrased

The universe of created matter to exist eternally would be a unique exception to what we know about it. I do not see how it makes any logical or scientific sense to believe in a universe that simply exists eternally uncreated however, a spiritual reality can by its definition exist eternally uncreated.

To simplify, a creator existed before creation. So here's the problem. What did the creator do before he created the universe? Time is a measure of change and without a universe full of measurable change, there is no time and by definition, no "before".

I would say that if you carve out an "uncreation" exception for the creator, then you have to carve out the exact same exception for creation. If you're doing that, then you may as well toss the superfluous creator.

Quote: Twirdman

I don't argue such a being doesn't exist based on experience there are some philosophical arguments based on logical truths that I think disprove God but that is quite different from saying I don't think a spiritual being exist so it doesn't. Also why would the universe or specifically the matter and energy that constitute it existing eternally be an exception to what we know. Energy and matter are not created or destroyed merely changed. Again though even if you claimed the universe had a beginning and an "unmoved mover" you can say nothing about it. Specifically you can't even say it has a mind and if it doesn't have a mind its meaningless to say it is God.

Also if divine revelation is credible simply because people believe it than all religions are true. Not just all currently existing religions but all religions that have ever existed. Odin, Zeus, Vishnu, and plenty of others have all been believed at one time or another. Even if you go with historical figures both Jesus and Mohammed are beings who most likely existed even if you doubt the historicity of many of their stories. Both have roughly a billion followers+ and both are celebrated figures claiming divine revelation. So fits exactly what you want. Christianity claims that there is a Trinitarian God and Jesus was the divine son of God Islam rejects both of these. How can you choose which is right with any measure of certainty. And thats just citing 2 Abrahamic faiths which agree on multiple fronts. Then you have Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, and countless others which have fairly large followings and completely disagree with the teachings of Christianity. So again the only way to say that divine revelation proofs Christianity right is to presuppose Christianity is right.

That is a very good point about matter and energy not being created or destroyed. However, I think you underestimate the importance in acknowledging the universe had a beginning and an "unmoved mover" even if that mover does not have any of the attributes or even resemble "God" as we commonly understand the term. Recognizing this fact breaks the tyranny of science. So many people have fallen under its spell and think that all knowledge has to come at the end of a telescope or microscope. In our more honest moments we realize that science does not hold a monopoly on knowledge but we are addicted like fundamentalists to the black and white facts it presents. We are willing to accept these truths as the height of all truth and dream that these facts can one day explain everything even the questions that begin with why. Recognizing that there is a real limit to the realm of science that the observable world had a beginning and was created out of nothing, even if by an impersonal force, frees us to have a real discussion about deeper truths than the material world.

Divine revelation is credible not simply because people believe it. It needs to have a credible and real history, it needs to be internally coherent, it helps to have supernatural or unexplainable phenomenon supporting it, but most importantly it has to move the human heart and answer the questions we all long to know. How can you chose which is right with any measure of certanity? Examine those different religions and ask how does Zeus, Vishnu, Mohammed, Siddhartha, Jesus Christ truly help me to understand and deal with the reality of suffering? What is the conception of God in these various religions and what is God's relationship with human beings? Does he/she/it seem to truly care or love humanity? How is this manifested? What is the reason for hope in their belief system? My advice if you are truly and openly searching is to not presuppose anything and let God lead you to the truth.

I meant to get to this earlier, but I was putting it off - sorry.

Quote: FrGamble

I do think I need to define what I understand by "accident" better. I'm content with accidental existence referring to creation with or without intent. The key word is creation. I think it is a huge step when people acknowledge that all matter, the universe and all it contains, needs to be created. No matter what we call the creator or even if people ascribe creation to an impersonal force without purpose or intent it is a huge victory of pure logic and honest reason to reach this point. It is amazing to me the links some atheists will go to avoid the fairly benign and neutral point that the universe was created. As with Twirdman many people get very scared of Dr. Craig's cosmological argument and instead of conceding this point invent all kinds of parallel universes, wormholes, eternal matter, and become cozy with an infinite regress.

The thing is, the cosmological argument - for which Craig is an odd source, rather than say, Avicenna or Thomas Aquinas - rests on an intuitive notion of causality. It reminds me of an argument I once got from a philosophy major that space must be infinite since one can always travel away from an agreed-upon origin; I think most of this board can see that this argument implicitly makes the unfounded assumption of a geometry of space in which it's valid, but since most of us on some level have difficulty imagining it as anything but "benign and neutral" Euclidean, one shape it certainly isn't (well... I guess there are some caveats to this, but basically), it doesn't necessarily set off warning bells. Because the nature of causality isn't as well understood, it's even less obvious in this case, but nonetheless it's become quite clear that time and causality don't match our intuition, so unless more is known, the idea that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is, while not necessarily wrong, unfounded. For this reason, an acausal universe can't be immediately dismissed as a possibility, and if it is to be, "inventing" explanations more parsimonious and more fitting to what's observed than anything resembling a godhead is hardly "scared." Nor is there reason to dismiss the idea of infinite regress, since the classical arguments dismissing it rest on a primitive notion of infinity that would lead to us throwing out the bulk of modern math.

Quote: FrGamble

N.B. I recognize you do not believe in a personal God, you don't need to in order to recognize all of creation had a beginning. If we can agree with this it would save you and us from a what I must say is a very poor job of exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The catch is, in addition to the question of whether there indeed must be a first cause, that here you jump straight from "beginning" to "creation." "Create" implies conscious agency, and even if a distinction is to be made between conscious agency and personhood, it's hard to come up with an idea of consciousness in which the universe functions as well as it does. You just in the very last sentence scoffed at the idea of the first cause coming from a metaverse or from the intrinsic properties of matter - clearly these are not acceptable answers, even though they're hardly logically inconsistent with the idea of a first cause.

Quote: FrGamble

In my understanding "inference" is not strictly science. Inference for me is knowledge that is gained by examining facts (from scientific experiments or experience) and extrapolating from them the discovery of other truths you can trust in. For example it is the use of inference that allows us to eat a meal at a restaurant. We have learned what foods are safe and what bad food looks like or smells like. We also have learned from experience that people do not poison your food at restaurants, but we also know how to recognize a dive or dangerous place to be on our guard. So we enjoy the food set before us. All this happens in an instant, it is how we live our lives. To use science to enjoy that meal we would have to break out the beakers and microscope test the food, examine and watch the cooks who made it to be sure without a doubt that the food was safe to eat, by that time it would be cold. Life is cold under a microscope.

Beakers and microscopes again. What do you think those beakers and microscopes are being used for? Since you've given no indication of what's actually being sought in the meal, I'm left with the impression you think they're only there to waste everyone's time. Granted, science is defined by rigor, but rigor doesn't necessarily mean precision. Sometimes it's impractical to be too precise, and then a less precise result is worked out, and provided a cautious account is taken of its imprecision, that's no less scientific. Sometimes we take a less rigorous approach, and that is not scientific, but the only difference is the lack of rigor; in any objective matter, the more caution one takes in one's methodology, the more closely it will approach the scientific method. Only in religion and superstition is this approach actively resisted.

But also consider that you're comparing the very nature of the universe to a matter of personal taste.

Quote: 24Bingo

I meant to get to this earlier, but I was putting it off - sorry.



Sometimes we take a less rigorous approach, and that is not scientific, but the only difference is the lack of rigor; in any objective matter, the more caution one takes in one's methodology, the more closely it will approach the scientific method. Only in religion and superstition is this approach actively resisted.

Sorry I also meant to respond to this very good post from 24Bingo awhile ago but I forgot about it. Most of the post is the standard and good responses to the questions raised regarding the Universe having a beginning. They don't really warrant a response because they are just stating the other possibilities to creation calling upon other understandings of the nature of time, causality, infinity, etc. They effectively sow doubt into the understanding of the origin of the universe and rather than proving the idea of creation is wrong, show it is not necessarily the case.

What I do take issue with is the biased idea that religion resists the scientific method. We should remember the historical connection between Christian Theism and the Scientific Method and shouldn't ignore that Roger Bacon, a Franciscan Friar, is often considered the Father of the modern Scientific Method. That being said, I think the biggest mistake Bingo makes is trying to equate any knowledge about an objective matter to science. As if science and its method is the only way to obtain knowledge. Going back before Bacon, yum, it was philosophy that gave us the structure for the scientific method. Religion, theology, and philosophy don't resist the rigors of scientific methodology, which they invited and promoted, rather they spur it on to establish objective facts from which we could use our brains to discover deeper and higher truths that cannot be found with beakers and microscopes.

Quote: FrGamble

In the way the question is phrased and I think commonly understood I can tell you without a doubt from the Catholic perspective the only correct answer is no.
link to original post

definitely