For atheists

[Trolle]

Getting OT here, so feel free to ignore this one, but what would you say to the premise that the difficulties of our trials vary vastly?
It would seem far simpler to be pious in some situations than others, and some people are only presented with one set of circumstances, far outside their ability to control in almost any way.

In some cases this is true. The difficulties I've faced in my life pale in comparison to someone born in war torn Somalia or other 3rd world countries. This may not be fair, but it is what it is.

 

[thau]

Let's assume for a moment... .

Let's assume for a moment that your assumption regarding the existence of a creator deity is correct ... and that the attributes granted to him by Christian theists are also more or less accurate.
Why are tests run in the first place? I can think of two scenarios:
1.) To demonstrate that which was is unknown but suspected.
2.) To reconfirm that which is already known.
In either case, asking me to believe that an omnipotent being needs to run a test is just plain ridiculous. Because ...
A.) If the test was needed to discover the results of free will, this tends to severely undercut the notion that God is omnipotent.
Perhaps you can explain why an all-knowing being needs to test anything?

It is not for God to discover what is already known, it is for us to discover through an experienced trial. It is something God apparently wanted for us to reflect back on. Just as Jesus was made into a man to suffer greatly for our witness and understanding as much as anything He needed to do for Himself. There must be some kind of profound feeling and drama associated with suffering and redemption for heaven in order to complete some perfect circle of existence? Not unlike the joy and gratitude a parent has for a child who bears adversity and grows in understanding and appreciation for having gone through it and accomplished something of value, instead of just being allowed to exist as an ungrateful privileged brat.

Again, don't you have to assume that there even is a God before you can begin to assume anything about the purposes of said God? Isn't that what faith is, after all? Institutionalized assumptions?

No, not really. I do not need faith to know Jesus is God and the Savior. It has been revealed. Faith in some of His promises, yes. But not a blind faith.


>>The atheist and many others appear to assume the contention that God has never revealed the fullness of truth to any religion. I maintain that is a false assumption.<<

And you can prove this ... how?

Not “how” but “to who?” I can prove it to believers like myself that these miracles throughout history have enough evidence and veracity for one to know it is from God an not just any god, the God who is also Jesus Christ.
I cannot prove anything to an atheist. I have tried, so, yes, you might win your case in court… i.e. “unprovable.”


>>I maintain that Jesus Christ life, death and resurrection is the truth and the revelation everyone demands.<<

That's an interesting assertion. Unsubstantiated, but not without interest. Why an all-powerful being would need to orchestrate its own ritual sacrifice to itself to appease its own wrath at its creations built-in shortcomings is certainly a conundrum. Imagine if only simple forgiveness could have achieved the same results without all the muss and fuss!

Well all well and good if such reasoning puts you at ease. But to me, it makes little sense to try to argue with God and prove His non-existence because He makes no sense to your idea of how God should be. If you want to remain a disbeliever because you see no empirical sign of anything supernatural, much less anything that points to the Judeo-Christian G-d, then fine, I can accept that position more understandable than one who says there is no God because he would never act so silly.


Q. - Is granting forgiveness without qualifications or strings attached simply beyond the abilities of an omnipotent being?

Apparently so. Only the purest of sincere atheists may get a free pass on that score, and they may be judged on their well-formed conscience primarily. How they treated others, how much they really cared about others, and what other indulgences they went too far with. Scripture surely alludes to that. Good luck.


Differentiating the many misinterpretations from the one Real McCoy must be very tricky. How do you do it?

That is one level beyond where you are at. Once you believe in God it is more apt to argue which God. And once you become a Christian I will be glad to argue the stark differences in certain denominations' doctrines. It is all critical stuff to be sure.


>>Jesus Christ established His Church on earth in His absence to which he gave Peter (read: His Church) “the keys of the kingdom.” (Matthew 16)<<

Peter (read: His Church) denied Christ three times:
"Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. 'You also were with Jesus of Galilee,' she said. But he denied it before them all. 'I don't know what you're talking about,' he said." ~ Matthew 26:69-70
"Again Peter denied it, this time with an oath. 'I don't even know the man,' he said." ~ Matthew 26:72
"Peter swore, 'A curse on me if I'm lying--I don't know the man!' And immediately the rooster crowed." ~ Matthew 26:74
Perhaps you'd care to comment on what sort of dancing these words typically provoke in Catholics? Do Peter's (read: His Church's) repeated denials of Christ explain why the Catholic Church appears to be cursed?

You expected anything different? I do not get you? First of all, what choice does God have to witness for him except to use man (read: sinners)? Jesus also said to St. Faustina the greater the sinner the greater the right he has to my mercy. Your Biblical quotes of Peter’s folly has no bearing on what Jesus Christ unmistakably bestowed upon him.

The Catholic Church cursed? You have chosen the wrong word. I know what you are getting at, however, but that will have to be for another time.


>>Just because the true religion is guilty of sin and some error, it does not discredit that religion’s teachings.<<

Oh really? Tell that to the victims.

>>All it shows is that man is weak and cannot live up to the teachings of the true faith, all the more reason to submit to his Savior.<<

Ooh! Let me try that! (((ahem))) "Just because the only insurance company in town is a known cesspit of corruption and depravity doesn't mean you shouldn't insure your house through them! In fact, it just proves how much they deserve your business and support!" ... I dunno. It kinda rings hollow if you ask me.

Yeah, sure. Except you are summing up my words inanely. I think you know that and I choose to leave it at that, after all, this is getting too lengthy as it is.


>>The Catholic Church (amongst many other teachings) teaches that Jesus Christ is the judge of all mankind, believer and unbeliever alike. It also teaches that one does not have to be a Catholic or even a Christian to be welcomed into the kingdom.<<

Great. So I needn't bother with Catholicism or Christianity, right?

Right, that is the message we have been trying to say all along. I keep forgetting you base your answers on Occam’s Razor, the simplest way of looking at anything is the best. Keep on keeping it simple, you will never be challenged that way.


Pardon me for asking, but ... Q. - Setting aside institutionalized child molestation, what other role does that leave for the Catholic Church, really?

For another day.


Purgatory? Could you please provide a citation (or three) from the Bible that supports the concept of Purgatory? Otherwise, I'm obliged to dismiss it as non-canonical, theological fan fiction.

If you were a little more sincere in your quest I would provide you with 20 or more passages. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, imo, for someone who says there is no sign this God exists I am not about to go deeper.


Unsubstantiated assertions typically fail to convince and yours are no exception.

Yes, says one voice. And no doubt, one more qualified than St. Peter’s.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It is not for God to discover what is already known ...

That's a presumptuous statement if ever there was one.

I do not need faith to know Jesus is God and the Savior. It has been revealed.

But you don't need faith in that revelation? You simply accept it unequivocally?

See: "Faith, Blind."

Not “how” but “to who?” I can prove it to believers like myself ...

See: "Choir, Preaching To The."

I cannot prove anything to an atheist.

See: "Fail."

If you want to remain a disbeliever because you see no empirical sign of anything supernatural, much less anything that points to the Judeo-Christian G-d, then fine, I can accept that position more understandable than one who says there is no God because he would never act so silly.

That God behaves like a petulant, insecure brat most of the time is beyond doubt. It's well documented in the scriptures.

However, if you're going to take me to task for failing to see any "sign of anything supernatural" then shouldn't you be prepared to offer up some evidence of the supernatural?

Q. - Is granting forgiveness without qualifications or strings attached simply beyond the abilities of an omnipotent being?

Apparently so.

Your honesty is refreshing. Thank you for refraining from any elaborate theological tap dance routines.

Only the purest of sincere atheists may get a free pass on that score, and they may be judged on their well-formed conscience primarily. How they treated others, how much they really cared about others, and what other indulgences they went too far with. Scripture surely alludes to that.

Wow. That's an incredible assertion. It'd help if you'd cite the verse and chapter rather than just make additional claims.

Differentiating the many misinterpretations from the one Real McCoy must be very tricky. How do you do it?

That is one level beyond where you are at.

See: "Condescending, Unbelievably."

Once you believe in God it is more apt to argue which God. And once you become a Christian I will be glad to argue the stark differences in certain denominations' doctrines. It is all critical stuff to be sure.

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." ~ 1 Corinthians 14:33

Actually, the doctrinal sniping between the thousands of Christian denominations is usually on the level of arguing which color to paint the guest bath.

But I digress.

The Catholic Church cursed? You have chosen the wrong word. I know what you are getting at, however, but that will have to be for another time.

I didn't choose the word "curse." The word appeared in our discussion because that was the exact verbiage offered up by Peter (read: "The Church") upon the third and final denial of Christ. In fact, Peter (read: "The Church") openly invited a curse if he was lying:

"Peter swore, "A curse on me if I'm lying--I don't know the man!" And immediately the rooster crowed." ~ Matthew 26:74

No need to correct me for using the exact same word as the scripture, thank you.

Great. So I needn't bother with Catholicism or Christianity, right?

Right, that is the message we have been trying to say all along. I keep forgetting you base your answers on Occam’s Razor, the simplest way of looking at anything is the best.

You're mistaken. Occam's Razor does not demand simplicity.

The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

William of Occam was a theist by the way. A Franciscan. What are the odds that such a man of faith knew a thing or two about the absence of certainty?

Still, thank you for confirming that Christianity and the Catholic Church are irrelevant to the question of eternal salvation.

Keep on keeping it simple, you will never be challenged that way.

You should go talk to Gambit. He's currently asserting that God is simple. Simplicity is apparently all the rage these days.

Pardon me for asking, but ... Q. - Setting aside institutionalized child molestation, what other role does that leave for the Catholic Church, really?

For another day.

Translation: It doesn't leave much of a role at all, to be honest. Especially not since I just got through pontificating that neither Christianity or the Catholic Church are required to achieve salvation.

Purgatory? Could you please provide a citation (or three) from the Bible that supports the concept of Purgatory? Otherwise, I'm obliged to dismiss it as non-canonical, theological fan fiction.

If you were a little more sincere in your quest I would provide you with 20 or more passages.

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect ..." ~ 1 Peter 3:15

Wow! It says nothing about evading the question by making feeble qualifications. How about that?

Have it your way. "Non-canonical, theological fan-fiction" it is!

Unsubstantiated assertions typically fail to convince and yours are no exception.

Yes, says one voice. And no doubt, one more qualified than St. Peter’s.

Even St. Peter got to heaven on three strikes. And he wasn't even being honest about it.

 

[thau]

That's a presumptuous statement if ever there was one.



But you don't need faith in that revelation? You simply accept it unequivocally?

See: "Faith, Blind."



See: "Choir, Preaching To The."



See: "Fail."



That God behaves like a petulant, insecure brat most of the time is beyond doubt. It's well documented in the scriptures.

However, if you're going to take me to task for failing to see any "sign of anything supernatural" then shouldn't you be prepared to offer up some evidence of the supernatural?



Your honesty is refreshing. Thank you for refraining from any elaborate theological tap dance routines.



Wow. That's an incredible assertion. It'd help if you'd cite the verse and chapter rather than just make additional claims.



See: "Condescending, Unbelievably."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." ~ 1 Corinthians 14:33

Actually, the doctrinal sniping between the thousands of Christian denominations is usually on the level of arguing which color to paint the guest bath.

But I digress.



I didn't choose the word "curse." The word appeared in our discussion because that was the exact verbiage offered up by Peter (read: "The Church") upon the third and final denial of Christ. In fact, Peter (read: "The Church") openly invited a curse if he was lying:

"Peter swore, "A curse on me if I'm lying--I don't know the man!" And immediately the rooster crowed." ~ Matthew 26:74

No need to correct me for using the exact same word as the scripture, thank you.



You're mistaken. Occam's Razor does not demand simplicity.



William of Occam was a theist by the way. A Franciscan. What are the odds that such a man of faith knew a thing or two about the absence of certainty?

Still, thank you for confirming that Christianity and the Catholic Church are irrelevant to the question of eternal salvation.



You should go talk to Gambit. He's currently asserting that God is simple. Simplicity is apparently all the rage these days.



Translation: It doesn't leave much of a role at all, to be honest. Especially not since I just got through pontificating that neither Christianity or the Catholic Church are required to achieve salvation.



"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect ..." ~ 1 Peter 3:15

Wow! It says nothing about evading the question by making feeble qualifications. How about that?

Have it your way. "Non-canonical, theological fan-fiction" it is!



Even St. Peter got to heaven on three strikes. And he wasn't even being honest about it.

I want to say that I very much enjoy your combativeness. Even though I find much of what you say in great error.

My problem is that you will emerge the victor in many people’s eyes. For one, because I simply cannot allow myself the time to continue a discussion with necessary detail. I waste so much time at work and back myself into these corners where I have to bail and go home because they are mad at me too.

So I grant you your place as a willing iconoclast competitor with no one here willing to take you on. I hope to try to respond to many of your charges, not that I am going to convert you of course. I do appreciate those convictions of yours. But are you sure though that you have thought this all through well enough?

However, I do have time to provide a few passages that I and the Catholic Church would say refer to the state of purgatory. Yes, I do have a minimum of 20, but no one likes to read long posts.

Matthew 5:23-26 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Reconcile with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid up the last penny.”

[Jesus is assuring us (“truly I say to you”) that we will pay (be imprisoned) for a portion our transgressions until we have paid the last penny if we do not forgive others or obey. The key word is UNTIL. It is clear that once we have paid for our sins, THEN we WILL be released from our prison. That is not Hell because Hell is eternal. This is not an earthly reference as many who are to be saved have died without fulfilling all the requirements this passage implies. This is referring to purgatory where you will be eventually released.]


Luke 12:45-48 "But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk: the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

[The one slave who was not as guilty because he was somewhat ignorant of the gravity of his sins will receive less lashes. Note, he will still be punished, but not as severely. This is clearly not talking about hell, it is about some punishment that is less than eternal. It is purgatory once again. Different degrees of punishment which is how many have described it. Also, to whom more has been given (i.e. knowledge, riches, revelation, opportunity, etc.) more will be required; otherwise something consequential results. ]


1 Corinthians 3:12-15 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

[Saved, but still will suffer loss as yet through fire. Protestants can argue this is some earthly punishment, not an afterlife matter, but I, and the Catholic Church, say not so. This is so much better explained as a purgatory sentence. Purgatory is a cleansing fire.]

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I want to say that I very much enjoy your combativeness.

You are most welcome.

Even though I find much of what you say in great error.

This isn't a surprise.

My problem is that you will emerge the victor in many people’s eyes.

I'm not interested in "victory." I'm merely interested in what people believe and why they believe it.

Anyway, when defeat on the debate floor threatens, theists tend to just move the goalposts to an even more remote, gauzy distance and carry on irrespective of the glaring inconsistencies and lack of evidence that plagues their position on the issue.

I hope to try to respond to many of your charges, not that I am going to convert you of course.

That's the spirit.

I do appreciate those convictions of yours.

Please don't mistake my inability to buy your religion at face value as any sort of conviction. Thanks.

But are you sure though that you have thought this all through well enough?

Thankfully, the burden of sorting out esoteric Catholic Doctrine® isn't mine.

And if an omnipotent creator being wants on the one hand to endow me with the capability to reason against his existence while simultaneously providing evidence ranging from bad-to-nonexistent ... and then on the other condemn me for functioning as designed, what can I do about it? Play the hypocrite? To not believe is to not believe. If he wanted me to believe, he could make himself known. It appears that he's content to play elaborate games instead.

However, I do have time to provide a few passages that I and the Catholic Church would say refer to the state of purgatory. Yes, I do have a minimum of 20, but no one likes to read long posts.

With that in mind, I'll refrain from offering individual comments on your citations. I'll simply opine that none of them seems to even remotely hint at the sort of "Green-Room-To-The-Hereafter" that is Catholic Purgatory. Sorry.

 

[thau]

That's a presumptuous statement if ever there was one.



But you don't need faith in that revelation? You simply accept it unequivocally?

See: "Faith, Blind."



See: "Choir, Preaching To The."



See: "Fail."



That God behaves like a petulant, insecure brat most of the time is beyond doubt. It's well documented in the scriptures.

However, if you're going to take me to task for failing to see any "sign of anything supernatural" then shouldn't you be prepared to offer up some evidence of the supernatural?



Your honesty is refreshing. Thank you for refraining from any elaborate theological tap dance routines.



Wow. That's an incredible assertion. It'd help if you'd cite the verse and chapter rather than just make additional claims.



See: "Condescending, Unbelievably."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." ~ 1 Corinthians 14:33

Actually, the doctrinal sniping between the thousands of Christian denominations is usually on the level of arguing which color to paint the guest bath.

But I digress.



I didn't choose the word "curse." The word appeared in our discussion because that was the exact verbiage offered up by Peter (read: "The Church") upon the third and final denial of Christ. In fact, Peter (read: "The Church") openly invited a curse if he was lying:

"Peter swore, "A curse on me if I'm lying--I don't know the man!" And immediately the rooster crowed." ~ Matthew 26:74

No need to correct me for using the exact same word as the scripture, thank you.



You're mistaken. Occam's Razor does not demand simplicity.



William of Occam was a theist by the way. A Franciscan. What are the odds that such a man of faith knew a thing or two about the absence of certainty?

Still, thank you for confirming that Christianity and the Catholic Church are irrelevant to the question of eternal salvation.



You should go talk to Gambit. He's currently asserting that God is simple. Simplicity is apparently all the rage these days.



Translation: It doesn't leave much of a role at all, to be honest. Especially not since I just got through pontificating that neither Christianity or the Catholic Church are required to achieve salvation.



"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect ..." ~ 1 Peter 3:15

Wow! It says nothing about evading the question by making feeble qualifications. How about that?

Have it your way. "Non-canonical, theological fan-fiction" it is!



Even St. Peter got to heaven on three strikes. And he wasn't even being honest about it.

I finally returned to a couple of your posts in this thread to me, but upon further review I do not see what more I can add to bring new insights into the discussion? So I will add just a couple of follow ups.


However, if you're going to take me to task for failing to see any "sign of anything supernatural" then shouldn't you be prepared to offer up some evidence of the supernatural?

This will always be the main argument between atheist and devout believer. You demand signs from this God above and provide them in the form of miracles. You reject the miracles for reasons you find possible or probable or even likely. We find your answers to be anything but reasonable or probable and even to the point of skirting the greater sticking points. This is old news. Maybe I will suggest some other miracles for you to explain how they are not signs and wonders, down the road.


>>(previously) Only the purest of sincere atheists may get a free pass on that score, and they may be judged on their well-formed conscience primarily. How they treated others, how much they really cared about others, and what other indulgences they went too far with. Scripture surely alludes to that.<<

Wow. That's an incredible assertion. It'd help if you'd cite the verse and chapter rather than just make additional claims.

I will site two Biblical passages and one teaching from the Catechism which was derived from a Vatican II document / declaration:

Acts 10:34-35 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Romans 2:14-15 “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them”

Catechism 847 : "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."


Actually, the doctrinal sniping between the thousands of Christian denominations is usually on the level of arguing which color to paint the guest bath.

Sorry, you have purposely glossed over critical truths. You think whether purgatory exists or not is trite? It is impossible for anyone to suggest such a thing. Because if it did not exist a far, far larger percentage of the human race would never be given the chance to be purified and allowed into heaven. I might also point out that prayers to Mary and the saints is not a small matter in any way, shape or form. And the Holy Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith. Trivial? Confession of almost equal and enormous importance.


>>(previously) Right, that is the message we have been trying to say all along. I keep forgetting you base your answers on Occam’s Razor, the simplest way of looking at anything is the best.<<

You're mistaken. Occam's Razor does not demand simplicity. wikipedia said: The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Those who think the principles behind Occam’s Razor is a useful and wise guide in understanding God and His Word and His revelations are destined for great folly. Enough said.


Pardon me for asking, but ... Q. - Setting aside institutionalized child molestation, what other role does that leave for the Catholic Church, really?
>>(previously) For another day<<.
Translation: It doesn't leave much of a role at all, to be honest. Especially not since I just got through pontificating that neither Christianity or the Catholic Church are required to achieve salvation.

The Catholic Church was given “the keys of the kingdom” by Jesus Christ to Peter. Jesus also said “whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven.” Now if you think that does not entail the most important things in dealing with the salvation of a soul, then I do not see how my expounding on it will help. I can expound on the egregious sin of coverup of sexual crimes on another day. That one is a killer.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I finally returned to a couple of your posts in this thread to me, but upon further review I do not see what more I can add to bring new insights into the discussion?

Is that a question or a declaration?

You demand signs from this God above and provide them in the form of miracles.

I beg your pardon, but I'm not providing any miracles whatsoever.

You reject the miracles for reasons you find possible or probable or even likely.

As opposed to claiming a miracle has occurred for reasons that are impossible or improbably, or even unlikely?

We find your answers to be anything but reasonable

Of course you don't. You didn't reach your beliefs through reason, so it should come as no surprise that they're impervious to reason.

This is old news. Maybe I will suggest some other miracles for you to explain how they are not signs and wonders, down the road.

Or maybe you won't?

Acts 10:34-35 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." ~ John 14:6

Romans 2:14-15 “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them”

I'll certainly try to remember that verse and chapter the next time a Christian asks me how morality is possible without the Bible.

Catechism 847 : "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

"So wait. Are y'all tellin' me that my crucifixion scene wasn't required after all? DANG!"

You think whether purgatory exists or not is trite?

I do. Especially after seeing the excessive amount of theological tap-dancing that's required to conjure it out of the existing scriptures.

It is impossible for anyone to suggest such a thing.

I'll certainly try to remember that the next time I'm suggesting such a thing.

Because if it did not exist a far, far larger percentage of the human race would never be given the chance to be purified and allowed into heaven.

The Bible indicates that God is perfectly willing to cause some people to be unable to believe in him:

"So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen." ~ Romans 9:18

If God is willing to manipulate our free will (and the Bible clearly indicates that he is), what chance does anyone have?

I might also point out that prayers to Mary and the saints is not a small matter in any way, shape or form. And the Holy Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith. Trivial? Confession of almost equal and enormous importance.

The Catholic Church is a bit like a spiritual Disneyland. I suppose they deserve credit for being mildly creative with the non-scriptural theatrics and props ... and for cannily appropriating older traditions into their dog-'n-pony show.

I can't believe that polyhedral dice aren't somehow required to be a good Catholic.

"Please roll d20 to determine how many centuries you'll spend in Purgatory being purified!"

Those who think the principles behind Occam’s Razor is a useful and wise guide in understanding God and His Word and His revelations are destined for great folly. Enough said.

William of Occam was a Franciscan theologian. Enough said.

The Catholic Church was given “the keys of the kingdom” by Jesus Christ to Peter.

Heaping new claims atop the old ones doesn't magically make any of them substantive.

Jesus also said “whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven.” Now if you think that does not entail the most important things in dealing with the salvation of a soul, then I do not see how my expounding on it will help.

1.) Theists haven't demonstrated that there's any such thing as a soul. They've merely claimed that there is.
2.) Theists haven't demonstrated that there's a divine being pulling the levers of the universe. They've merely claimed that there is.
3.) Theists haven't demonstrated that the Bible is divinely inspired. They've merely claimed that it is.
4.) Theists haven't demonstrated that one interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than any other alternate reading(s). Of course, this hasn't stopped Catholics from claiming that theirs is.

I can expound on the egregious sin of coverup of sexual crimes on another day. That one is a killer.

I'm sure you can.

 

[thau]

Is that a question or a declaration?



I beg your pardon, but I'm not providing any miracles whatsoever.



As opposed to claiming a miracle has occurred for reasons that are impossible or improbably, or even unlikely?



Of course you don't. You didn't reach your beliefs through reason, so it should come as no surprise that they're impervious to reason.



Or maybe you won't?



"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." ~ John 14:6



I'll certainly try to remember that verse and chapter the next time a Christian asks me how morality is possible without the Bible.

"So wait. Are y'all tellin' me that my crucifixion scene wasn't required after all? DANG!"



I do. Especially after seeing the excessive amount of theological tap-dancing that's required to conjure it out of the existing scriptures.



I'll certainly try to remember that the next time I'm suggesting such a thing.



The Bible indicates that God is perfectly willing to cause some people to be unable to believe in him:

"So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen." ~ Romans 9:18

If God is willing to manipulate our free will (and the Bible clearly indicates that he is), what chance does anyone have?



The Catholic Church is a bit like a spiritual Disneyland. I suppose they deserve credit for being mildly creative with the non-scriptural theatrics and props ... and for cannily appropriating older traditions into their dog-'n-pony show.

I can't believe that polyhedral dice aren't somehow required to be a good Catholic.

"Please roll d20 to determine how many centuries you'll spend in Purgatory being purified!"



William of Occam was a Franciscan theologian. Enough said.



Heaping new claims atop the old ones doesn't magically make any of them substantive.



1.) Theists haven't demonstrated that there's any such thing as a soul. They've merely claimed that there is.
2.) Theists haven't demonstrated that there's a divine being pulling the levers of the universe. They've merely claimed that there is.
3.) Theists haven't demonstrated that the Bible is divinely inspired. They've merely claimed that it is.
4.) Theists haven't demonstrated that one interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than any other alternate reading(s). Of course, this hasn't stopped Catholics from claiming that theirs is.



I'm sure you can.

I beg your pardon, but I'm not providing any miracles whatsoever.

No, of course not. Except the ones where rocks turned into DNA and amino acids because “it was bound to happen.” And then some amazing little paramecium were formed but not long later decided to break out of their humdrum ways and start to really live! So they began growing organs and fins and feathers and wings and eyes and livers and brains and toes with nary a false step either in the fossil record, nor in the babies they bore which somehow had to overachieve and become totally different animals. Probabilities be damned! And all because why?... because according to Richard Dawkins "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“The illusion of design?” Oh, for funny.


>>You reject the miracles for reasons you find possible or probable or even likely.<<

As opposed to claiming a miracle has occurred for reasons that are impossible or improbably, or even unlikely?

There are a myriad of ways to prove God’s existence, deductive reasoning after looking at all the historical evidence is another. However, once a sensible unbiased mind comes to see not only the reality of God but the necessity of God, then when God manifests Himself through a miraculous event, it is neither improbable nor unlikely. It stands to reason God would remind us, on rare occasions, in more palpable ways to bolster the faith of the faithful and challenge the doubter.


>>Romans 2:14-15 “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them”<<

I'll certainly try to remember that verse and chapter the next time a Christian asks me how morality is possible without the Bible.

I dare say one of your problems is you do not know what the real Christian faith teaches at all, and by talking to “a Christian” you probably won’t. And said Christian says just the things you want to hear to embolden your obstinacy and disbelief. I strongly suggest you adhere only to Catholic dogma and doctrine and then you will be on much firmer ground. Good to note, we would never say you are doomed.


>>Catechism 847 : "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."<<

"So wait. Are y'all tellin' me that my crucifixion scene wasn't required after all? DANG!"

Again you fail to understand. I can assure you of this, if Jesus did not suffer and die none of us would ever be allowed into heaven. You, in particular, are not following the script of paragraph 847 in the catechism, so don’t be such a fool to think you have somehow mocked it.


>>You think whether purgatory exists or not is trite?<<

I do. Especially after seeing the excessive amount of theological tap-dancing that's required to conjure it out of the existing scriptures.

You lose points when you take the liberty to brag about something you have not shown any credible effort to refute. Tap-dancing, sure thing. Why must you beholden yourself to wishful protestant theology? If you do so to make your anti-God case stronger then so be it, but it makes your anti-purgatory case so much weaker. You are dead wrong on this one.


>>Because if it did not exist a far, far larger percentage of the human race would never be given the chance to be purified and allowed into heaven.<<

The Bible indicates that God is perfectly willing to cause some people to be unable to believe in him: "So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen." ~ Romans 9:18 If God is willing to manipulate our free will (and the Bible clearly indicates that he is), what chance does anyone have?

You really think God predestines souls to hell? How many other passages suggest anything but? How many speak of his unfathomable mercy? Romans 1 does speak of where God does become so weary of their horrible unrighteousness and shameful lusts that he does “turn them over” to their corrupt hearts’ desires but even then, that does not demand hellfire. Free will brought them to their sad state though, that much I am sure. But do not let this verse form your legal case against God, it surely will not impress.


>>I might also point out that prayers to Mary and the saints is not a small matter in any way, shape or form. And the Holy Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith. Trivial? Confession of almost equal and enormous importance.<<

The Catholic Church is a bit like a spiritual Disneyland. I suppose they deserve credit for being mildly creative with the non-scriptural theatrics and props ... and for cannily appropriating older traditions into their dog-'n-pony show.

You are sadly mistaken to even suggest Catholic doctrines are not scriptural. What, were you raised a fundamentalist and then became an iconoclast? Seems to me you retained nothing except the most errant parts of their studies.


I can't believe that polyhedral dice aren't somehow required to be a good Catholic. "Please roll d20 to determine how many centuries you'll spend in Purgatory being purified!"

And I cannot believe God allowed so many of His creation to become so blind. All the more reason to rejoice in His mercy.


>>Jesus also said “whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven.” Now if you think that does not entail the most important things in dealing with the salvation of a soul, then I do not see how my expounding on it will help.<<

1.) Theists haven't demonstrated that there's any such thing as a soul. They've merely claimed that there is. 2.) Theists haven't demonstrated that there's a divine being pulling the levers of the universe. They've merely claimed that there is. 3.) Theists haven't demonstrated that the Bible is divinely inspired. They've merely claimed that it is. 4.) Theists haven't demonstrated that one interpretation of the Bible is any more valid than any other alternate reading(s). Of course, this hasn't stopped Catholics from claiming that theirs is.

Oh, wow. You have found the “theist” you are looking for, but who even cares? Jesus Christ has manifested Himself in a million ways. I do not need anyone else to try to tell me no evidence for God, the soul, heaven or hell. Souls have come back to earth to witness. Statues of Mary or Jesus weep blood before our eyes. The Virgin Mary speaks to children and promises a miracle on a particular day and it stuns all 70,000 present. The Virgin Mary appears on top of a Coptic Cathedral in Egypt on 20 different nights in 1968 and more than 250,000 Egyptians see her. So spare me the tireless experiments of your theists or science trying to uncover something they cannot see but is burning a hole into their foreheads. You can live and die by science but science nibbles on the edges yet claims such grand pedigrees for itself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I would be privileged if you would read my top post about hell --- specifically the third part of the post --- and answer the question for me, which would you choose…. take the risk or ask to be turned into a stone? Not one person has dared answer that yet.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I beg your pardon, but I'm not providing any miracles whatsoever.

No, of course not. Except the ones where rocks turned into DNA and amino acids ...

Unfortunately, after a wild claim like that, the rest of your post will have to wait. You now have two options:

1.) Cite a peer-reviewed, scientific source that supports your claim that rocks turned into DNA and amino acids.
2.) Concede that you simply made a wild, unsubstantiated claim.

Note: Failure to satisfy the former will be viewed as a tacit admission of the latter.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that I'll be obliged to discontinue our discussion and regard you are a twaddlemonger going forward.

Thanks.

 

[thau]

Unfortunately, after a wild claim like that, the rest of your post will have to wait. You now have two options:

1.) Cite a peer-reviewed, scientific source that supports your claim that rocks turned into DNA and amino acids.
2.) Concede that you simply made a wild, unsubstantiated claim.

Note: Failure to satisfy the former will be viewed as a tacit admission of the latter.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that I'll be obliged to discontinue our discussion and regard you are a twaddlemonger going forward.

Thanks.

Semantics. For all intents and purposes that is what is claimed. Lifeless matter turned into DNA by chance. You can provide the illustrations.

 

[Bunyip]

Semantics. For all intents and purposes that is what is claimed. Lifeless matter turned into DNA by chance. You can provide the illustrations.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from - but it wasn't science. No offence, but if you think that abiogenesis is "lifeless matter turned into DNA by chance" you really need to go back and study high school science.

There is an important truth that you aapear to be unaware of - just making up a version of something that makes it sound as silly as possible isn't actually a logical rebuttal.

For example if I characterised genesis as the belief that God burped and a universe came out - it doesn't actually reflect genesis any more than your 'rocks turning into DNA' nonsense reflects abiogenesis.

 

[thau]

I'm not sure where you got that idea from - but it wasn't science. No offence, but if you think that abiogenesis is "lifeless matter turned into DNA by chance" you really need to go back and study high school science.

There is an important truth that you aapear to be unaware of - just making up a version of something that makes it sound as silly as possible isn't actually a logical rebuttal.

For example if I characterised genesis as the belief that God burped and a universe came out - it doesn't actually reflect genesis any more than your 'rocks turning into DNA' nonsense reflects abiogenesis.

A thousand pardons, but I just never cared enough about the details because the outline was so hard for me to swallow.

We can have DNA as our beginning point if that would simplify things. Still, according to godless evolution it all occurred by chance, or by random selection, or natural selection --- whatever that really means? It is a ll a ruse to me, don't mean to sound crass. But you take God out of the equation and what you have left is pride and folly, IMO. No mindless molecules will ever assemble themselves to create an eyeball or a brain or even a spleen without a guiding intelligent force. It is insulting to some of us to suggest otherwise.

 

[Nietzsche]

The $cientologist really shouldn't of have "flipped" to Human, damn it.

I really, really, really loved this though. I started laughing so hard when the Methodist guy said "Say what now?"

 

[Bunyip]

A thousand pardons, but I just never cared enough about the details because the outline was so hard for me to swallow.

The problem is that speaking out against science when you admit you never even cared to educate yourself in what science claims just makes you a propogandist. It is very dishonest.

We can have DNA as our beginning point if that would simplify things. Still, according to godless evolution it all occurred by chance, or by random selection, or natural selection --- whatever that really means?

So you don't think it makes sense - but don't even know what the terms mean?

It is a ll a ruse to me, don't mean to sound crass. But you take God out of the equation and what you have left is pride and folly, IMO. No mindless molecules will ever assemble themselves to create an eyeball or a brain or even a spleen without a guiding intelligent force. It is insulting to some of us to suggest otherwise.

No, what is insulting is that you think that is what science claims.

 

[thau]

The problem is that speaking out against science when you admit you never even cared to educate yourself in what science claims just makes you a propogandist. It is very dishonest. So you don't think it makes sense - but don't even know what the terms mean? No, what is insulting is that you think that is what science claims.

With all due respect, answers like yours bore me to tears. “That’s not what evolution is” is not an answer, it is an elitist dodge, imo.

The fact is, godless evolution claims that if you follow the family tree back man’s “great grandparents” were once primitive mammals (like maybe a mouse) and well before that some water bug, what have you? And all that by “natural selection” or survival of the fittest or whatever other fancy term you want to throw at us, and all by chance without any intelligent designer. Yeah, right!! So spare me the fact I lack education. You are the ones who lack truth and have the greatest amount of unbounded leaps of faith.

Then you have Richard Dawkins adamantly telling us no sign of God, no sign of intelligent design, --- except --- it all has the “illusion” of design. What insanity. (imo)

PS -- I do not want to turn this thread into an evolution debate. If you care, call me out in another top post and I will be glad to offer my less than expert opinions.

 

[Bunyip]

With all due respect, answers like yours bore me to tears. “That’s not what evolution is” is not an answer, it is an elitist dodge, imo.

Probably one of the most ridiculous complaints I have ever read. It is not what evolution means buddy - nobody needs to rebut your silly, ignorant strawman.

The fact is, godless evolution claims that if you follow the family tree back man’s “great grandparents” were once primitive mammals (like maybe a mouse) and well before that some water bug, what have you? And all that by “natural selection” or survival of the fittest or whatever other fancy term you want to throw at us, and all by chance without any intelligent designer. Yeah, right!! So spare me the fact I lack education. You are the ones who lack truth and have the greatest amount of unbounded leaps of faith.

Nope, no faith required - and you would know why if you understood the science you are trying to demonise.

Then you have Richard Dawkins adamantly telling us no sign of God, no sign of intelligent design, --- except --- it all has the “illusion” of design. What insanity. (imo)

PS -- I do not want to turn this thread into an evolution debate. If you care, call me out in another top post and I will be glad to offer my less than expert opinions.

Why would I do that? Your opinions are not founded in any actual knowledge or cncern for the truth. Why would I value the opinion of a person who does not care to inform them?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Semantics. For all intents and purposes that is what is claimed. Lifeless matter turned into DNA by chance. You can provide the illustrations.

As I said, failure to cite a peer-reviewed source that makes the claim that DNA was derived from rocks will be viewed as a tacit admission that the claim you made is unsubstantiated.

...

Anyway, unless you believe that God had no choice but to create the universe, aren't you still obliged to factor chance into the equation? If (for all intents and purposes) God opted to turn lifeless matter into DNA on a coin flip, you're OK with that ... but you're not OK with chance that doesn't involve the element of the divine?

 

[thau]

As I said, failure to cite a peer-reviewed source that makes the claim that DNA was derived from rocks will be viewed as a tacit admission that the claim you made is unsubstantiated.

Totally, nulliusinverba. I have never bothered to substantiate it nor does it make any difference to me. As I explained to your lab partner bunyip above, to put it in layman’s terms, one way or another godless evolution claims that man evolved without an intelligent designer from more primitive forms of animals. And if we trace man’s family tree way, way back we would have had to have come from some kind of water bug or the like. YES or NO? Not substantiated is what kind of “bug” or “plankton” or “microscopic organism” or “whatever the heck it is you people are so sure about call it?” but something of that nature. That was all I was trying to get at. And IF I can get some kind of concession from you scientists on that then I can follow up with my statement which is as follows ---

If you think incredibly complex man could have evolved from the most primitive forms of life without an intelligent designer, without a supreme intelligent force guiding the process, you people are sadly delusional. Or to put it even more frightfully --- you people who claim to be intelligent are being tricked by the devil because of pride or some other explanation. But until one humbles himself to the surety of God, it may never be manifest what is taking place.

Anyway, unless you believe that God had no choice but to create the universe, aren't you still obliged to factor chance into the equation? If (for all intents and purposes) God opted to turn lifeless matter into DNA on a coin flip, you're OK with that ... but you're not OK with chance that doesn't involve the element of the divine?

Chance is not even in the equation. Period! It is an egregious professional embarrassment to even try to make that claim. The probability that the Mona Lisa assembled itself on canvas without a creator by chance is insane. We did not have to see the painting created to know it had to have been created by something intelligent, not some random act. An eyeball or liver, et al. appearing by chance, far worse the notion. So to answer your question --- God does not rely on chance to create the world. He had a divine will and whatever mechanisms He used to bring it about, it was not chance. He had every intention of creating flora and fauna and was not hoping the elements he cast upon the earth might do it for Him and if they did not come to fruition He would feel sad and think to Himself --- “all I got here is another large rock like Neptune, darn.”

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Totally, nulliusinverba. I have never bothered to substantiate it nor does it make any difference to me.

Thanks. It's refreshing to occasionally encounter a theist who'll simply own up and admit that their wild claims are unsubstantiated.

... to put it in layman’s terms, one way or another godless evolution claims that man evolved without an intelligent designer ...

Does it? Or are you still resorting to fanciful, unsubstantiated baloney?

It's much more accurate to say that since there is no evidence for an intelligent creator, science isn't going to make any effort to accommodate such an imaginary factor into the equation.

It'd be like getting huffy because mathematicians refuse to include leprechauns in the equation! Imagine ...

1+1+leprechauns = 2 (and leprechauns)

And if we trace man’s family tree way, way back we would have had to have come from some kind of water bug or the like. YES or NO?

The evidence does seem to point to some sort of common ancestor. Damn those inescapable conclusions based on evidence!

Rather than just make stuff up whole-cloth, science must be content to deal only with what is supported by evidence. So we may never know the exact details regarding the origin of life. You can let this mystery vex you to the point where you'll accept theological (non-)explanations, or you can simply accept not knowing (yet).

Anyway, evolution isn't an attempt to explain the origin of life. It's simply the best working model we have to explain speciation. That's all.

Not substantiated is what kind of “bug” or “plankton” or “microscopic organism” or “whatever the heck it is you people are so sure about call it?” but something of that nature. That was all I was trying to get at.

Again, it's much more honest to say "I don't know" then to make stuff up. Science doesn't claim to know what kind of "bug or plankton" was involved, so to drop the word "unsubstantiated" into the mix is misleading.

And IF I can get some kind of concession from you scientists on that then I can follow up with my statement which is as follows ---

I'm not going to fault science for failing to invent fanciful (non-)explanations for the origin of life. Sorry.

If you think incredibly complex man could have evolved from the most primitive forms of life without an intelligent designer, without a supreme intelligent force guiding the process, you people are sadly delusional.

More unsubstantiated claims. Argument from ignorance.

Q. - So who created God?

If the answer is "nothing" you can add Special Pleading to the laundry list of fallacies involved in creationism.

Or to put it even more frightfully --- you people who claim to be intelligent are being tricked by the devil because of pride or some other explanation.

You have not demonstrated that "the devil" even exists. That makes two imaginary beings! It's a celestial two-fer!

If we throw in The Trinity, it's an even better deal. Just think: If you get tricked into buying the Brooklyn Bridge, you've only been hoodwinked once. If you're getting ready to fork over your cash for the Brooklyn Bridge, and the con man throws in the Golden Gate Bridge ... maybe you should pause and reflect?

But until one humbles himself to the surety of God, it may never be manifest what is taking place.

Believing that the entire universe was created ex nihilo on your behalf so you could have a personal relationship with an alleged-to-exist supernatural being isn't humility. It's the Nth degree of egotistical hubris.

Chance is not even in the equation. Period!

So you believe that your god had no option? You believe that your god was obliged to create the universe?

Because if your god wasn't obliged to create the universe, it seems to me that chance is still very much a part of the equation. Theists who believe that their god had options regarding creation actually rely entirely on chance as a bedrock assumption in their worldview.

So it seems odd to me that they turn their nose up and cry "chance" on evolution, which basically describes an inevitable process resulting from three simple factors:

1.) Creatures mate.
2.) Traits are inheritable.
3.) Populations can become isolated.

The probability that the Mona Lisa assembled itself on canvas without a creator by chance is insane.

Actually, to compare the universe to a mere painting that was demonstrably painted by a human being is insane.

We did not have to see the painting created to know it had to have been created by something intelligent, not some random act.

The artist might have painted something else. So there was some chance involved. Or the artist might have not painted anything. Again ... chance is involved.

Anyway, your analogy is flawed. We know that paintings are painted. We do not know that the universe was created.

An eyeball or liver, et al. appearing by chance, far worse the notion.

Organs didn't appear by chance. The evidence suggests that they evolved.

It's amusing. Theists insist that God created man in his own image ... they then cite human creations as evidence that evolution cannot happen ... but they ignore the fact that human creations clearly evolve over time.

So to answer your question --- God does not rely on chance to create the world.

Right. God had no choice. So it wasn't even a 50/50 coin flip. God had to create the universe.

If so ... what compelled your god to create?

He had a divine will and whatever mechanisms He used to bring it about, it was not chance.

So you're saying that free will and divine will are essentially polar opposites? Divine will means you have no choice in the matter, correct? I guess that's why they call "free will" free?

He had every intention of creating flora and fauna and was not hoping the elements he cast upon the earth might do it for Him and if they did not come to fruition He would feel sad and think to Himself --- “all I got here is another large rock like Neptune, darn.”

Speaking on the behalf of your creator deity as if you have some sort of Celestial Hotline is also the Nth degree of hubris.

And Neptune isn't a large rock. Its core is apparently believed to be composed of iron and nickel.

And even if the science that suggests that this is the case turns out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that we know that Neptune's core is composed of rock. Even if it were discovered that Neptune's core actually is made of rock, science will simply amend itself and move on. Meanwhile, theists will still be obliged to resort to semantic tap-dancing to explain why the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds or why the Bible also declares that the hyrax chews its cud.

 

[thau]

Thanks. It's refreshing to occasionally encounter a theist who'll simply own up and admit that their wild claims are unsubstantiated.



Does it? Or are you still resorting to fanciful, unsubstantiated baloney?

It's much more accurate to say that since there is no evidence for an intelligent creator, science isn't going to make any effort to accommodate such an imaginary factor into the equation.

It'd be like getting huffy because mathematicians refuse to include leprechauns in the equation! Imagine ...

1+1+leprechauns = 2 (and leprechauns)



The evidence does seem to point to some sort of common ancestor. Damn those inescapable conclusions based on evidence!

Rather than just make stuff up whole-cloth, science must be content to deal only with what is supported by evidence. So we may never know the exact details regarding the origin of life. You can let this mystery vex you to the point where you'll accept theological (non-)explanations, or you can simply accept not knowing (yet).

Anyway, evolution isn't an attempt to explain the origin of life. It's simply the best working model we have to explain speciation. That's all.



Again, it's much more honest to say "I don't know" then to make stuff up. Science doesn't claim to know what kind of "bug or plankton" was involved, so to drop the word "unsubstantiated" into the mix is misleading.



I'm not going to fault science for failing to invent fanciful (non-)explanations for the origin of life. Sorry.



More unsubstantiated claims. Argument from ignorance.

Q. - So who created God?

If the answer is "nothing" you can add Special Pleading to the laundry list of fallacies involved in creationism.



You have not demonstrated that "the devil" even exists. That makes two imaginary beings! It's a celestial two-fer!

If we throw in The Trinity, it's an even better deal. Just think: If you get tricked into buying the Brooklyn Bridge, you've only been hoodwinked once. If you're getting ready to fork over your cash for the Brooklyn Bridge, and the con man throws in the Golden Gate Bridge ... maybe you should pause and reflect?



Believing that the entire universe was created ex nihilo on your behalf so you could have a personal relationship with an alleged-to-exist supernatural being isn't humility. It's the Nth degree of egotistical hubris.



So you believe that your god had no option? You believe that your god was obliged to create the universe?

Because if your god wasn't obliged to create the universe, it seems to me that chance is still very much a part of the equation. Theists who believe that their god had options regarding creation actually rely entirely on chance as a bedrock assumption in their worldview.

So it seems odd to me that they turn their nose up and cry "chance" on evolution, which basically describes an inevitable process resulting from three simple factors:

1.) Creatures mate.
2.) Traits are inheritable.
3.) Populations can become isolated.



Actually, to compare the universe to a mere painting that was demonstrably painted by a human being is insane.



The artist might have painted something else. So there was some chance involved. Or the artist might have not painted anything. Again ... chance is involved.

Anyway, your analogy is flawed. We know that paintings are painted. We do not know that the universe was created.



Organs didn't appear by chance. The evidence suggests that they evolved.

It's amusing. Theists insist that God created man in his own image ... they then cite human creations as evidence that evolution cannot happen ... but they ignore the fact that human creations clearly evolve over time.



Right. God had no choice. So it wasn't even a 50/50 coin flip. God had to create the universe.

If so ... what compelled your god to create?



So you're saying that free will and divine will are essentially polar opposites? Divine will means you have no choice in the matter, correct? I guess that's why they call "free will" free?



Speaking on the behalf of your creator deity as if you have some sort of Celestial Hotline is also the Nth degree of hubris.

And Neptune isn't a large rock. Its core is apparently believed to be composed of iron and nickel.

And even if the science that suggests that this is the case turns out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that we know that Neptune's core is composed of rock. Even if it were discovered that Neptune's core actually is made of rock, science will simply amend itself and move on. Meanwhile, theists will still be obliged to resort to semantic tap-dancing to explain why the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds or why the Bible also declares that the hyrax chews its cud.

Nice script you have there, I am sure some liberal Hollywood mogul would embrace it. But I am going to have to cut this evolution exchange short.


[me: ...to put it in layman’s terms, one way or another godless evolution claims that man evolved without an intelligent designer ]

you: "Does it? Or are you still resorting to fanciful, unsubstantiated baloney? "

Ok, so now it sounds like you are saying you do believe in intelligent design? That’s encouraging. Because that was my entire point --- To those who say there is no evidence evolution occurred with a higher intelligent force than man guiding the process they are lying to themselves and causing havoc. (imo) You cannot be on the fence on this one, that’s lame.

Essentially those who attest evolution could have occurred without an intelligent they are echoing Richard Dawkins famous declaration in his book The Blind Watchmaker, i.e. “"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

He is saying natural selection cannot see, does not plan, has no purpose in view. And yet, mindless molecules chase each other around and create the most uncanny of physiological systems whose functions appear to be light years more ingenious than anything man can produce even with his gift of intelligent design. This is such an oxymoron to me it strikes me more as an egotistical denial of an obvious truth.

God has revealed Himself in a myriad of ways and signs that has nothing to do with evolution (Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, The Shroud, weeping statues, exorcisms, the Bible, the saints, documented history, et al.) Considering all that evidence for God why is it so strange to think God was involved with the creation of life and not the inane thought it was random experiments by mindless matter without hardly any signs of failure in the fossil record constructing these amazing machines? It’s your waterloo.

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes convinced that evolution is based on faith alone”- Louis Trenchard, Professor of Physics University of Cincinnati

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You can have the last word on this subject, but why might you not revisit my other charges earlier in this thread, or at a minimum answer my one question no one dares in my other thread --- i.e., Which would you choose, the chance for heaven at the risk of hell, or rather just be turned into a stone when you leave earth with no consciousness or risk of pain?