Hey FrGamble!

Quote: FrGamble

Yes it does, but it does not call into question the law of not killing an innocent person. In discussing this with people you will notice that nobody ever rejects the premise that we shouldn't kill innocent people. The question always revolves around who is innocent. Is an unborn baby or a heretic or a violent criminal innocent? This is the field of moral theology or morality in general. It assumes these moral laws and discusses then how to apply these laws.



Again nobody argues that it is moral to lie. There are many good discussions as to when withholding the truth or saying something false should not be considered lying.



Again nobody says it is okay to steal. However in the interesting case you mentioned St. Thomas claims that the starving family deserves that horded food and that it is not stealing to take it because it is their food unjustly held from them.

So, stealing isn't stealing if it isn't stealing, lying isn't lying if it isn't lying, but lying and stealing are universally bad?

And killing the innocent is universally bad, but what innocent and guilty are isn't universal, absolute, and unchanging.

Let's look at the st thomas-like case. If several people go and claim this unjustly held food, it isn't stealing. But what if you are the next person, and stealing the food would make the other person starve? What if the person with all of the food can't feed everyone? What if he gave out some food already - is it better to steal some while you can to make sure you are one of the people that will get some food?

At the end of it, though, redefining stealing as not stealing and lying as not lying if it is justified is a big cop-out and leads to being able to justify breaking any of the universal moral truths, like I already gave examples of.

Pew research did put forth some theories about the decline of the major religious groups and the advance of the "nones"

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/#sidebar-some-theories-about-root-causes-of-the-rise-of-the-unaffiliated

1. Political backlash
2. Delays in marriage
3. Broad social disengagement
4. Secularization

None of those theories, if you look at their descriptions in the article, really describe "secular materialism"

they do say the poor tend to be more religious, those with more stuff are less religious, EXCEPT in the united states where we have a lot of stuff and are more religious than a lot of poorer places.

I saw another article which tentatively links the internet itself to the decline in religion - the ability to fact-check and find like-minded people of other religions and no religion has led to the ability to easily change what group you consider yourself a part of, thus increasing the "nones"

Since we were talking about women again, here is the encyclical on marriage, the proper role of women, and the opposition of the church to the women's vote.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

That is from 1930, and that pope is particularly wordy, it is a bit too much to quote. Women obeying their husbands is in #28 and 29, and the opposition to women voting, working, or handling their own affairs is in #74. Here is a small part of it:

Quote:

finally economic, whereby the woman even without the
knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at
liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving
her attention chiefly to these rather than to children,
husband and family.

I didn't find yet the chuch's current position on stay-at-home dads, but the clear directive in 1930 was for stay-at-home moms who did not vote.

By 1947 women were being encouraged in an encyclical to vote to preserve traditional family values.

Quote: Dalex64

So, stealing isn't stealing if it isn't stealing, lying isn't lying if it isn't lying, but lying and stealing are universally bad?

And killing the innocent is universally bad, but what innocent and guilty are isn't universal, absolute, and unchanging.

Let's look at the st thomas-like case. If several people go and claim this unjustly held food, it isn't stealing. But what if you are the next person, and stealing the food would make the other person starve? What if the person with all of the food can't feed everyone? What if he gave out some food already - is it better to steal some while you can to make sure you are one of the people that will get some food?

At the end of it, though, redefining stealing as not stealing and lying as not lying if it is justified is a big cop-out and leads to being able to justify breaking any of the universal moral truths, like I already gave examples of.

Welcome to the fascinating and confusing world of Moral Theology. These are all legitimate questions and they show how messy life is and how merciful and understanding God is. I look forward to hearing any further thoughts you have in regards to the questions you raised. However, I point out again that never once did you claim killing, stealing, or lying are moral or good things to do. Nobody does because they are universal moral truths.

Quote: Dalex64

You are using infinite regression to claim that there is only one universe, and only one god, when it would be perfectly possible for there to be more than one, as long as it is a finite number. Infinite regression says that there can't be an infinite number, that it must be finite. It doesn't say that since infinite regression is illogical that there must be only one of something. THAT is illogical.

There is a lot of misunderstanding going on here. I am simply stating that logical clearly dictates that there must be a cause for all that exists. It is not my concern if there are many universes. Ultimately no matter how many there are, and you are correct it must be a finite number, there exists an ultimate cause of it all. I am not choosing when a regression stops I just know by thinking rightly that it must stop and when it does there is God.

Quote:

"This step requires faith" also ends the possibility of a logical argument. Anyone can fill in any details that they like. You can make up anything. You can use arguments like - god created the fossils in the rocks to test our faith.

Now, that isn't to say I don't have faith in things. A great scientific example is that we don't know what causes gravity. I have faith that there is some natural cause of gravity, some law of the universe. We might not ever figure out what it is - it might not be the higgs boson.

You have a lot more faith than that. Faith is what makes life possible and happen all around us. It is not the end of a logical argument unless you are thinking about blind faith and rest assured I do not have blind faith nor do I think anyone should. We can talk about what is the evidence that you consider and the experiences you have had that led to your faith to believe in God or to believe there is no God. Faith is not something you just make up it is based on reason and the convergence of many probabilities.

In regards to your example of the smallest particle or bit of matter. You are right we might have not discovered it yet, and maybe we cannot, but we know that there is a smallest particle. Without one there would be nothing because we would fall again into a real infinite regress which is a logical and practical impossibility.

Quote:

Anyway, you can not combine the impossibility of infinite regression with a decision that this one thing must be the finite end of the regression. All you can really say is that at some point it must stop. There is no proof and no evidence that it stopped when you say it stopped.

Again just so we are clear I am suggesting that the regression stops at any certain time or after one or any number of universes, all I am saying is that when it does stop, and stop it must, there is the first cause of all things and the all-powerful, eternal entity we call God.

Quote:

Logic isn't proof. If you walk around a city of houses, and everywhere you have looked the houses are white on all sides, and come up to a house you haven't seen before. It is white on the side you can see. What color is it on the other side?

This is a good example of the difference between logic and probability, which I will consider faith. In the example of the house with the one side you can see that is white, logic says simply that there is another side and it has a color. That is true and it is provable, it is a certain guarantee. This is the existence of God a logical truth. Now if all you have been seeing all day everywhere in this town is white house on all sides then you can have a fairly certain faith that the other side is white. It doesn't logically have to be, but your reason and experience lead you to firmly believe even without seeing it that the other side is white.

Please note I also pointed out that there is a possibility that there exists unseen and possibly unseeable evidence that can contradict the conclusions you have drawn from your observations. There is a large universe of houses that are white... on the side that you can see. Your experience and firm beliefs could be quite simply wrong.

Here is another theory that is consistent with the evidence, and that all the evidence supports:

A supreme being creates the universe, then departs.

Through a series of highly improbable events, life forms on a planet, becomes intelligent, and conquers the challenges of traversing vast interstellar distances.

This race comes to earth, which through a series of natural disasters has restarted the whole genesis of life and evolution several times. They find here some semi-intelligent, semi-conscious hominids.

Through genetic engineering and selective breeding, they slowly develop these hominids into the first true humans, Adam and Eve. They appear as gods to us. They walk amongst us, often in different guises. They impart to us their instruction and wisdom. They may even be dissatisfied with their creations, and wipe most of them out in a large local flood of cleansing, and start over.

Many years later, they impregnate a young girl and produce Jesus. He is different from the rest of us. He knows where he came from. This highly advanced race possesses technology that is able to produce miracles in the eyes of the people. Things may or may not work out the way they designed, and Jesus dies. Their technology allows them to reanimate the recently deceased, and they send Jesus around for his final visits. They follow his apostles around for a while, secretly performing miracles on their behalf. With the risk of detection growing with our advancement, they depart after the death of the last apostle.

The evidence supporting this theory is everywhere you look, if you are willing to see it. It even explains why miracles since the time of the apostles could be attributed to pure chance.

Care to disprove any of that?

Quote: Dalex64

This race comes to earth, which through a series of natural disasters has restarted the whole genesis of life and evolution several times.

Sort of like a giant bio etch-a=sketch

Quote: Dalex64

Please note I also pointed out that there is a possibility that there exists unseen and possibly unseeable evidence

I think Occam's Razor applies here.
The most obvious answer is the
right one. The universe has been
here forever in one form or another
and so have we. Why is this so hard
to grasp for some people.

It's because they think they see endings
and beginnings, but what they really
see is change that looks like an end
or a start. It's very plausible that the universe
has always been here. By universe I mean
the whole thing outside of the Big Bang.
It's only a mystery because we don't know
all the answers yet. Everything is a mystery
at one time or another.

It occurred to me that if you are actually inside of a black hole, all you can see is white?

Quote: petroglyph

It occurred to me that if you are actually inside of a black hole, all you can see is white?

No, if you're at Martha's Vineyard all you
see is white.