Confessional

Quote: FrGamble

Did you read any of the links I provided?

Life's much too short to waste on fantasy.

When an Egyptologist comes up with credible evidence for the Exodus, I'll listen.

Quote:

As I think you know that was the greatest and most lasting failure of the whole sorry mess.

Why? No one ever would successfully attack Constantinople again until the 1450s! Have you any idea how impregnable the city's defenses were? It was a military achievement not seen since the (false) Mycenean victory over Troy.

Quote:

Good point, I agree war is hell and always a failure of humanity.

How easily you dismiss a religious war.

Quote:

Tell me though when before have we ever seen the wonton and capricious slaughtering and genocide of people before such atheistic leaders as Hitler, Stalin, and the cast of morons we saw in the 20th century. Are you trying to say that their atheism did not contribute in any way to their political and moral positions?

Well, it's like this: I cannot say that someone steeped in mysticism and pseudoscientific nonsense is an atheist, merely because they don't believe in any of the versions of Jehovah you like to bandy about. Such people either want a strong leader to put a leash around their neck, or yearn to dominate others. We have many such people right here, in case you haven't noticed the mindless levels of support for the Orange Clown of New York City.

Replacing religion with occult "sciences," reincarnation, conspiracies, Marxism, racism, socialism, etc., is merely a case of replacing one bad thing with an equally bad thing. it would be a bit like replacing alcohol with heroin. Either way, you're still an addict.

Quote: Nareed

Christianity arose in the First Century CE. By the IV Century there were at least four splinters: Arianism, Monophysitism, Donatism and the official Roman Nicaean creed.

You need to follow the successor of St. Peter, the Pope, in order to clearly understand that these heresies you mentioned were always that, heresies. There was always and still is today one (as you say) official Catholic (meaning universal) creed.

Quote: FrGamble

You need to follow the successor of St. Peter, the Pope, in order to clearly understand that these heresies you mentioned were always that, heresies.

You need to understand that a splinter tends to keep splintering. Christianity splintered from Judaism, naturally almost at once it suffered splintered versions of itself.

Oh, BTW, there were at least 5 splinters by the IV Century CE. I'd forgotten Gnosticism.

Quote:

There was always and still is today one (as you say) official Catholic (meaning universal) creed.

That's even funnier than the Bible recommendation line. I told you the week was young :)

Quote: FrGamble

I think we could only agree that dark matter exists and not what exactly it is made of.

Don't change the rules. An authority who has forgotten more physics you ever even knew existed states dark matter is composed of unicorn tears. Can you disprove it?

Quote:

Just like you should be able to admit that God aka "a cause of the universe" exists without knowing exactly what it is made of.

Oh, you don't want to know what part of the unicorn deities are made of....

But seriously, all the evidence gathered by science since the inception of the scientific method, points to impersonal, mindless forces and energies as the prime movers of the universe. I've mentioned this a number of times, supplying proof several times. Further, you keep assuming the energy making up the universe was created, by the Jehovah, at the moment of the Big Bang, whereas Fr. Lemaitre's theory, much expanded since he formulated it, show the energy was there all along.

Ergo, there is no reason at all to believe some sentient being separate from the universe has anything at all to do with the Big Bang.

And I still don't have to prove that Loki, Jehovah, Sechmed, Astarte, Amun, etc. did not create the universe.

Quote:

You cannot prove someone is guilty without evidence.

Of course you can. If you set up the rules to allow it. Don't believe me? Find all those burned at the stake or tortured by the Catholic Inquisition in Spain and elsewhere.

Quote:

I have presented evidence, that the defense strenuously objects to, as to why there is God. You have provided no evidence at all for your position. It is not reasonable for you, outside of the courtroom and in real life, to hold that there is no God without anything to support your crazy position.

Having admitted you play the prosecution, it's your job to prove, beyond any doubt, that there is a god, and that it is not Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Herakles, Minerva, Venus, Hermes, Melkart, or any of several other thousand gods out there.

If this were a trial, I'd confidently rest without presenting a case, because the prosecution hasn't come within a light year of meeting its burden.

Quote:

Again in real life there is no evidence that either are real and plenty of evidence as to why we should not offer human sacrifices.

Is it not glaringly obvious Huixlipoxtli gets so thirsty for blood he has to make people slaughter each other in great numbers? What is your evidence this isn't so?

Quote: FrGamble

For the majority of time that Christianity has existed there has been only one Church. The Reformation is why there are so many other beliefs.

You act like the Reformation was a bad thing.
It's still going on today. It had to happen and
has nothing to do with god. The Church was
so corrupt, it was strangling under it's own
weight of criminality. The people were sick and
tired of it and when an alternative came along,
they jumped at it. It's kind of like the old
Teamsters Union. They became so big and so
rich and so corrupt, they too eventually collapsed
from there own criminal weight. They're a shadow
today of what they once were.

What were seeing now, with the aftermath of the
priest molestation scandals, is just part of the
reason the Reformation happened. The recent scandals
show us what the entire Church was like in the
1500's. Arrogant, above the law, even their own gods
law. Now we're witnessing the Church is it's death
throes, as it's bleeding money, has huge debts, is
closing schools and churches almost on a daily basis,
and has an aging clergy that will soon send the whole
organization over the cliff and into history.

Quote: Nareed

Don't change the rules. An authority who has forgotten more physics you ever even knew existed states dark matter is composed of unicorn tears. Can you disprove it?

Surely I could ask for his evidence or the opinion of other experts. What kind of rules are you playing by? No, I would not believe something just because an authority said it. Nor should you.

Quote:

But seriously, all the evidence gathered by science since the inception of the scientific method, points to impersonal, mindless forces and energies as the prime movers of the universe.

Science itself is based on the universe following certain rules and laws and order. It would seem strange would it not that at its very beginning it was just a mindless force?

Quote:

I've mentioned this a number of times, supplying proof several times.

You've supplied nothing of the sort, you couldn't. How could science point to a mindless force and energy when everything follows such careful extremely precise laws that do not vary?

Quote:

Further, you keep assuming the energy making up the universe was created, by the Jehovah, at the moment of the Big Bang, whereas Fr. Lemaitre's theory, much expanded since he formulated it, show the energy was there all along.

Now, you have won the funniest comment of this thread award!

Quote:

Ergo, there is no reason at all to believe some sentient being separate from the universe has anything at all to do with the Big Bang.

Your premises are non existent and your conclusion is pulled out of the part of unicorns that create deities.

Quote:

Having admitted you play the prosecution, it's your job to prove, beyond any doubt, that there is a god, and that it is not Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Herakles, Minerva, Venus, Hermes, Melkart, or any of several other thousand gods out there.

The prosecution asks that this case be dismissed as it is not the proper place to discover these truths. But before the judge throws the case out to be discussed in a debate, which is where it belongs he also asks you if you would like to have the case you are prosecuting thrown out? Remember if I am prosecuting for the existence of God then you are doing the same for the non-existence of God. Can you prove, beyond any doubt, that there is no God? Don't you think we should both pursue these noble and important questions outside of the courtroom?

Quote:

If this were a trial, I'd confidently rest without presenting a case, because the prosecution hasn't come within a light year of meeting its burden.

It would be quite an interesting countersuit as well.

Quote: Evenbob

You act like the Reformation was a bad thing.
It's still going on today.

Amen and Alleluia! The Church like all of us needs constant reformation and improvement. The moment you think you've got it all figured out or that you are perfect is the most dangerous moment. The Church's history bears this out, as do our own lives if we are honest.

I was speaking of the historical Reformation of course, which did help reform the Church. I believe outside of the political forces that seized the moment and the stubbornness of men the Reformation would not have led to the splintering of the Church we see today. I also believe that if Martin Luther came back today he would see none of the abuses he rightly pointed out existed in the Church of his day.

Quote: FrGamble

There is proof for precious little in this world.

irrelivant.

This does not mean that nothing can be proven, or all evidence carries the same weight and confidence, or lack thereof, or there is no such thing as a level of confidence associated with everything that we consider to be real and the truth.

Quote:

There is evidence that you are a real person based on your intelligent posts but it could be a machine. The evidence supports both but reason uses the evidence to conclude that you are a real person.

Here's the fun part - it is testable to determine whether or not I am a real person.

Quote:

I haven't disproven the other explanations such as you are a ghost or an AI computer program but I can reasonably and correctly believe you are real. Do you see how this works? This is how we live life on a daily basis. You do this faith based reasonable conclusions based on evidence and experience a million times a day.

Again, not all expressions of faith are based on the same quality and confidence in the evidence. You don't get to say that because I take something that we have high confidence in the evidence in on faith that we should accept equally on faith something for which there is little confidence in the evidence.

Insert into confidence words like test-ability, verify-ability, fidelity, veracity.

Taking one thing on faith does not mean that I must accept everything that is taken in faith, and believe in all things with equal levels of confidence.

Quote:

I will keep an open mind in new evidence or experiences present themselves but keeping an open mind doesn't mean I stop believing what I know to be true.

Try to keep an open mind the next time we discuss alternative theories regarding the creation and formation of the universe.

Quote:

> Did god really kill nearly everyone?
No.

Then why did you say:

Quote:

In regards to Noah it is made clear that there is not a good man left besides Noah and his family. Sin was rampant Could you imagine what it must have been like for humanity in the midst of chaos, violence, unrestrained lust, power, and greed. It was mercy that led to the flood and immediately God repented and sent the rainbow.

?

What is the point of teaching this story, and what is the point of the story, if there was no great flood, god did not kill nearly everyone out of mercy, and since he did not kill nearly everyone, he had nothing to repent for by sending a rainbow?

Quote: FrGamble

Surely I could ask for his evidence or the opinion of other experts. What kind of rules are you playing by?

I'm playing by your rules. Hawking makes a ridiculous, baseless claim, and dares you to disprove it.

And I'm still waiting.

Quote:

Science itself is based on the universe following certain rules and laws and order.

Science is based on objective measurements and the application of reason through the scientific method. The mathematical relationships that describe how the universe and aspects of it function, is a result of science, not it's base.

And here all this time I thought you knew what science was. This explains much.

Quote:

You've supplied nothing of the sort, you couldn't. How could science point to a mindless force and energy when everything follows such careful extremely precise laws that do not vary?

How can you say they don't vary when we see them vary? Entropy always increases in a closed system. In an open system it doesn't always increase. that's a variation. Newton's laws of motion do not apply to subatomic particles. At one level all motions are deterministic, and at another they are probabilistic.

Quote:

Now, you have won the funniest comment of this thread award!

At least I'm not making the bones of old Fr. Lemaitre turn in his grave.

Quote: Nareed

I'm playing by your rules. Hawking makes a ridiculous, baseless claim, and dares you to disprove it.

And I'm still waiting.

If he has no evidence or reason behind his assertion than while I cannot disprove it I would not consider it true. It is kind of like your making the ridiculous, baseless claim that there is no God. If you have no evidence or reason behind you then I would not consider it true.

Quote:

Science is based on objective measurements and the application of reason through the scientific method. The mathematical relationships that describe how the universe and aspects of it function, is a result of science, not it's base.

Ha, a result of science you say? Science is about discovery. It is based on objective observations that through the scientific method discover relationships that can be expressed mathematically. It discovers facts. The interpretation of these facts such as why there is the uncanny and precise laws that govern these relationships is not strictly science, but rather philosophical pursuits.

Quote:

And here all this time I thought you knew what science was. This explains much.

I kind of already knew that you didn't know the limits of science.

Quote:

How can you say they don't vary when we see them vary? Entropy always increases in a closed system. In an open system it doesn't always increase. that's a variation. Newton's laws of motion do not apply to subatomic particles. At one level all motions are deterministic, and at another they are probabilistic.

I think you know what I meant, but thanks for bringing up these things. Isn't science and our universe so fascinating!

Quote:

At least I'm not making the bones of old Fr. Lemaitre turn in his grave.

I'm not, I believe he is smiling down from Heaven in the hopes that you may one day realize his important scientific discoveries were not philosophical or theological statements. "Proving that energy has always been there" I think you said - that made all of Heaven laugh a little, except St. Thomas Aquinas he doesn't think illogical statements are funny at all.