You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Catholic priest views on god.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Nothing of the kind has been proven.
If you delude yourself into thinking such things are even provable from within the universe to what exists outside of or prior to the material universe, you just end up as deluded as the atheists.
Acceptance that we cannot know is the act of faith, so why would someone of faith try and sink to the level of the materialists?
Sounds like your faith is shaky to me, as you try to bolster it with materialism.
It is one thing to make ontological arguments on the basis of pure logic, but quite another to make flawed arguments on the basis of incompleteness, which is the history of the physical and material sciences...
If you delude yourself into thinking such things are even provable from within the universe to what exists outside of or prior to the material universe, you just end up as deluded as the atheists.
Acceptance that we cannot know is the act of faith, so why would someone of faith try and sink to the level of the materialists?
Sounds like your faith is shaky to me, as you try to bolster it with materialism.
It is one thing to make ontological arguments on the basis of pure logic, but quite another to make flawed arguments on the basis of incompleteness, which is the history of the physical and material sciences...
Quote from jem:
but the way 777.. that is uncovering proof...
if you saw a watch... you would say that is proof of a watch designer.
Unless you created a theory that there are infinite universe and everything is possible so therefore it is possible molecules came together just right to create a watch.
--
now I know that is an update to the old watch maker argument... but it is science who is now confirming that if there is only one universe our universe could not have gotten here by chance. Top scientists are stating that in overwhelming numbers. Just look at the last quote. And that is from the field of biology.
It is a hard fact for some to accept, but the opinions of scientists, is not in itself science. History is littered with opinions of scientists proved to be false over the advancement of science.
Just as the opinions of judges influence the legal process, their opinions are not generation of laws, though it may appear that way from the ignorant point of view.
Science is a process independent of the opinions of scientists.
The more you try to use a scientist and his/her opinion to support religion, the more your faith appears to be void of true spiritual experience...
The spiritual experience transcends the limits of the human intellect, so making intellectual rationalizations for or against God is a fools play.
Ontological arguments are the only purely reasonable arguments out there, and they have never been proved true or false on a purely logical level, nor have they been rendered true or false by any scientific experimentation.
On a purely personal level, I believe your faith has been shaken, simply because you were raised in a religion that was to be taken completely on faith, and your intellectual mind has some problems with taking things completely on faith, so you scramble to find some supporting evidence to give yourself some comfort.
True spiritual experience and true faith needs nothing external to support it, nor is there any real need to convert or convince someone else who is devoid of that spiritual experience and faith is true for the person who has that experience.
I have never said the atheists are wrong in their belief systems, just that they have no real logical foundation to dismiss the spiritual experience and faith, and they have no better standing to proselytize their beliefs on the theists as the theists have the right to proselytize their faith onto the non believers.
Just as the opinions of judges influence the legal process, their opinions are not generation of laws, though it may appear that way from the ignorant point of view.
Science is a process independent of the opinions of scientists.
The more you try to use a scientist and his/her opinion to support religion, the more your faith appears to be void of true spiritual experience...
The spiritual experience transcends the limits of the human intellect, so making intellectual rationalizations for or against God is a fools play.
Ontological arguments are the only purely reasonable arguments out there, and they have never been proved true or false on a purely logical level, nor have they been rendered true or false by any scientific experimentation.
On a purely personal level, I believe your faith has been shaken, simply because you were raised in a religion that was to be taken completely on faith, and your intellectual mind has some problems with taking things completely on faith, so you scramble to find some supporting evidence to give yourself some comfort.
True spiritual experience and true faith needs nothing external to support it, nor is there any real need to convert or convince someone else who is devoid of that spiritual experience and faith is true for the person who has that experience.
I have never said the atheists are wrong in their belief systems, just that they have no real logical foundation to dismiss the spiritual experience and faith, and they have no better standing to proselytize their beliefs on the theists as the theists have the right to proselytize their faith onto the non believers.
Quote from jem:
would you be more comfortable if I used the word evidence of a Creator?
âWhen I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.â
- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
--
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.â
- Albert Einstein
---
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say âsupernaturalâ) plan.â
- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
---
It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.â
âIt now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.â
-Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater
---
There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matterânot of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.â
- Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931).
--
16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that âa superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.â
- Hoyle, Fred. âThe Universe: Past and Present Reflections,â in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16
(for more of these coincidences click here)
---
âIf you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.â
- Christian de Duve. âA Guided Tour of the Living Cellâ (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)
--
http://www.simpletoremember.com/art...science-quotes/
and there more at that link...
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
It is a hard fact for some to accept, but the opinions of scientists, is not in itself science. History is littered with opinions of scientists proved to be false over the advancement of science.
Just as the opinions of judges influence the legal process, their opinions are not generation of laws, though it may appear that way from the ignorant point of view.
Science is a process independent of the opinions of scientists.
The more you try to use a scientist and his/her opinion to support religion, the more your faith appears to be void of true spiritual experience...
The spiritual experience transcends the limits of the human intellect, so making intellectual rationalizations for or against God is a fools play.
Ontological arguments are the only purely reasonable arguments out there, and they have never been proved true or false on a purely logical level, nor have they been rendered true or false by any scientific experimentation.
On a purely personal level, I believe your faith has been shaken, simply because you were raised in a religion that was to be taken completely on faith, and your intellectual mind has some problems with taking things completely on faith, so you scramble to find some supporting evidence to give yourself some comfort.
True spiritual experience and true faith needs nothing external to support it, nor is there any real need to convert or convince someone else who is devoid of that spiritual experience and faith is true for the person who has that experience.
I have never said the atheists are wrong in their belief systems, just that they have no real logical foundation to dismiss the spiritual experience and faith, and they have no better standing to proselytize their beliefs on the theists as the theists have the right to proselytize their faith onto the non believers.
Thanks for the dissertation it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt why you need an expert in certain areas.
Because it is apparent you do not have the training or experience in either science or Law to have a valid opinion, I understand why you think every opinion is worthless. Without proper experience and discernment everything seems to be as worthless as your opinion.
But, lucky I do have training and experience and I am licensed by two states to give my opinion on the subject of law. And I tell your post proves why the states are wise to make people take Bar exams. You were dead ass wrong.
1. You seem to not understand the difference between statutory law and common law.
The U.S. Supreme Court judges make LAW.
Last I checked CT did not even have statutory law, it was all common law. Judges make common law. I am still laughing my ass off.
Your post proves the opposite of what you were trying to argue.
It is the funniest thing you have ever written. It has to be the most embarrassing troll moment ever.
You prove why one must go with the experts when searching for scientific or legal answers.
2. Regarding science again a little legal training might have helped you understand the concept of expertise. And when a trier of fact realizes you need expertise to have a valid opinion.
in many cases to have a valid opinion you have to have a firm grasp of the science and math.
In other words you have to be an expert.
When a noble prize winner says that random chance could be the cause of the birth of a bacteria because there is not enough time for it to happen you... you 777 do not have the background to even challenge him ...
You do not know if his conclusion is scientific or not.
Until you have some other expert offering a contrary opinion, I choose the nobel prize winner's scientific understanding over yours.
.
Is it your position he can not support his statement in with science?
âIf you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.â
- Christian de Duve. âA Guided Tour of the Living Cellâ (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)
On evolution, abiogenesis, and blind watchmakers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
I'm not picking a side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
I'm not picking a side.
You don't have knowledge of what I was/am trained in.
Keep guessing...
Or make your own arguments, which are continually filled with emotionalism and logical fallacy.
I'm not going to stop you from repeatedly flying off the handle and making a fool of yourself.
Keep guessing...
Or make your own arguments, which are continually filled with emotionalism and logical fallacy.
I'm not going to stop you from repeatedly flying off the handle and making a fool of yourself.
Quote from jem:
Thanks for the dissertation but it is off point and wrong.
Because you do not have the training or experience in either of those fields you do not understand why you do not know.
It all seems like opinion to you.
But, lucky I am licensed to give my opinion... and I tell you, you are dead ass wrong. And I know why.
1. You seem to not understand the difference between statutory law and common law.
U.S. Supreme Court judges make law.
Like I said you need to learn some jurisprudence and until you do you should stop offering legal opinion. You do not understand what you are talking about.
2. Regarding science again a little legal training might have helped you understand the concept of expertise. And when a trier of fact realizes you need expertise to have a valid opinion.
in many cases to have a valid opinion you have to have a firm grasp of the science and math.
In other words you have to be an expert.
When a noble prize winner says that random chance could be the cause of the birth of a bacteria because there is not enough time for it to happen you... you 777 do not have the background to even challenge him ...
You do not know if his conclusion is scientific or not.
Until you have some other expert offering a contrary opinion, I choose the nobel prize winner's scientific understanding over yours.
.
Is it your position he can not support his statement in with science?
âIf you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.â
- Christian de Duve. âA Guided Tour of the Living Cellâ (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)
A man's got to know his limitations---Dirty Harry, Magnum Force.
Good not to pick a side, especially when neither side can win...it is an eternal stalemate.
Play for the draw long enough, the impatient one makes a fatal mistake.
Good not to pick a side, especially when neither side can win...it is an eternal stalemate.
Play for the draw long enough, the impatient one makes a fatal mistake.
Quote from Ricter:
On evolution, abiogenesis, and blind watchmakers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
I'm not picking a side.
Quote from peilthetraveler:
This statement alone proves you are not a "freethinker". You probably don't even know why, so I will explain it to you...
You said his conclusions should carry some weight because he was a priest for part of his life. This means that someone who has studied God for as long as he did (12 years) and still believes in God, must also carry some weight, by your own logic, right?
You claim to be a man of science, but you only gather evidence to support YOUR hypothesis instead of gathering all evidence from both sides and then weighing it against each other. A true free thinker will do this.
If you found 100 reasons to support the existence of God, and 1 reason to support no existence, you would stand behind the 1 reason first because thats your bias.
Change your name to slavethinker.
you sure are a simple minded fellow arent you. the relevent fact is this fellow started out a christian then spent years in christian indoctrination then spent 12 years as a priest and in the end rejected it all because of a lack of evidence.
The relevant fact is the man's mind is subject to mistake...so having made what he believes is a mistake, he now believes he is not making a mistake...when it is the same mind at work, a faulty mind to begin with.
You can educate a faulty mind forever, and it remains by nature faulty.
You can educate a faulty mind forever, and it remains by nature faulty.
Quote from Free Thinker:
you sure are a simple minded fellow arent you. the relevent fact is this fellow started out a christian then spent years in christian indoctrination then spent 12 years as a priest and in the end rejected it all because of a lack of evidence.
Quote from jem:
Thanks for the dissertation it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt why you need an expert in certain areas.
Because it is apparent you do not have the training or experience in either science or Law to have a valid opinion, I understand why you think every opinion is worthless. Without proper experience and discernment everything seems to be as worthless as your opinion.
But, lucky I do have training and experience and I am licensed by two states to give my opinion on the subject of law. And I tell your post proves why the states are wise to make people take Bar exams. You were dead ass wrong.
1. You seem to not understand the difference between statutory law and common law.
The U.S. Supreme Court judges make LAW.
Last I checked CT did not even have statutory law, it was all common law. Judges make common law. I am still laughing my ass off.
Your post proves the opposite of what you were trying to argue.
It is the funniest thing you have ever written. It has to be the most embarrassing troll moment ever.
You prove why one must go with the experts when searching for scientific or legal answers.
2. Regarding science again a little legal training might have helped you understand the concept of expertise. And when a trier of fact realizes you need expertise to have a valid opinion.
in many cases to have a valid opinion you have to have a firm grasp of the science and math.
In other words you have to be an expert.
When a noble prize winner says that random chance could be the cause of the birth of a bacteria because there is not enough time for it to happen you... you 777 do not have the background to even challenge him ...
You do not know if his conclusion is scientific or not.
Until you have some other expert offering a contrary opinion, I choose the nobel prize winner's scientific understanding over yours.
.
Is it your position he can not support his statement in with science?
âIf you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.â
- Christian de Duve. âA Guided Tour of the Living Cellâ (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)
I updated my post as you were posting 777.
It does not matter what you were trained in. you were so wrong on judges not making law...
you proved the need for experts --- you could not have been more wrong than when you said judges do not make law.