The End of (the catholic) Church

Quote from Free Thinker:

many believe biblegod is also all powerful. so if biblegod is all all knowing and all powerful, and some eggs die ,god knew they were going to die and having the ability, being all powerful, to keep them alive if he chose must be ok with some eggs dying.
logic is a wonderful thing if you are not afraid to use it. try it sometime.


Let me see here:
God created time, but the process of deciding to create time requires time itself;
God created the perfect universe.. which is 99,999..% hostile and chaotic;
God is Benevolent but created Hell;
God is Omnipotent but can not control Satan;
God is Omniscient, but humans have "free will" and He does not know our final destination (heaven/hell);

You can have at it with jem, but ascribing time to God is nuts. The Universe, as Einstein figured out a hundred years ago, creates time because it is constantly decaying and moving towards a state of perfect entropy. God, obviously, would not be in that state. Something eternal is outside of time.
As for creating the perfect universe, no. You're thinking of Plato. Plato <> the Catholic Church, even though sometimes the Scholastics came perilously close to thinking that way.
Answering the other stuff would just get too deeply into theological stuff that would go way beyond the ability to explain in a short post, so let me put it this way: as an obvious atheist, you really shouldn't be venturing into these waters. You're way too obviously over your head. What religion thinks outside of those places where they get into political stuff is something that shouldn't concern you. If it does, you're in the position of the lady from Shakespeare: you're protesting too much. Only a believer would be concerned with the stuff you're bringing up, and you say you're not. The evidence of your posts is leaning otherwise.
 
Quote from trefoil:

Answering the other stuff would just get too deeply into theological stuff that would go way beyond the ability to explain in a short post, so let me put it this way: as an obvious atheist, you really shouldn't be venturing into these waters.

have at it. i am sure you can come up with nothing more than a pratt.



"I&#65279; wonder if it bothers the religious that atheists have brilliant physicists, biologists, mathematicians arguing for the atheist side, while they have, really, no one of credible intelligence."
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

have at it. i am sure you can come up with nothing more than a pratt.



"I&#65279; wonder if it bothers the religious that atheists have brilliant physicists, biologists, mathematicians arguing for the atheist side, while they have, really, no one of credible intelligence."

Einstein?


The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality. Sincerely yours, Albert Einstein.


(not saying that I agree with the entirety, but he hits the nail on the head as far as your attitude. It's exactly what he objected to, and what I object to.)

Your quote is an appeal to authority, which is a pretty puerile debating tactic. As you can see, for every authority you can cite, I can cite another one. I'm not surprised at your constant resort to this, since ET is not exactly a challenging debating environment, to put it mildly.
As for a pratt, what is that?
 
Quote from trefoil:

Einstein?



As for a pratt, what is that? [/B]

i dont think naive is a good enough description. i prefer willfully ignorant. you do realize that even since einsteins time we have made major advances in understanding. every piece of evidence does more to falsify primitive belief in gods.

a pratt is a term used in religious debates because the bible thumpers just keep coming back with the same arguments that have long ago been refuted. it stands for "point refuted a thousand times". here is a list of common religious pratts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


"science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into – but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god they’re arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

a pratt is a term used in religious debates because the bible thumpers just keep coming back with the same arguments that have long ago been refuted. it stands for "point refuted a thousand times". here is a list of common religious pratts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


"science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into – but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god they’re arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."
+100

Thanks for the link.
 
to me, people that can't see that God made everything are just blinded.. intellectuals claim they've explained away things like the shape of the Grand Canyon as one example, but they don't really have to. They own the venue for the debate and are the experts so they can get away with some very weak arguments and then ignore the issue forever.. they do that A LOT seemingly. It's intellectual groupthink and it's way off from reality. There is a huge difference between a person that goes and checks out the evidence for themselves and groupthink... I don't value groupthinkers, in fact they tend to be assholes whether they are religious right or intellectuals.
 
Quote from Eight:

to me, people that can't see that God made everything are just blinded...

...It's intellectual groupthink and it's way off from reality...
Really? So the faith-based are the ones who "see" reality rather than those who seek evidence? Fascinating. If only we hadn't regressed so far from the Dark Ages, eh?
 
Let me remind the leftist subject changers of the point of this thread. I have already crushed free thinker on many other threads about the fact it takes faith to say the universe got here by random chance. If any of you wish to debate that point, start a new thread and I will present recent info from nobel prize winners.


Quote from jem:

its not about the money... is about not being forced to provide drugs which take the life of innocent humans. And yes the Churche's insurance is being force to provide it.

And this is just the beginning Govt controlling your lives through Obama care.

You want executive orders - not even law... telling you to take part in the killing of human life.

First its the Catholic Church and then it will be something you care about. And old relative a young relative.

Soon the good medical care an medicine will be rationed out to party members and cronies.

The price of liberty is vigilence.
 
Quote from jem:

I have already crushed free thinker on many other threads about whether our universe could have been created by chance.

lol. only in your childish mind.


"science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into – but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god they’re arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

lol. only in your childish mind.


"science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into – but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god they’re arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."

proof of your ignorance from MIT - a survey of to geneticists and biologists on the virtually impossibility that life came from non life by random chance.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

and an explanation that you have a choice fine tuning or faith in a mulitiverse... from a very top physicist.

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137


You always want to bring Jesus or the God of the bible into the debate. When have I ever said you must believe in Jesus or God of Abraham?
 
Back
Top