Varg

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 November 2009 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1258160854' post='2002405']
There is a process of knowing God through the light of reason from created things.
[/quote]
Because you say so? This is a never ending circle. You can't give me your definition as a reason why I should believe you.

[KnightofChrist]

An atheist and christian can look at a house and agree it was designed by an intelligence, base completely on logic and reason. Yet the atheist would look at a strain of DNA which is far more complex than a house yet be willfully blind to the same logical conclusion that it was designed by an intelligence.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='13 November 2009 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1258162190' post='2002413']
An atheist and christian can look at a house and agree it was designed by an intelligence, base completely on logic and reason. Yet the atheist would look at a strain of DNA which is far more complex than a house yet be willfully blind to the same logical conclusion that it was designed by an intelligence.
[/quote]
Houses are designed and built by humans. No one has yet to offer an explanation that can be proven, scientifically, on how DNA has come to be. If you want to offer "God" as your source, that's your choice. But unless you can prove it with the same means as any other scientific theory, I'm not required to take you seriously. Having logic is one thing, systematically using it is another. Anyone can claim to have used their logic and reasoning, but if you have no means of showing your process, as far as I'm concerned, you're pulling it out of your… backside.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='bonkers' date='13 November 2009 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1258109120' post='2002063']
You know, like a lot of atheists, we don't claim to know how the world came to be. It's a big universe, and perhaps our tiny little pee wee minds aren't big enough to comprehend it. I'm not opposed to the idea god *could* exist, but like many people, I think the burden is on the believing people to prove it, otherwise it's just another theory. At the very least if you claim to know something which is absolutely true you should at least substantiate it with some tangible evidence, [b]not this disease called faith[/b]. I'm content not knowing, and more content not knowing than believing something for which there is no evidence.
[/quote]

Ahh...faith is a disease.

Provide some evidence.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='13 November 2009 - 08:55 PM' timestamp='1258163747' post='2002426']
Houses are designed and built by humans. No one has yet to offer an explanation that can be proven, scientifically, on how DNA has come to be. If you want to offer "God" as your source, that's your choice. But unless you can prove it with the same means as any other scientific theory, I'm not required to take you seriously. Having logic is one thing, systematically using it is another. Anyone can claim to have used their logic and reasoning, but if you have no means of showing your process, as far as I'm concerned, you're pulling it out of your… backside.
[/quote]

Even without empirical evidence the atheist would logically conclude the house was designed by an intelligence. If there was a set of rocks that spelled out "HELP", the atheist would also logically reason a intelligence design the set of rocks to spell out the word. Anybody with a brain would, but the atheist's pick and choose logic will not concluded the same reasoning for a highly more complex strain of DNA. Atheistic logical on design is simply not contestant because if it was they would logically reason a designer for DNA, and other such things.

Most atheist don't reach this conclusion out of reason but hate. Atheist such as yourself who were once very happy Christians but when prayers were not answered they way they wished. They grew to hate God and become bitter.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='13 November 2009 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1258165117' post='2002438']
Even without empirical evidence the atheist would logically conclude the house was designed by an intelligence. If there was a set of rocks that spelled out "HELP", the atheist would also logically reason a intelligence design the set of rocks to spell out the word. Anybody with a brain would, but the atheist's pick and choose logic will not concluded the same reasoning for a highly more complex strain of DNA. Atheistic logical on design is simply not contestant because if it was they would logically reason a designer for DNA, and other such things.
[/quote]
The examples you use can easily be proven to be true. You can seek out the proper proof that the house was built by someone, or that someone spelled out "HELP." What you cannot prove is that God had anything to do with DNA. You can work that idea into your logic and make a story of how it could have happened, but in the end, you can't prove any of what you speculate.
[quote]
Most atheist don't reach this conclusion out of reason but hate. Atheist such as yourself who were once very happy Christians but when prayers were not answered they way they wished. They grew to hate God and become bitter.
[/quote]
Thanks for that grossly inaccurate generalization. I don't "pick and choose" my logic to draw conclusions out of hate. I don't hate Christianity, I don't hate your god. But if you need to believe that atheists are hateful and mean to sleep better at night, go for it.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='13 November 2009 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1258165117' post='2002438']
Most atheist don't reach this conclusion out of reason but hate. Atheist such as yourself who were once very happy Christians but when prayers were not answered they way they wished. They grew to hate God and become bitter.
[/quote]

You're such a great example of Christ-like charity and humility.
Presumption is a sin.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='13 November 2009 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1258171566' post='2002485']
You're such a great example of Christ-like charity and humility.
Presumption is a sin.
[/quote]
Haven't you heard? Speaking roughly doesn't count as uncharitable because when it comes to "truth," you can say anything to make your point. (Unless you're not Catholic, then you get warned and/or banned.)

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='13 November 2009 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1258159398' post='2002397']
The problem is that those "billions" who believe in God came to believe in a much different way than the billions who came to believe in things like gravity or the atomic theory. There is no process of proving God. There is in science.
[/quote]

Hmmm...what proof would satisfy? Understand, that provided God exists, He is incorporeal so science really is a method inappropriate to the topic as it handles corporeality. Science does allude to the fact that God exists however. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; effects are brought on by a cause. All of this is contextualized by the fact that the universe prior to the big bang was a vacuum. Nothing existing in nothing with nothing to bring about something. The jump from nothingness to something requires a mover, does it not? Would this transition from nothing to something not prove that an instigation be made by someone? Otherwise, without a cause, an effect was made and stillness was shattered by an explosion of energy that should not exist or is itself eternal. That God not exist would seem to prove science, as we currently understand it, to be fallacious.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='13 November 2009 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1258173913' post='2002497']
Hmmm...what proof would satisfy? Understand, that provided God exists, He is incorporeal so science really is a method inappropriate to the topic as it handles corporeality. Science does allude to the fact that God exists however. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; effects are brought on by a cause. All of this is contextualized by the fact that the universe prior to the big bang was a vacuum. Nothing existing in nothing with nothing to bring about something. The jump from nothingness to something requires a mover, does it not? Would this transition from nothing to something not prove that an instigation be made by someone? Otherwise, without a cause, an effect was made and stillness was shattered by an explosion of energy that should not exist or is itself eternal. That God not exist would seem to prove science, as we currently understand it, to be fallacious.
[/quote]
The thing about that is that yes, in the world we see around us, the logic applies that X causes Y which can't happen without Z. But at a subatomic level, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of things that don't follow traditional laws of Physics. There isn't any way to show that the universe must have necessarily been created X way or that it couldn't have happened without Y. And without that certainty, I'd rather place my confidence with science that follows some kind of methodology than a religion that bases it's entire existence upon things that existed millennia ago and has only writings and hearsay to base it's decisions upon.

Edited November 14, 2009 by fidei defensor

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='14 November 2009 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1258159398' post='2002397']The problem is that those billions who believe in God came to believe in a much different way than the billions who came to believe in things like gravity or the atomic theory. There is no process of proving God. There is in science.[/quote]

I don't see any difference. I've been inside the Australian synchrotron. If you went in there with me would you believe that a beam of electrons is being accelerated to near light speed and materials are being probed to molecular level by synchrotron radiation. I believe it, yet I never saw any evidence that that is what was happening. I have only the reasoning that governments wouldn't be spending money and scientists wouldn't be saying this is what is happening if it were not. If I go to the Church I sense a presence and I have several hundred people around me that are there because of similar reasons. The logic and the conclusions are very similar. Some people might even choose to accept science as a religion because it is more appealing to them than a main stream religion. I however prefer to believe that science has God as it's creator.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='pat22' date='07 November 2009 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1257575347' post='1997621']
just curious. do you claim to have a theory on how the world came to be?
[/quote]
God got lonely.

Then since He is Light - (now picture a reostat, sp? -a dimmer switch, actually imagine the sound it makes as you lower and raise a light)

He lowered His Vibration and bingo it lowered to become actual matter. A ray of Himself lowered to look like you and formed into the tree outside.

Remember quatuum physics says we are 99.99999% empty space. Why I want you to remember is beyond me, but it's neat.

Jon


Had a typo

Edited November 14, 2009 by Jon

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='bonkers' date='13 November 2009 - 04:45 AM' timestamp='1258109120' post='2002063']
You know, like a lot of atheists, we don't claim to know how the world came to be. It's a big universe, and perhaps our tiny little pee wee minds aren't big enough to comprehend it. I'm not opposed to the idea god *could* exist, but like many people, I think the burden is on the believing people to prove it, otherwise it's just another theory. At the very least if you claim to know something which is absolutely true you should at least substantiate it with some tangible evidence, not this disease called faith. I'm content not knowing, and more content not knowing than believing something for which there is no evidence.
[/quote]

I can respect that line of thinking. I'm happy you are content.
I feel no "burden" to prove anything though.
I don't know that I could. If I healed someone in front of you - you could
easily say you believe in the extraordinary power of the mind and it's ability to
ease pain through positive thinking. Which would be true - If I prayed and asked
for your home to sell in 2 weeks after being on the market 2 years - and it did -
you would call it coincidence.
If it happened again - still coincidence, right?

What could someone do? Is there anything?

But, if you had an earth stopping, awesome experience yourself of the Divine or a supernatural experience - would that
change your mind? I don't know, I'm just asking?

Is it blind faith that people have that "bothers" you? For lack of a better word, sorry, hope you get my point.

Thank you, bonkers,
Jon

[Varg]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='13 November 2009 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1258165117' post='2002438']
Even without empirical evidence the atheist would logically conclude the house was designed by an intelligence. If there was a set of rocks that spelled out "HELP", the atheist would also logically reason a intelligence design the set of rocks to spell out the word. Anybody with a brain would, but the atheist's pick and choose logic will not concluded the same reasoning for a highly more complex strain of DNA. Atheistic logical on design is simply not contestant because if it was they would logically reason a designer for DNA, and other such things.
[/quote]
It's always funny when Catholics try and use logic as an arguement

[Guest Jon]

Varq,
Since you are online - why can't someone send you a pm?
Is that something you could fix?
If so pm me and let me know.
Thanks Jon