Descendant Of Charles Darwin Becomes A Catholic Apologist

[Socrates]

Newton was into astrology. That doesn't mean that astrology and science aren't mutually exclusive. How this is any different?

 

 

 

For many Catholic scientists, their Faith and scientific understanding are not unrelated separate hobbies, but are tied together and reinforce each other.  The Christian belief in a rational intelligible universe helped spur scientific inquiry into the natural world, and gave birth to the methods of modern science.  It's no coincidence that modern science arose in the Christian West, rather than in other parts of the world.  You might want to check out the works of the late Fr. Stanley Jaki, a renowned physicist and Catholic priest, who has written a lot about issues of Faith and science, as well as the aforementioned Fr. Robert Spitzer.

 

 

  I can apply your argument to new age beliefs too. Faith in something we can't test = not scientific.

 

 

Seems you missed my point, which was that the physical sciences are one, limited facet of human knowledge and understanding, which, by their nature cannot explain or do everything.

 

I'd regard new age beliefs as a kind of false religion, but at least the new ager acknowledges the existence of reality beyond mere matter.  

 

Many things cannot be known or determined by the scientific method.

 

To use a simple example, science can give us the knowledge to build a bomb, but it can't tell us squat about the morality of dropping the bomb on various targets.

 

 

 

  We don't need faith in God for any of these areas of human knowledge.

 

 

True, an atheist can deny God and come to his own conclusions regarding these matters, but his opinions or beliefs on these things have nothing to do with physical science, and he does not reach them by the scientific method.  

Physical science, by its nature, can only tell us so much.

 

 

  Good point! We can use science to explain human consciousness. There are experiments related to this. If I didn't answer you fully, you can press me. 

 

 

Actually, I'm not at all convinced science can completely explain human consciousness.  Nobody denies that we humans rely on information from our brains/bodies to experience the world, but science has not explained how exactly something immaterial (human thought or consciousness) arises from unconscious matter.  

Despite creating machines with impressive computing power, we've never been able to create a machine that is actually conscious or self-aware.  We've never been able to duplicate human consciousness in the lab.

 

 

  Right, but this relies on faith. I can say my pillow is the prime mover. It's not any crazier or less provable than your claim.  

 

 

Your claim about your pillow is self-evidently absurd.  As would such a claim about any other material object, which by nature are dependent on other things or conditions for their existence, and cannot be a Prime Mover.

Besides obviously requiring pre-existing materials as well as pillow-makers for its existence, your pillow (or any other material thing) is dependent on time, space, gravity, range of temperatures and physical/chemical conditions (and a host of geeky stuff I can barely understand).

 

The ultimate cause of all existence must be self-existing, unlimited, un-conditioned Being, without any physical limitations, or "Pure Act," as the philosophers say, not dependent on any other things or circumstances.

The "First Cause" must be something self-existing, and thus something unlimited and eternal and outside the confines of time and matter.

 

Most atheist arguments against God's existence, treat God as if He were some kind of material thing - but that is not at all what God is according to philosophy and Christian theology.  They attack a straw-man "God," not what we actually believe in.

 

 

  

I find my pillow more philosophically, intellectually, and physically satisfying than the idea of God's existence. That doesn't make it any more right. 

 

 

 

Your sophomoric attempts at "cleverness" are falling especially flat today.

 

My statement was not intended to be in itself a proof of anything.

I meant that my readings of arguments back and forth, and my own thoughts on the matter and experience, have led me to the conclusion that it is much more reasonable to believe in God than to disbelieve in His existence.

That proves no more or less than you saying you don't find belief in God reasonable.

 

Your pillow is not an argument, nor is anyone denying its existence.

 

 

  I'm not saying the idea of a God is irrational. I'm saying that faith (belief in something without proof) is not compatible with a scientific way of thinking, which is evidence based. Btw, I don't deny that the universe began from nothing. It's possible that it did this on its own without the need of a God. I don't think we know enough to say for sure. 

 

 

I say that the idea that this functioning, intelligible material universe simply caused itself to pop into existence from nothing is completely contrary to reason, as well as experience and scientific observation.

There is nothing in our experience that simply comes to be from absolutely nothing, and the idea is logically absurd.  A material thing cannot create itself or cause itself to exist, if if did not already exist in some form.  And, nothing, by definition, can do absolutely nothing, as it by definition does not exist.  Much less can nothing create something.

 

The idea that the material universe caused itself to come into existence from absolute nothing is not something you observed, nor is it proven by the scientific method.

 

Atheism is itself an unproven philosophical presumption (and an illogical one at that.)

 

 

It appears you hold beliefs that are unproven and untested just as much as myself or any religious believer.

 

My beliefs are simply more in accord with reason and observable reality, and (dare I say it) more scientific than your own. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by Socrates

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 
I don't need empirical evidence to believe. But that doesn't mean faith cannot be a science/knowledge. It can be both.  

Please explain how. I don't follow.

 

 

No, rather its kind of the other way round because you believe there is only one type of Atheism. If I were trying to lump all together, I wouldn't be pointing out there are different forms. Different groups belong to different forms, if the main branches or types are positive and negative I'm sure there are many splinter groups for each.

 

 
 Interesting. You got me here. I know little about the distinctions between them. 

 

 

 

It seemed otherwise which is why I took issue with your statements. If that's not the case I haven't much of a real problem. Meaning I just prefer not to argue the theist vs atheist debate for the millionth time again. I don't agree that belief that God exist or does not exist is incompatible with a scientific way of thinking. But to be honest I don't care much about arguing about it with someone that likely will never change their mind anyway. I agree to disagree with your opinion about compatibility with Faith or lack of faith and science.

 

That's fine.
 

Well one small point that we can agree on is good enough for me. I'll probably not reply much more, maybe, I doubt it. Like I said I've grown tired of the theist vs atheist debates. Sorry for any typos or bad grammar, wrote this fast and did not check for spelling/grammar.

 

My posts are loaded with errors. No worries. It was nice chatting with you.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's evident you have little familiarity with the theology of the Trinity, but I'll give some weak, imperfect comparisons to help you understand my point better.

 

You can probably logically deduce from reading my online posts here that I exist, and some things about me.  However, your knowledge of me would be imperfect, and there would be some things about me, you'd only know if I or someone who personally knew me revealed them to you.  That would not mean these things were irrational.

 

Don't get how this relates. It's entirely possible that you could be delusional and that the person who personally knows you is gullible. If you believed you were divine and your friend Steve told me you were Vishnu incarnate, I would still think that was irrational. Not impossible, just not likely. 

 

Or to use another example concerning the limits of human understanding - the fact that your dog probably can't comprehend the finer points of astrophysics does not make that science irrational.

 

He definitely can. 

 

 

 

 

Thinking our puny human intellects are capable of grasping absolutely everything there is to know about reality - much less Ultimate Reality - seems to me supremely arrogant.

 

 

 

 

Thank goodness I'm not on the side that claims that. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

For many Catholic scientists, their Faith and scientific understanding are not unrelated separate hobbies, but are tied together and reinforce each other.  The Christian belief in a rational intelligible universe helped spur scientific inquiry into the natural world, and gave birth to the methods of modern science.  It's no coincidence that modern science arose in the Christian West, rather than in other parts of the world.  You might want to check out the works of the late Fr. Stanley Jaki, a renowned physicist and Catholic priest, who has written a lot about issues of Faith and science, as well as the aforementioned Fr. Robert Spitzer.

 

I'll look into these two writers. Fun Fact: Much of the famous renaissance figures were also heavily influenced by the works of Muslims. 

 

 

 

I'd regard new age beliefs as a kind of false religion, but at least the new ager acknowledges the existence of reality beyond mere matter.  

 

Many things cannot be known or determined by the scientific method.

 

To use a simple example, science can give us the knowledge to build a bomb, but it can't tell us squat about the morality of dropping the bomb on various targets.

How do you consider it false? There's no reason why new age beliefs are any less true than Catholic beliefs.  Regarding your argument that values/ethics can't be answered by science: 

 

Though we may not be able to answer every moral question, we can gain knowledge of what is right and wrong in some situations from experiments.  For example, let's say we find out that a highly political/unfair work environment leads to employee burnout and counterproductive work behaviors. These negative effects on morale and productivity make it unethical to sustain such an environment. This is only one example. You are right, though. Science can't answer EVERY moral question. But it's not completely disconnected from morality. 

 

 

 

 

True, an atheist can deny God and come to his own conclusions regarding these matters, but his opinions or beliefs on these things have nothing to do with physical science, and he does not reach them by the scientific method.  

Physical science, by its nature, can only tell us so much.

I'm not only talking about physical sciences. 

 

Actually, I'm not at all convinced science can completely explain human consciousness.  Nobody denies that we humans rely on information from our brains/bodies to experience the world, but science has not explained how exactly something immaterial (human thought or consciousness) arises from unconscious matter.  

Despite creating machines with impressive computing power, we've never been able to create a machine that is actually conscious or self-aware.  We've never been able to duplicate human consciousness in the lab.

Good points. 

 

 

Your claim about your pillow is self-evidently absurd.  As would such a claim about any other material object, which by nature are dependent on other things or conditions for their existence, and cannot be a Prime Mover.

Besides obviously requiring pre-existing materials as well as pillow-makers for its existence, your pillow (or any other material thing) is dependent on time, space, gravity, range of temperatures and physical/chemical conditions (and a host of geeky stuff I can barely understand). 

The ultimate cause of all existence must be self-existing, unlimited, un-conditioned Being, without any physical limitations, or "Pure Act," as the philosophers say, not dependent on any other things or circumstances.

The "First Cause" must be something self-existing, and thus something unlimited and eternal and outside the confines of time and matter.Most atheist arguments against God's existence, treat God as if He were some kind of material thing - but that is not at all what God is according to philosophy and Christian theology.  They attack a straw-man "God," not what we actually believe in.

 

 

My pillow is immaterial, self-existing, and outside the confines of time and matter. 

 

 

 

Your pillow is not an argument, nor is anyone denying its existence.

 

Sometimes I do. 

 

I say that the idea that this functioning, intelligible material universe simply caused itself to pop into existence from nothing is completely contrary to reason, as well as experience and scientific observation.

 

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.

 

 

There is nothing in our experience that simply comes to be from absolutely nothing, and the idea is logically absurd.  A material thing cannot create itself or cause itself to exist, if if did not already exist in some form.  And, nothing, by definition, can do absolutely nothing, as it by definition does not exist.  Much less can nothing create something. The idea that the material universe caused itself to come into existence from absolute nothing is not something you observed, nor is it proven by the scientific method.

 

Is this an argument against God's existence? Lol but really, I never claimed I believed this. I said I don't know enough to give you an answer. This idea didn't just come out of nowhere, though. If i'm not completely mistaken, the theory I'm thinking of has to do with virtual particles. 

 

Atheism is itself an unproven philosophical presumption (and an illogical one at that.)

 

"I don't believe in God" doesn't need to be proven. Don't make me bring up my pillow example again. 

 

 

It appears you hold beliefs that are unproven and untested just as much as myself or any religious believer. My beliefs are simply more in accord with reason and observable reality, and (dare I say it) more scientific than your own.

 

No, my position is, "I don't believe because there's not enough evidence." That's not a belief. It's a lack of belief. 

 

Edited July 18, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Meh, i meant to post this link at my morals/ethics section: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html. This is a much better explanation than what I could give. 

[Socrates]

Don't get how this relates. It's entirely possible that you could be delusional and that the person who personally knows you is gullible. If you believed you were divine and your friend Steve told me you were Vishnu incarnate, I would still think that was irrational. Not impossible, just not likely.  

 

 

I think you're once again missing the point of my post, which was that while God's existence and some of His attributes can be known by reason, not everything can, and can be known only by revelation.

 

However, it seems what you're getting at here is that you think the claims of Christianity are not reasonable (which is actually a whole other argument).  I would argue otherwise, and would say the claims of Christ are backed up by a whole lot more than Steve's statement (presuming there is not a lot more about Steve that you're not telling me about.)

 

I don't think it reasonable to believe that Christ and His immediate followers willingly gave up all on this earth to perpetuate a hoax, nor is it reasonable to think they were all deranged, delusional madmen.

(See C.S. Lewis' famous "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument.  I'd also highly recommend  Lewis's brilliant apologetical works - he was a former atheist who became one of the foremost Christian apologists of the 20th century.)

 

That topic would require an entire new thread (or more like a large book) to do it justice.

 

 

He definitely can. 

 

 

Groovy.  You must be Dilbert.  How's Dogbert?

[Socrates]

 

I'll look into these two writers. Fun Fact: Much of the famous renaissance figures were also heavily influenced by the works of Muslims. 

 

 

I'm not sure what renaissance figures you're referring to, but while medieval Muslim mathematicians were important and influential, the scientific method and modern science was invented in a Christian culture by Christians.  

You might want to check out Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.  Ironically, the author is actually an atheist, but one who recognizes Western civilization's debt to Christianity.

 

 

How do you consider it false? There's no reason why new age beliefs are any less true than Catholic beliefs.  Regarding your argument that values/ethics can't be answered by science:

 

 

I do consider Catholic/Christian beliefs to be much more rational and backed up by facts, history and reason than new age beliefs (or other non-Christian beliefs), but that's a whole other topic that there's not room for here.

 

The new age movement doesn't really form any single coherent, authoritative belief system, but is more of a modern hodge-podge anything goes do-it-yourself religion, without any real coherent core of beliefs.  It's more trendy narcissistic nonsense, than a system of serious spirituality, imo.

 

 

Though we may not be able to answer every moral question, we can gain knowledge of what is right and wrong in some situations from experiments.  For example, let's say we find out that a highly political/unfair work environment leads to employee burnout and counterproductive work behaviors. These negative effects on morale and productivity make it unethical to sustain such an environment. This is only one example. You are right, though. Science can't answer EVERY moral question. But it's not completely disconnected from morality.

 

 

While science can provide facts which can help us make moral decisions in particular situations (like if it's proven by science that a substance is harmful, it might be moral to ban that substance), Science itself does not give us any actual moral principles.

 

Your example actually isn't really about morality per se (though it may touch on moral principles), but more about increasing productivity and efficiency.

 

What is most productive or efficient does not always equate to what is moral.

 

For instance, one might conceivably "scientifically" conclude based on data that euthanizing various ill, disabled, and unproductive persons may be create a more productive society, and avoid "wasting" resources.  

However, that does not mean that it would be moral to kill these persons, and science cannot provide the answer of whether it would be moral to do so.

 

I'm aware of no moral principles that were first discovered in the lab by the scientific method.  (Though we can always apply existing moral principles to new technologies and such.)

 

 

 

 

I'm not only talking about physical sciences.

 

 

If you're a materialist atheist who believes only in the existence of matter, these would be the only sciences that are strictly scientific.

 

Again, I'm not aware of any moral principles actually determined by the scientific method.

 

 

Good points. 

 

 

 

My pillow is immaterial, self-existing, and outside the confines of time and matter. 

 

 

If true, then I'd venture to say it's not really your pillow, but God.

 

But seriously, if you want deliberately babble incoherent nonsense, find a Ponies thread or something.  Not worth my time.

 

 

 

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.

 

 

Of course, I could say the same thing about belief in God.

 

However, belief in God is not intrinsically illogical and self-contradictory, as is the idea of literally nothing creating something.  God is not nothing, but pure, limitless Being.

 

 

an argument against God's existence? Lol but really, I never claimed I believed this. I said I don't know enough to give you an answer. This idea didn't just come out of nowhere, though. If i'm not completely mistaken, the theory I'm thinking of has to do with virtual particles. 

 

 

You'd have to show me the actual hypothesis in question.  The idea of matter coming from literally nothing at all is absurd.  If one says that matter came from matter/energy in a radically different state than we know it, that's a different proposition.  The material or whatever that becomes matter would not be actually nothing, buut "something."

 

Again, read Spitzer, as he deals with these sorts of things in depth.

 

 

"I don't believe in God" doesn't need to be proven. Don't make me bring up my pillow example again.

 

 

Find a better example, or a real argument.  Face it, the pillow thing's really stupid.

 

 

No, my position is, "I don't believe because there's not enough evidence." That's not a belief. It's a lack of belief.

 

 

 

If you don't believe in a creator God, the alternative is that you believe that either nothing literally gave rise to something, or that matter is the cause of its own existence.  

 

I find both those alternatives philosophically untenable, but even if you don't, they remain scientifically unproven beliefs.

 

If you truly don't have any beliefs regarding the source of reality and existence, then you're agnostic, rather than atheist, but simply saying you don't know isn't an argument for or against God's existence - it's merely saying you're personally undecided.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

I think you're once again missing the point of my post, which was that while God's existence and some of His attributes can be known by reason, not everything can, and can be known only by revelation.

 

However, it seems what you're getting at here is that you think the claims of Christianity are not reasonable (which is actually a whole other argument).  I would argue otherwise, and would say the claims of Christ are backed up by a whole lot more than Steve's statement (presuming there is not a lot more about Steve that you're not telling me about.)

They're not any more reasonable then the claims of any other religion. 

 

 

I don't think it reasonable to believe that Christ and His immediate followers willingly gave up all on this earth to perpetuate a hoax, nor is it reasonable to think they were all deranged, delusional madmen.

 

Hmm, I'm not claiming that's the case but it is much more reasonable to believe that than to believe that Jesus was the son of God. Also, it's a little curious that Christ's story isn't at all unique. In fact a similar figure popped up nearly 100 years before Christ by the name of Appollonius of Tyana. Here's a picture with a bunch of pagan gods that are oddly similar to the Jesus portrayed in the Bible. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That topic would require an entire new thread (or more like a large book) to do it justice.

Fair nuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Groovy.  You must be Dilbert.  How's Dogbert?

 

 

 

 

Fantastic!

 

Edited July 19, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Chiquitunga]

What about Eucharistic miracles? Science can prove these are authentic. This particular documentary (among many) I was watching the other day and thought of this thread. It's on the slow moving side/one hour long, but very much worth listening to their stories. The first 15 minutes are on this statue of the Crown of Thorns from Bolivia, but then they move on to Eucharistic miracles, including the one from Buenos Aires when Pope Francis was Cardinal there, which was confirmed to be heart tissue like Lanciano.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz9L2EYjjsc

[CatholicsAreKewl]

What about Eucharistic miracles? Science can prove these are authentic. This particular documentary (among many) I was watching the other day and thought of this thread. It's on the slow moving side/one hour long, but very much worth listening to their stories. The first 15 minutes are on this statue of the Crown of Thorns from Bolivia, but then they move on to Eucharistic miracles, including the one from Buenos Aires when Pope Francis was Cardinal there, which was confirmed to be heart tissue like Lanciano.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz9L2EYjjsc

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=10590236

Even Catholics are pretty skeptical about this miracle. And Lanciano is similarly questionable.

 

Let's say that these miracles are authentic. Catholicism has much more to do than just prove its miracles. It has to show how these miracles are in any way unique to those of other faiths. Let's take Hinduism. There are yogis who can float, read souls, etc. A priest from my highschool told us that he knew a yogi who could bilocate. Sounds like something only Catholic saints can do, right? There are a bunch of miracle stories attributed to Sathya Sai Baba by those who witnessed him heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, among other things. He has a huge following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

 

Btw, somewhat irrelevant but interesting: After Sanal Edamaruku exposed a bogus Jesus statue miracle in Mumbai on television, the Catholic Church used the blasphemy laws in India to force him to flee the country.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Btw, Socrates. I responded to your post twice today. The server keeps messing up when I hit send.

[Chiquitunga]

I don't how much more unique you can get to Catholicism than Eucharistic miracles... bread turning into scientifically verified human flesh and blood. Are you willing to watch the entire thing and consider what they propose?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't how much more unique you can get to Catholicism than Eucharistic miracles... bread turning into scientifically verified human flesh and blood. Are you willing to watch the entire thing and consider what they propose?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

 

I watched parts of it. I'll watch the whole thing if you read through the links I post for my rebuttal. Deal?

Edited July 21, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Empirical data is not the only type of proof that exists (experiential evidence, philosophical or logical proofs etc also exist) but since the enlightenment it has become the preeminent form of reasoning and anything that cannot be proven by empirical means becomes suspect. Another characteristic of our current epoch, it seems, is to claim everything that cannot be tested empirically as "subjective." Therefore the evidence concerning the existence of God, the life of Christ, and all things related is at its core unscientific . . .

 

Interesting. How would you go about proving that Jesus is the son of God? 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

This is the third time I reply to this post. If the server crashes again, I'll take it as a sign. 

 

I'm not sure what renaissance figures you're referring to, but while medieval Muslim mathematicians were important and influential, the scientific method and modern science was invented in a Christian culture by Christians.  

You might want to check out Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.  Ironically, the author is actually an atheist, but one who recognizes Western civilization's debt to Christianity.

I don't deny that Christians contributed a lot to the sciences. This doesn't mean much to me, though. Muslims also contributed a bunch to the sciences. Atheism wasn't really common until recently, so we can't say that the same couldn't have occurred if Christianity never existed. Religion was our first and worst attempt at explaining the world. The more we learned, the more we disassociated revelation from science by adopting a less literal interpretation of scripture. 

 

 

 

 

 

I do consider Catholic/Christian beliefs to be much more rational and backed up by facts, history and reason than new age beliefs (or other non-Christian beliefs), but that's a whole other topic that there's not room for here.

 

The new age movement doesn't really form any single coherent, authoritative belief system, but is more of a modern hodge-podge anything goes do-it-yourself religion, without any real coherent core of beliefs.  It's more trendy narcissistic nonsense, than a system of serious spirituality, imo.

 

 

Not more irrational, just more recent, than your beliefs. We might as well discuss this. We're already jumping all over the place. 

 

 

While science can provide facts which can help us make moral decisions in particular situations (like if it's proven by science that a substance is harmful, it might be moral to ban that substance), Science itself does not give us any actual moral principles.

 

I believe science can help us understand what type of life is desired and the wrong/right ways to achieve this lifestyle, but only to a certain degree. It's currently limited but I believe there is potential. Currently, science can help us think of current moral concepts differently. I'm sure you already agree with this but I can provide an example if needed. Whether or not science can explain morality is a debated topic, so I don't really mind taking a side and continuing this discussion so I can learn more about it. Here's a 5 minute clip of an argument/rebuttal on this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuuTOpZxwRk&feature=youtu.be

Oh, I forgot to add. Even if this is the case, how exactly is religion needed to explain morality? Why does moral philosophy need religion?

 

Your example actually isn't really about morality per se (though it may touch on moral principles), but more about increasing productivity and efficiency.

 

What is most productive or efficient does not always equate to what is moral.For instance, one might conceivably "scientifically" conclude based on data that euthanizing various ill, disabled, and unproductive persons may be create a more productive society, and avoid "wasting" resources.  

 

You're right. Bad example. 

 

 

 

If you're a materialist atheist who believes only in the existence of matter, these would be the only sciences that are strictly scientific.

Wait, so you believe psychology and materialism are incompatible? 

 

 

If true, then I'd venture to say it's not really your pillow, but God.

 

 

You said it, not me. 

 

 

Of course, I could say the same thing about belief in God.

 

 

True. I could say the same thing about belief in Santa as well. 

 

 

However, belief in God is not intrinsically illogical and self-contradictory, as is the idea of literally nothing creating something.  God is not nothing, but pure, limitless Being.

 

“If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.” Lawrence Krauss

 

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

 

 

 

If you don't believe in a creator God, the alternative is that you believe that either nothing literally gave rise to something, or that matter is the cause of its own existence.  I find both those alternatives philosophically untenable, but even if you don't, they remain scientifically unproven beliefs.

 

 

Philosophy should conform with reality and not vice versa. I'm not saying I believe either or, mainly because I don't think we know enough. The problem is, even if scientists good evidence that the universe came from nothing, religious people would simply argue that God was still in the equation somehow. 

 

 

If you truly don't have any beliefs regarding the source of reality and existence, then you're agnostic, rather than atheist, but simply saying you don't know isn't an argument for or against God's existence - it's merely saying you're personally undecided.

 

 

Actually, agnosticism and atheism answer different questions. An agnostic would say that truth regarding God's existence is unknown (and possibly unknowable). An atheist is simply one that does not believe in God. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. The term "agnostic" was historically used as a weasel term to avoid discrimination. 

Edited July 22, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl