Theology

[Cackalacky]

Bingo. It is a pickle, no doubt about it. Bad news is there's no way you can really know if I'm here to help you or not, so it's really up to you. Just have to make up your own damn mind to either accept what I'm going to tell you, or reject it. Candy?

 

[Buster Bluth]

The disconnect here likely comes from your misapprehension of the Christian view of creation's purpose. God created the universe in order to provide an environment in which gods could meaningfully (i.e. free will) choose between Him and themselves. Thus, the fallen nature of this universe is necessary because of humankind's spirituality. Had Jesus simply snapped his fingers and recreated Eden here on Earth, the entire purpose of creation would have been undone.

Surely this is a typo, do you mean people?

My issue with free will, pointed out earlier, is that 1) the "word of god" was spread through the most anti-Jesus way possible: the sword--God of course knew that would happen so why go about it that way? It doesn't seem special at all when you compare it to religions around the world. And 2) the multiple continents full of people who never has this choice of "Him or themselves." What is the Church's position on people who never hear the word? There are still people in the Amazon and on islands out there who never hear about Christianity. Hell I'm sure there are children in India/China/North Korea and parts of Africa who die before ever once hearing about Jesus. What's up with their souls?

You seem to believe that scientific progress is steadily making the world a better place. In the Christian view, mostly due to the nature of the Fall, the state of humanity never really improves. For every step forward we take in medicine and technology, we lose something equally valuable elsewhere-- social cohesion, community, etc.

I think this is crazy talk.

The history of the Church is full of miracles. But if your worldview necessarily precludes any belief in such things, then it would obviously appear as you've described. A lack of empirical proof of the supernatural isn't dispositive of anything. It all comes back to faith and your first principles.

I've always thought miracles are hypocritical. On one hand it's all about free will and measuring blind faith, on the other the guy upstairs is sprinkling miracles where he sees fit.

Miracles to me are medicine and capitalism. Every person, government, and religion on the planet thought that universal poverty was inescapable. St. Thomas, if I remember correctly wrote extensively on the topic. They were all wrong, we've lifted more poor people out of poverty that the Church ever could--even as the world's largest charitable organization. That is more impressive than the myriad miracles, because I can prove quality of life is improving. And yet I think your second paragraph says that that's a bad thing! I don't get that.

 

[wizards8507]

Surely this is a typo, do you mean people?

My issue with free will, pointed out earlier, is that 1) the "word of god" was spread through the most anti-Jesus way possible: the sword--God of course knew that would happen so why go about it that way? It doesn't seem special at all when you compare it to religions around the world. And 2) the multiple continents full of people who never has this choice of "Him or themselves." What is the Church's position on people who never hear the word? There are still people in the Amazon and on islands out there who never hear about Christianity. Hell I'm sure there are children in India/China/North Korea and parts of Africa who die before ever once hearing about Jesus. What's up with their souls?

It was either Pope Francis or JP2 who described it this way and I think it's a good analogy to help visualize. Think of Christ and Christianity as the bridge to salvation. It's possible to cross the bridge without ever knowing what the bridge is called. In other words, those people you talk about can live Christian lives without ever hearing any stories about a carpenter who rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[woolybug25]

Here is a question for those that utilize the "God of the Gap" philosophy.

If there is an unknown "mover" of time and space (as Newton's Law would say) that would have to be the beginning.... then who/what created him/her? I mean, if God's existence can be based on the laws of physics, doesn't those same laws insinuate that something must have created God?

Wouldn't it be more logical that, as the "gap" can't really be explained simply by plugging "god" into it. That there is more to it than we can actually comprehend as humans? Also, since we are really just one species on one of the billions of planets in the universe, why do we even fit into that scenario? In reality, we are a very small, insignificant part of the universe. Seems kinda silly to explain a lack of our knowledge as a god that watches us specifically out of countless amounts of matter in the universe.

 

[wizards8507]

Here is a question for those that utilize the "God of the Gap" philosophy.

If there is an unknown "mover" of time and space (as Newton's Law would say) that would have to be the beginning.... then who/what created him/her? I mean, if God's existence can be based on the laws of physics, doesn't those same laws insinuate that something must have created God?

Wouldn't it be more logical that, as the "gap" can't really be explained simply by plugging "god" into it. That there is more to it than we can actually comprehend as humans? Also, since we are really just one species on one of the billions of planets in the universe, why do we even fit into that scenario? In reality, we are a very small, insignificant part of the universe. Seems kinda silly to explain a lack of our knowledge as a god that watches us specifically out of countless amounts of matter in the universe.

That's what God IS. "That than which nothing greater can be thought."

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[T Town Tommy]

Here is a question for those that utilize the "God of the Gap" philosophy.

If there is an unknown "mover" of time and space (as Newton's Law would say) that would have to be the beginning.... then who/what created him/her? I mean, if God's existence can be based on the laws of physics, doesn't those same laws insinuate that something must have created God?

Wouldn't it be more logical that, as the "gap" can't really be explained simply by plugging "god" into it. That there is more to it than we can actually comprehend as humans? Also, since we are really just one species on one of the billions of planets in the universe, why do we even fit into that scenario? In reality, we are a very small, insignificant part of the universe. Seems kinda silly to explain a lack of our knowledge as a god that watches us specifically out of countless amounts of matter in the universe.[/QUOTE]

But the Bible states that man was created in God's image. And man was the only think that God created that way. So He would have a vested interest in watching over us specifically.

As far as the "Gap" theory, I have not read up on it to form any type of intellectual opinion. I guess it comes down to the faith question. If you have faith there is a God, then those things in which we don't understand or can't explain will be explained to us one day when we meet our Maker. And to be quite honest, I have many questions for God when that day comes.

 

[wizards8507]

.

 

[woolybug25]

That's what God IS. "That than which nothing greater can be thought."

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

That didn't answer my question. I am well aware that the "gap" is what believers see as what is greater than thought. My question is two parts:

1) If physics plays a role in the "gap" argument (Newton's Law), then that same law would insinuate that something had to have created god. Doesn't that make the "gap" argument invalid, as the creator of all existence cant be made by something else by definition.

2) If the "unknown by human thought" angle is used. Then why is it logical that our human race, which is one organism on a planet of billions of organisms, in a solar system of billions of planets, in a countless amount of solar systems be the living image of god? While "faith" certainly can be the go to way to avoid this question... it certainly isn't logical. Which, correct me if i'm wrong, the "gap" argument is suppose to revolve around the concept of creating god as the logical answer to these questions.

 

[Grahambo]

But the Bible states that man was created in God's image. And man was the only think that God created that way. So He would have a vested interest in watching over us specifically.

As far as the "Gap" theory, I have not read up on it to form any type of intellectual opinion. I guess it comes down to the faith question. If you have faith there is a God, then those things in which we don't understand or can't explain will be explained to us one day when we meet our Maker. And to be quite honest, I have many questions for God when that day comes.

Got me curious..what would be your first question?

 

[wizards8507]

That didn't answer my question. I am well aware that the "gap" is what believers see as what is greater than thought. My question is two parts:

1) If physics plays a role in the "gap" argument (Newton's Law), then that same law would insinuate that something had to have created god. Doesn't that make the "gap" argument invalid, as the creator of all existence cant be made by something else by definition.

I'm not sure what the "gap" argument is. I'm referring to Aristotle and Aquinas' cosmological argument as well as Anselm's ontological argument. If that's what you're referring to, then I'll try to answer.

The "gap" argument is not trying to explain the existence of God within the realm of physics. Rather, it points out that the realm of physics can't explain everything. We're not abandoning Newton's law when we get to the Prime Mover. Newton's law is abandoning us. It ceases to apply. We're not explaining God WITHIN the laws of physics but pointing out that the laws of physics are limited and only get us so far. To explain existence, we need to leave Newton's laws and apply something higher.

2) If the "unknown by human thought" angle is used.

Small point: It's not just "unknown" by human thought but "unknowable" by human thought.

Then why is it logical that our human race, which is one organism on a planet of billions of organisms, in a solar system of billions of planets, in a countless amount of solar systems be the living image of god? While "faith" certainly can be the go to way to avoid this question... it certainly isn't logical. Which, correct me if i'm wrong, the "gap" argument is suppose to revolve around the concept of creating god as the logical answer to these questions.

You're taking the "image and likeness of God" argument too literally. The best way I can explain it is by analogy. A photograph of Notre Dame Stadium on gameday is in the "image and likeness" of Notre Dame Stadium on gameday, but it is not equal to Notre Dame Stadium on gameday. There are sounds, dimensions, feels, smells, the passage of time, etc. etc. that make presence in the stadium different from a photograph. A video is an even closer approximation, but it's still not the same thing. Likewise, though we are made in the image and likeness of God, we have no way of understanding what was "lost in translation" so-to-speak.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Got me curious..what would be your first question?

On a personal level, why my parent's died at a young age.

On a fun level, why Nick tried to kick the last second FG against the Barn in last year's Iron Bowl. LOL

 

[woolybug25]

I'm not sure what the "gap" argument is. I'm referring to Aristotle and Aquinas' cosmological argument as well as Anselm's ontological argument. If that's what you're referring to, then I'll try to answer.

The "gap" argument is not trying to explain the existence of God within the realm of physics. Rather, it points out that the realm of physics can't explain everything. We're not abandoning Newton's law when we get to the Prime Mover. Newton's law is abandoning us. It ceases to apply. We're not explaining God WITHIN the laws of physics but pointing out that the laws of physics are limited and only get us so far. To explain existence, we need to leave Newton's laws and apply something higher.

Small point: It's not just "unknown" by human thought but "unknowable" by human thought

But the fact that physics is what explains the need for a "prime mover" makes this argument illogical. You cant in one hand use physics as the logic behind an argument, only to disregard it once it makes your argument illogical.

The "unknowable" comment was a typo, I assume, since you corrected it, that you knew what I meant though. That being said, that goes back to my point that if it's "unknowable by human thought" than why is the logical reasoning an image of an all knowing power that singles us out of a uncountable amount of matter in the universe? Again... its logic that goes against itself.

You're taking the "image and likeness of God" argument too literally. The best way I can explain it is by analogy. A photograph of Notre Dame Stadium on gameday is in the "image and likeness" of Notre Dame Stadium on gameday, but it is not equal to Notre Dame Stadium on gameday. There are sounds, dimensions, feels, smells, the passage of time, etc. etc. that make presence in the stadium different from a photograph. A video is an even closer approximation, but it's still not the same thing. Likewise, though we are made in the image and likeness of God, we have no way of understanding what was "lost in translation" so-to-speak.

Well, to use your analogy, if I were to ask an impovershed kid in Africa to explain to me what Notre Dame stadium is like on gameday, he would have no idea where to start. His world is completely different and it makes no logical sense that his ideas of what the stadium should be like a thousand miles away. That's my point with the "image and likeness of God" argument.

Again... if we are strictly talking about using LOGIC as a basis for opinion, then logic would be that the creator of the universe wouldn't have singled us out of countless amounts of matter in the universe. Our entire population can be compared to only a grain of sand in Saraha. We are a miniscule amount of matter in the known universe. So why is it logical (again, we are talking about the arguments for God that utilize logic for reasoning) to assume that an almighty power created the entire Saraha and one grain of sand in that desert is unique and "made in his image"?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Got me curious..what would be your first question?

Can I have an instant of your time?

 

[wizards8507]

But the fact that physics is what explains the need for a "prime mover" makes this argument illogical. You cant in one hand use physics as the logic behind an argument, only to disregard it once it makes your argument illogical.

Your logical fallacy is assuming "physics can explain some things, therefore it must explain all things." Gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree and start rolling down a hill, and friction causes it to stop rolling. Just because "gravity" is the reason the apple fell and started rolling doesn't mean it's illogical to apply a DIFFERENT reason to its stopping. Following your argument, one would counter "You can't in one hand use gravity as the logic behind an argument, only to disregard it once it makes your argument illogical."

Again... if we are strictly talking about using LOGIC as a basis for opinion, then logic would be that the creator of the universe wouldn't have singled us out of countless amounts of matter in the universe.

Did I ever agree to those ground rules? Logic only gets you so far but I can't complete the argument without faith. I never said I could.

Our entire population can be compared to only a grain of sand in Saraha. We are a miniscule amount of matter in the known universe. So why is it logical (again, we are talking about the arguments for God that utilize logic for reasoning) to assume that an almighty power created the entire Saraha and one grain of sand in that desert is unique and "made in his image"?

Vast improbability does not equal impossibility, but if you want to use infinitesimal likelihoods as your argument, look into "irreducible complexity." The mathematical odds that the universe exists exactly as it does simply due to physics and genetic mutations is even more astronomically "impossible" than if it had been intelligently designed. Sure, a lot can be explained by the laws of physics and biology, but some entity had to CREATE those laws in the first place. That brings me back to the first argument about the Prime Mover. You can quote the laws of physics all you want, and you can explain a lot of how things came to be within those guidelines, but how did the guidelines themselves come to be?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I'm not sure what the "gap" argument is. I'm referring to Aristotle and Aquinas' cosmological argument as well as Anselm's ontological argument. If that's what you're referring to, then I'll try to answer.

The "gap" argument is not trying to explain the existence of God within the realm of physics. Rather, it points out that the realm of physics can't explain everything. We're not abandoning Newton's law when we get to the Prime Mover. Newton's law is abandoning us. It ceases to apply. We're not explaining God WITHIN the laws of physics but pointing out that the laws of physics are limited and only get us so far. To explain existence, we need to leave Newton's laws and apply something higher.

Small point: It's not just "unknown" by human thought but "unknowable" by human thought.


You're taking the "image and likeness of God" argument too literally. The best way I can explain it is by analogy. A photograph of Notre Dame Stadium on gameday is in the "image and likeness" of Notre Dame Stadium on gameday, but it is not equal to Notre Dame Stadium on gameday. There are sounds, dimensions, feels, smells, the passage of time, etc. etc. that make presence in the stadium different from a photograph. A video is an even closer approximation, but it's still not the same thing. Likewise, though we are made in the image and likeness of God, we have no way of understanding what was "lost in translation" so-to-speak.

The problem with this, particularly, is indicative of most theistic arguments. Today, physicist say, that the laws of physics, as stated are not invalidated by a beginning, and that which was before the beginning. In other words, if it makes sense that these, "laws" (as we have best described them), have existed, in tact since the beginning. There is nothing to indicate that they didn't at the time of the beginning, or even before the beginning. So therefore these did not begin as part of creation. These were, too.

Back to my post yesterday. Both sides that try to prove or disprove something non-tangible, through marshaling and interpreting something tangible, some tangible proof, are going to fall short. Where theist or deist fall short is by acknowledging any validity of physical laws or properties. It is downhill from there.

Natural law non-deists, or non-theists fall short by definition of a deterministic system. Nothing outside of the system, particularly commenting on it, in terms of the overall framework, not in terms of what determinism has discovered by a certain date, is even possible.

Your logical fallacy is assuming "physics can explain some things, therefore it must explain all things." Gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree and start rolling down a hill, and friction causes it to stop rolling. Just because "gravity" is the reason the apple fell and started rolling doesn't mean it's illogical to apply a DIFFERENT reason to its stopping. Following your argument, one would counter "You can't in one hand use gravity as the logic behind an argument, only to disregard it once it makes your argument illogical."


Did I ever agree to those ground rules? Logic only gets you so far but I can't complete the argument without faith. I never said I could.


Vast improbability does not equal impossibility, but if you want to use infinitesimal likelihoods as your argument, look into "irreducible complexity." The mathematical odds that the universe exists exactly as it does simply due to physics and genetic mutations is even more astronomically "impossible" than if it had been intelligently designed. Sure, a lot can be explained by the laws of physics and biology, but some entity had to CREATE those laws in the first place. That brings me back to the first argument about the Prime Mover. You can quote the laws of physics all you want, and you can explain a lot of how things came to be within those guidelines, but how did the guidelines themselves come to be?

Psst! Don't look now, but there is no such thing as gravity. What you clearly call gravity for the sake of making a point in your argument, is a series of forces that act upon an objet. Calling it one thing, and using it as an illustration in the first place is no different than the animism of early deists, compared to the complex systems of today's monotheistic religions. So we take what short cuts there are to promote our system, or our "brand."

I must confess that I don't have a single brand. I find this whole issue too important to have a single approach or discipline.

In school, and in these intellectual exercises, I would describe myself as a deist, who admires and likes the arguments of the non-deists, particularly because of their logic, and rational approach better. By better I mean more humane. And maybe even more loving overall. One of the paradoxes of human nature, as seen through the history of religion, is those more dedicated to the rational, and less to the emotional, have in the long run, done more to foster agape, than those that have championed religiosity, deism through religious doctrine.

They have done so because they have less presupposed the virtue or quality of an individual, or his motives. So the whole concept of using a religion as an enforcer of social mores in a sophisticated culture is stripped away. On the other hand, those that limit their arguments to absolute rationality, are in a way more susceptible to the monsters of human kind. They don't have the protection of the clear hypocrisy engendered when the monsters take over a religious institution : (Cromwell, Muslim suicide bombers, Inquisitionists, Crusaders, etc., etc., etc.)

 

[IrishInFl]

I always considered IE to be like my favorite bar: As long as you don't discuss politics, religion, and how much money you make compared to others, most of us will get along just fine.

I can definitely understand having a conversation on religion though. Notre Dame is on of the most famous religious universities in the world. The conversations I have, and probably many others of you have had, is why am I a Notre Dame fan when I am not catholic. My response is that I'm a fan of the football team, I would've loved to attend the school, and I highly respect the traditions that this school has.

I'm just glad that IE isn't an actual bar. The amount of fights would drive me crazy. Although, it would be interesting to see irishpat in his zone...

 

[woolybug25]

Your logical fallacy is assuming "physics can explain some things, therefore it must explain all things." Gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree and start rolling down a hill, and friction causes it to stop rolling. Just because "gravity" is the reason the apple fell and started rolling doesn't mean it's illogical to apply a DIFFERENT reason to its stopping. Following your argument, one would counter "You can't in one hand use gravity as the logic behind an argument, only to disregard it once it makes your argument illogical."

That's not what i'm saying at all. What I am saying is that if you are going to use physics as the logic behind an argument, it doesn't make sense to say it's rules don't apply to the other parts of argument. That would be like (using your analogy) Gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree and start rolling down a hill, but gravity doesn't make it roll down the hill because god stops it halfway. You cant see or understand him when it stops rolling, it just does and gravity doesn't matter anymore.

Did I ever agree to those ground rules? Logic only gets you so far but I can't complete the argument without faith. I never said I could.

The whole point of my past posts have been the arguments in this thread regarding logic. Your last posts were regarding those comments. So you don't have to agree to "ground rules", but if you want to refer back to "faith"... then that is a subject entirely outside of this debate.

Vast improbability does not equal impossibility, but if you want to use infinitesimal likelihoods as your argument, look into "irreducible complexity." The mathematical odds that the universe exists exactly as it does simply due to physics and genetic mutations is even more astronomically "impossible" than if it had been intelligently designed. Sure, a lot can be explained by the laws of physics and biology, but some entity had to CREATE those laws in the first place. That brings me back to the first argument about the Prime Mover. You can quote the laws of physics all you want, and you can explain a lot of how things came to be within those guidelines, but how did the guidelines themselves come to be?

Why does an entity have to "create" those laws? After all... those are human created laws based off of our thoughts and beliefs. We admittingly say that there are creation questions outside of our ability to understand. So why is it logical to use a "god" within our ability to understand to prove it? That's the thing, all of these "logic based" theories of god all go back to being completely contradictory of themselves. It doesn't even make sense to use man made theories to explan concepts we aren't, by definition, suppose to be able to be understood by us. Either way, "god" is a concept of man used to explain something he by definition isn't suppose to be able to expain... but it explains it? Again... illogical.

To answer your final thought... "guidelines came to be" because we, as humans, created them with thoughts within our capabilities.

 

[wizards8507]

That's not what i'm saying at all. What I am saying is that if you are going to use physics as the logic behind an argument, it doesn't make sense to say it's rules don't apply to the other parts of argument.

Sorry I'm getting frustrated. I know what I'm trying to say but having trouble communicating it. I'm not using the laws of physics. I'm NOT saying "every action has a cause, and a cause is an action therefore every cause is also caused" in an infinite regression. I never enter that realm in my argument. I actually criticize that argument from the very beginning. "Laws of motion do not adequately explain the origins of the universe, therefore..."

To answer your final thought... "guidelines came to be" because we, as humans, created them with thoughts within our capabilities.

Gravity (etc.) exists independently of our understanding thereof. Mass attracts mass whether we call it "gravity" and measure it at 9.8 m/s/s or if we call it "magic" and don't measure it at all. Discovering natural laws and writing them down does not bring them into existence. They have always existed and our research simply improves our understanding and mathematics around them.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I am in an exploration mood today and as I also see the contingency argument very useful and compelling, I want to move into this realm. Are contingencies defined by a "reason" or can they just be causal (one therefore the next)? What is "necessary?" Also the Argument of Contingency implies that something is necessary and this is not initially posited as part of the argument. Is this an axiom that is assumed to be true with regards to contingency? It seems so from the link above but I want to make sure I am correct before proceeding.

I'm still trying to find good answers to a couple of these questions, Cacky, but I wanted to at least address this one. "Necessary," in this context, means that which could never have failed to exist. And by my understanding, since every material thing humanity has ever encountered in this universe is quite clearly contingent, any "necessary" thing must also be somewhat supernatural. Put another way, if your worldview involves any "necessary" thing (and I don't see how a coherent view can avoid at least one such object), then you can't be a strict materialist.

Deists can not define God's will in a string of occurrence of events unless all or none of them are "God's will." And if that is the case, the sum total of all events sooner or later disproves the concept of "God's will" being a possibility of an engaged supernatural being active in our world. So there then lies the deists fatal flaw.

You lost me here Bogs. Are you asserting that the Argument from Contingency either leads us to Determinism or Deism? I don't see how that's the case. Those are two opposite extremes regarding God's involvement in human history, and most of Christianity (not to mention other monotheistic faiths) fall somewhere in between.

Surely this is a typo, do you mean people?

Not a typo. CS Lewis frequently refers to humans as "gods" with a small "g". It's an effective way to convey the Christian understanding that we are far more than a collection of molecules/ the most evolved apes.

My issue with free will, pointed out earlier, is that 1) the "word of god" was spread through the most anti-Jesus way possible: the sword

First, this is a gross exaggeration. If you account for every recorded war in human history, those waged for primarily religious reasons are a very small %. Filter out those waged by Muslims, and you're down in the 1-2% range. Second, this brings us back to the purpose of creation. This world exists in a fallen state because such is necessary for humans to have a meaningful choice between God and themselves. Thus the imperfections and inefficiencies in the spread of his Word-- because humanity, in its brokenness, must be part of its spread. Had God chosen a more direct and "efficient" way of revealing himself to the world, it would have ruined the entire experiment.

--God of course knew that would happen so why go about it that way? It doesn't seem special at all when you compare it to religions around the world.

Really? An obscure sect of Judaism arose in a backwater of the Roman empire circa 33 AD, and, within a relatively brief period of time, became the dominant religion in the Western world. After which its ideological off-spring would go on to conquer most of the planet. I'm not arguing that any of this makes the truth of Christianity self-evident, but you can't really claim it's just like every other religion.

And 2) the multiple continents full of people who never has this choice of "Him or themselves." What is the Church's position on people who never hear the word? There are still people in the Amazon and on islands out there who never hear about Christianity. Hell I'm sure there are children in India/China/North Korea and parts of Africa who die before ever once hearing about Jesus. What's up with their souls?

wizards already touched upon this, but the Christian view is that Jesus saved all of mankind, whether they've ever heard his name or not. At every moment, each individual makes a choice between himself (sin, selfishness, etc.) and God (love, community, etc.). God doesn't "send" anyone to hell; each individual chooses where to go based on how they lived their lives (and many theologians have suggested that Heaven would be intolerable for anyone who hadn't prepared themselves for it). Living a good and moral life is probably harder for those who aren't Christian, but then again, sin is subjective, and everyone is judged according to their own understanding.

I think this is crazy talk.

I don't expect to convince you on this subject, because we all suffer from a strong bias in favor of the present. But that's the Christian view. Believing otherwise-- that humanity can bring about paradise on earth through its own efforts-- is dangerously utopian. Much of the worst genocide in the 20th century was carried out by regimes founded on similar beliefs.

If you limit the metrics for human "progress" to health and wealth, then yes, it appears we're doing much better today than we ever have before. But that's a very narrow view of what human flourishing entails; when one looks at a broader spectrum of wellness indicators, I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that we aren't living much better today than our ancestors did for much of history.

I've always thought miracles are hypocritical. On one hand it's all about free will and measuring blind faith, on the other the guy upstairs is sprinkling miracles where he sees fit.

Again, this all comes back to "free will" and the purpose of creation. His goal is for us to voluntarily choose Him over ourselves. Once an individual starts doing that, God can take a more active role in his life without invalidating his choice. But He doesn't simply go around doing stuff to people arbitrarily.

Miracles to me are medicine and capitalism. Every person, government, and religion on the planet thought that universal poverty was inescapable. St. Thomas, if I remember correctly wrote extensively on the topic. They were all wrong, we've lifted more poor people out of poverty that the Church ever could--even as the world's largest charitable organization. That is more impressive than the myriad miracles, because I can prove quality of life is improving. And yet I think your second paragraph says that that's a bad thing! I don't get that.

I think you're overstating your case here. The vast majority of those that have been lifted out of poverty are living in China. A lot of that has to do with the system of global capitalism that America has built and maintained; and I trust you're well aware that there are lots of losers when it comes to global capitalism. And it goes far beyond those who have lost their jobs-- communities destroyed, social cohesion eroded, etc. The cultural effects are far-reaching and still poorly understood.

So I think the Church is very reasonable to look at the costs and benefits of global capitalism and call it (at best) a wash. But, as I mentioned above, one has to consider a broader spectrum of "wellness" variables. If you come to this question with utilitarian assumptions of what the good life entails, then the conclusion you've drawn is pretty much unavoidable.

Here is a question for those that utilize the "God of the Gap" philosophy.

If there is an unknown "mover" of time and space (as Newton's Law would say) that would have to be the beginning.... then who/what created him/her? I mean, if God's existence can be based on the laws of physics, doesn't those same laws insinuate that something must have created God?

I know the discussion has already moved on from this, but I wanted to address this quickly. My understanding of the "God of the Gaps" argument is this: "Science still can't explain X,Y,Z; therefore, God!" Its weakness is obvious, because empiricism is constantly shrinking the sphere of things that can't be explained.

But the Argument from Contingency isn't based on the laws of physics, per se. It's a philosophical argument that quickly brings us to the point of infinite regression, which empiricism cannot accept on its own terms (and is therefore inadequate explain it). How one chooses to address the infinite regression invariably involves an assertion of faith; you can either assert that something supernatural caused the infinite regression (and the fact that the laws of physics apparently don't apply to that something is hardly problematic since it exists outside the set in which those laws have force), or you can simply assert the necessity of the Universe itself, or abstract mathematical objects, etc. (which is basically theism by a different name). But it's not "proving" God through the laws of physics.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm still trying to find good answers to a couple of these questions, Cacky, but I wanted to at least address this one...

Get that man some reps.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm still trying to find good answers to a couple of these questions, Cacky, but I wanted to at least address this one. "Necessary," in this context, means that which could never have failed to exist. And by my understanding, since every material thing humanity has ever encountered in this universe is quite clearly contingent, any "necessary" thing must also be somewhat supernatural. Put another way, if your worldview involves any "necessary" thing (and I don't see how a coherent view can avoid at least one such object), then you can't be a strict materialist.

Ok. Good. that was what I thought. After watching the video I posted above it seems that Russell and Copleston became stuck at this point because Copleston claimed that a being was necessary for contingency. Russell asked Copleston to define necessary so he could understand his use of the word, and Copleston stated that it required no definition (explanation) as it must inherently exist from the contingent objects. Russell then stated that if it has no explanation, then it has no meaning and therefore is meaningless and without merit so a "necessary being" could not exist.

Needless to say they reached an impasse and decided to move on, lol.

I am trying to look into how to define the use of "contingent" and "reason" in various manners to see if it can actually mean causality, which I think is a possible definition that could be used. On the surface it seems to imply that one object/action follows from another and the reason this occurs is from the previous contingent object/action. I know its not as simple as that (or maybe it is) but I want to do a little digging before I say anymore.

 

[Cackalacky]

Get that man some reps.

I rep him daily LOL.

 

[tussin]

Got me curious..what would be your first question?

How is Nick Saban such a good recruiter?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I'm still trying to find good answers to a couple of these questions, Cacky, but I wanted to at least address this one. "Necessary," in this context, means that which could never have failed to exist. And by my understanding, since every material thing humanity has ever encountered in this universe is quite clearly contingent, any "necessary" thing must also be somewhat supernatural. Put another way, if your worldview involves any "necessary" thing (and I don't see how a coherent view can avoid at least one such object), then you can't be a strict materialist.



You lost me here Bogs. Are you asserting that the Argument from Contingency either leads us to Determinism or Deism? I don't see how that's the case. Those are two opposite extremes regarding God's involvement in human history, and most of Christianity (not to mention other monotheistic faiths) fall somewhere in between.

Think of totality of this. It is at its core a paradox. Two concepts one paradox. Stating that something is God's will, means that everything is Gods will. The minute that everything is God's will it is indistinguishable, unrecognizable in its intent.

Not a typo. CS Lewis frequently refers to humans as "gods" with a small "g". It's an effective way to convey the Christian understanding that we are far more than a collection of molecules/ the most evolved apes.



First, this is a gross exaggeration. If you account for every recorded war in human history, those waged for primarily religious reasons are a very small %. Filter out those waged by Muslims, and you're down in the 1-2% range. Second, this brings us back to the purpose of creation. This world exists in a fallen state because such is necessary for humans to have a meaningful choice between God and themselves. Thus the imperfections and inefficiencies in the spread of his Word-- because humanity, in its brokenness, must be part of its spread. Had God chosen a more direct and "efficient" way of revealing himself to the world, it would have ruined the entire experiment.



Really? An obscure sect of Judaism arose in a backwater of the Roman empire circa 33 AD, and, within a relatively brief period of time, became the dominant religion in the Western world. After which its ideological off-spring would go on to conquer most of the planet. I'm not arguing that any of this makes the truth of Christianity self-evident, but you can't really claim it's just like every other religion.

This is hanging the target around the bullet pattern to get the best score. (when several appear to be tightly clustered, on the side of a barn.)

Bart Ehrman :
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pfheSAcCsrE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

From minute 33 it becomes outstanding to after minute 40.

51 Minutes reference to changing women's roles.

129 "Anothen" the Greek word for born again, and born from heaven above.

On the Magdalene :

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UHFTJIMtOik" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Capitalism is opposed to Christianity, and was for over two thirds of the history of the church.

I think you're overstating your case here. The vast majority of those that have been lifted out of poverty are living in China. A lot of that has to do with the system of global capitalism that America has built and maintained; and I trust you're well aware that there are lots of losers when it comes to global capitalism. And it goes far beyond those who have lost their jobs-- communities destroyed, social cohesion eroded, etc. The cultural effects are far-reaching and still poorly understood.

So I think the Church is very reasonable to look at the costs and benefits of global capitalism and call it (at best) a wash. But, as I mentioned above, one has to consider a broader spectrum of "wellness" variables. If you come to this question with utilitarian assumptions of what the good life entails, then the conclusion you've drawn is pretty much unavoidable.



I know the discussion has already moved on from this, but I wanted to address this quickly. My understanding of the "God of the Gaps" argument is this: "Science still can't explain X,Y,Z; therefore, God!" Its weakness is obvious, because empiricism is constantly shrinking the sphere of things that can't be explained.

But the Argument from Contingency isn't based on the laws of physics, per se. It's a philosophical argument that quickly brings us to the point of infinite regression, which empiricism cannot accept on its own terms (and is therefore inadequate explain it). How one chooses to address the infinite regression invariably involves an assertion of faith; you can either assert that something supernatural caused the infinite regression (and the fact that the laws of physics apparently don't apply to that something is hardly problematic since it exists outside the set in which those laws have force), or you can simply assert the necessity of the Universe itself, or abstract mathematical objects, etc. (which is basically theism by a different name). But it's not "proving" God through the laws of physics.

I am thinking I did okay not trying to change what you said, but to answer. I also added the most interesting thing I could find from a source with authority about Mary Magdalene.

Here is the most interesting lecture I have found on this subject : It shows what happens when you reduce a complex issue to simplistic terms so it can be used in an argument.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/y7cmUCjnCgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Buster Bluth]

It was either Pope Francis or JP2 who described it this way and I think it's a good analogy to help visualize. Think of Christ and Christianity as the bridge to salvation. It's possible to cross the bridge without ever knowing what the bridge is called. In other words, those people you talk about can live Christian lives without ever hearing any stories about a carpenter who rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Yeah I've heard this before, but it seems like a weak excuse to me. To say that "salvation is only possible through Jesus...unless you've never heard of him but happen to be a good human being.." is kinda silly. They do not worship Jesus or God. They do not keep the Sabbath, get baptized, etc. They've fulfilled exactly zero commandments.

I mean if some Incan fellow has as good of a shot at "heaven" as I do, what the hell is the point of being a Catholic? I was under the impression that the Church still considers Catholicism the only way to salvation, no? If a god damn Aztec can get into heaven, surely a Lutheran can and the centuries of hostility don't mesh with current policy.

I think the Church doesn't want to recognize that there were other people out there who didn't get the "word" because it shoots holes in the idea that their message is truly divine. Again, it doesn't look divine or even abnormal. Their history looks like a pseudo-Roman Empire adapted to survive after the fall, so it can continue to subjugate as many people as possible.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Yeah I've heard this before, but it seems like a weak excuse to me. To say that "salvation is only possible through Jesus...unless you've never heard of him but happen to be a good human being.." is kinda silly. They do not worship Jesus or God. They do not keep the Sabbath, get baptized, etc. They've fulfilled exactly zero commandments.

I think the Church doesn't want to recognize that there were other people out there who didn't get the "word" because it shoots holes in the idea that their message is truly divine. Again, it doesn't look divine or even abnormal. Their history looks like a pseudo-Roman Empire adapted to survive after the fall, so it can continue to subjugate as many people as possible.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I was waiting to post that if the response was "no they don't count because they were ignorant, so they're judged by a different set of rules."

I must say I do get the stance that Pope Francis (et al?) mentioned that you cannot go to hell unless you reject Jesus and can't reject him unless you properly understand him. In which case, then why tell me about him? Hah

 

[greyhammer90]

I was waiting to post that if the response was "no they don't count because they were ignorant, so they're judged by a different set of rules."

I must say I do get the stance that Pope Francis (et al?) mentioned that you cannot go to hell unless you reject Jesus and can't reject him unless you properly understand him. In which case, then why tell me about him? Hah

Because Christians will go to hell if they don't tell you about him.

Aye there's the rub!

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yeah I've heard this before, but it seems like a weak excuse to me. To say that "salvation is only possible through Jesus...unless you've never heard of him but happen to be a good human being.." is kinda silly. They do not worship Jesus or God. They do not keep the Sabbath, get baptized, etc. They've fulfilled exactly zero commandments.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of wizards' post. The Christian view is that Jesus is the only path to salvation. Full stop. The Fall separated humanity from God, and by taking on human form and sacrificing Himself for us, Jesus cleared a path back to communion with God. Anyone can walk that path by emulating Jesus' example, regardless of whether they're aware of his existence. Keeping the Sabbath, following the 10 commandments, etc. may help Christians to follow Jesus' example, but they're not sufficient on their own to obtain salvation. Jesus scolded plenty of law-abiding Pharisees.

I mean if some Incan fellow has as good of a shot at "heaven" as I do, what the hell is the point of being a Catholic?

The Roman Church believes that its doctrine offers the greatest amount of religious truth available, whereby Catholics enjoy a better chance of obtaining salvation than adherents of other faiths. We're all on the same journey, so to speak, but Catholics have the best equipment, and are therefore more likely to reach their destination than others.

The Roman Church does not claim a monopoly on religious truth, or that all non-Catholics go to hell.

I was under the impression that the Church still considers Catholicism the only way to salvation, no?

No. Just the best route available.

I think the Church doesn't want to recognize that there were other people out there who didn't get the "word" because it shoots holes in the idea that their message is truly divine.

Not true. The Church explicitly recognizes that such people exist (along with every Gentile who lived and died before Jesus' birth), and that they are saved through Jesus' death and resurrection no less than the most devout Catholic.

I was waiting to post that if the response was "no they don't count because they were ignorant, so they're judged by a different set of rules."

The Church's position is that moral truth is objective, but sin hinges on intent, and thus must be subjective. So yes, a well catechized Catholic whose conscience was competently formed is held to a higher standard than the proverbial savage. Because the former has a better understanding of that objective moral truth than the latter. Does that strike you as unfair, or illogical?

I must say I do get the stance that Pope Francis (et al?) mentioned that you cannot go to hell unless you reject Jesus and can't reject him unless you properly understand him. In which case, then why tell me about him? Hah

This gets to moral formation, as mentioned above. If you genuinely don't know right from wrong, it would be unjust to hold you to same standard as someone who does. That's how our criminal justice system works (in theory), and that's how sin works as well. "Rejecting Jesus" in this context is not a one-time decision (though most Evangelicals believe that to be case), but a process by which a man learns objective moral truth and decides (through his daily actions) whether to conform his life to that truth or not.