Ask a Catholic

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Eh, those people don't really qualify as Christians, they are just real life trolls.

I did think this was pretty funny though: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131028.png

Agreed.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

I'm ignoring most of your post because I feel we have an active discussion along those lines in another post. I hope that's okay. If you want me to specifically address these points again, I will.

However, I want to latch on to the above.

I'm am not claiming to believe that the universe came from nothing. I'm stating that that is the case. It is not scientifically possible for there to be any other explanation. Everything we observe has a natural explanation. That's the definition of natural. Everything we observe, (which we have already defined as natural) has a cause. Since everything has a cause, that cause must have occurred at a place in time. In other words, everything has a beginning. At some point, there must have been a time when the first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence. Before the first thing, there was nothing. I'm not talking about nothing as in there were formless atoms and matter, but that there was literally no thing. The total absence of anything. No atoms, no matter, no energy, nothing. Since we exist, we know that that first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence from nothing. We know that this is not naturally possible as science (the study of the natural world) tells us so. Therefore, the very fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists. That is my proof.

God is the supernatural cause of our natural universe. The supernatural cause that is required for a natural, finite universe to exist.

You mentioned a couple posts ago about regrowing limbs. Why didn't you say "What if science finds a way to create limbs from nothing?" The reason is, is because you understand that there is no scientific explanation for something to be created from nothing.

I've mentioned it a bunch of times already, but that's not proof. Your only proof is that science doesn't have any proof...yet. Like I said, I'm not putting forth any facts as to how the universe was formed. I acknowledge that at this point in time, we do not know. We do know that it probably has something to do with an explosion near the center of the universe, as everything in the universe is moving outward at a great speed.

But somehow you are making the jump in conclusions from science hasn't come up with a reasonable answer yet, so the only possible solution is god. No. It's not like the origin of the universe is the last thing we don't know. There is an infinite number of things we do not know. You can't take all those things, and just say, "well, science hasn't found an answer in the brief time humans have existed...so it must be supernatural!"

That is not proof, and it never will be. You need proof that supports your side - I not need proof to dispute your side, because you are the one making the claim.

We do not really know that the first thing came from nothing. There's no evidence to suggest that. We do not know that there was a first thing. Like I said, that's your theory, not mine.

When you get into the science of the Universe - with space, gravity, and time, things get very bizarre. What if time is a thing, the same way gravity and space are things? What if this isn't the only universe? What if time itself came into existence at the same moment as the universe, so that essentially there is no "before"? It simply does not exist.

There are so many theories and possibilities out there, and that's why limiting ourselves to saying a god must be the only plausible solution is just silly.

As for your other question, striving to be "good"...I believe that what is "good" is a set of laws and commonsense derived by people over the course of humanities existence. Religion does not define what is good and bad - people do, and there are grey areas.

My own moral code is the sum total of the experiences in my life up until this point. I don't think God mandated that murder was bad, and then people thought, "You know, murder is bad." I think people figured out that murder, rape, thievery, jealousy, anger, etc were bad on their own.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

I'm am not claiming to believe that the universe came from nothing. I'm stating that that is the case. It is not scientifically possible for there to be any other explanation. Everything we observe has a natural explanation. That's the definition of natural. Everything we observe, (which we have already defined as natural) has a cause. Since everything has a cause, that cause must have occurred at a place in time. In other words, everything has a beginning. At some point, there must have been a time when the first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence. Before the first thing, there was nothing. I'm not talking about nothing as in there were formless atoms and matter, but that there was literally no thing. The total absence of anything. No atoms, no matter, no energy, nothing. Since we exist, we know that that first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence from nothing. We know that this is not naturally possible as science (the study of the natural world) tells us so. Therefore, the very fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists. That is my proof.

God is the supernatural cause of our natural universe. The supernatural cause that is required for a natural, finite universe to exist.

You mentioned a couple posts ago about regrowing limbs. Why didn't you say "What if science finds a way to create limbs from nothing?" The reason is, is because you understand that there is no scientific explanation for something to be created from nothing.

Youre talking as if there cant possibly be any more scientific discoveries. Just because it hasnt happened yet, doesnt mean it wont.

Heres a little piece about a giant super laser in development.

Capable of producing a beam of light so intense that it would be equivalent to the power received by the Earth from the sun focused onto a speck smaller than a tip of a pin, scientists claim it could allow them boil the very fabric of space – the vacuum.

Contrary to popular belief, a vacuum is not devoid of material but in fact fizzles with tiny mysterious particles that pop in and out of existence, but at speeds so fast that no one has been able to prove they exist.

The Extreme Light Infrastructure Ultra-High Field Facility would produce a laser so intense that scientists say it would allow them to reveal these particles for the first time by pulling this vacuum "fabric" apart.

Science is working on it, just give it some time.

And lets say, just for fun, that they do prove that these particles exist, would you stop believing in god? Or would you then claim that these particles are god?

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I've mentioned it a bunch of times already, but that's not proof. Your only proof is that science doesn't have any proof...yet. Like I said, I'm not putting forth any facts as to how the universe was formed. I acknowledge that at this point in time, we do not know. We do know that it probably has something to do with an explosion near the center of the universe, as everything in the universe is moving outward at a great speed.

I agree that you haven't put forth any facts. But I disagree that I haven't put forth any proof (Since I have proven that the beginning of the universe cannot have occurred by natural means). You have repeatedly stated that you believe that the origin of the universe has a scientific explanation but have not provided proof for this belief. Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. The natural world obeys the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not explain the creation of the universe.

By the way, the understanding that the universe likely began with an explosion near the center of the universe is a theory first proposed by Monseigneur Georges Lemaître; a Catholic priest.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

But somehow you are making the jump in conclusions from science hasn't come up with a reasonable answer yet, so the only possible solution is god. No. It's not like the origin of the universe is the last thing we don't know. There is an infinite number of things we do not know. You can't take all those things, and just say, "well, science hasn't found an answer in the brief time humans have existed...so it must be supernatural!"

That is not proof, and it never will be. You need proof that supports your side - I not need proof to dispute your side, because you are the one making the claim.

We do not really know that the first thing came from nothing. There's no evidence to suggest that. We do not know that there was a first thing. Like I said, that's your theory, not mine.

When you get into the science of the Universe - with space, gravity, and time, things get very bizarre. What if time is a thing, the same way gravity and space are things? What if this isn't the only universe? What if time itself came into existence at the same moment as the universe, so that essentially there is no "before"? It simply does not exist.

OK, let's investigate the possibilities.

1. The universe (or universes) had a beginning at some point. (In this possibility, time definitively came in to existence at the same time as the universe since time is rendered in relation to the universe and cannot exist without it.)

2. The universe (or universes) has always existed. - If this is the case, we must then also state that the universe is never ending as well, since no beginning necessitates an infinite universe.

Which is scientifically possible? We have observed decay and change in our universe. All observations point to the understanding that the universe will someday cease to exist. We observe this as entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. Without the input of energy, things will move from an ordered state to a disordered state. An infinite universe would not do this for it must constantly renew itself.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

There are so many theories and possibilities out there, and that's why limiting ourselves to saying a god must be the only plausible solution is just silly.

OK, let's not call it God. It is still a transcendent cause which is necessitated by the fact that the universe came into existence at a definitive point in time before which nothing existed.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

As for your other question, striving to be "good"...I believe that what is "good" is a set of laws and commonsense derived by people over the course of humanities existence. Religion does not define what is good and bad - people do, and there are grey areas.

My own moral code is the sum total of the experiences in my life up until this point. I don't think God mandated that murder was bad, and then people thought, "You know, murder is bad." I think people figured out that murder, rape, thievery, jealousy, anger, etc were bad on their own.

I would agree that people discovered that murder, rape, etc. are bad on their own. The Catholic Church agrees as well. Catholics call this natural law. Natural law is written on men's hearts and does not rely on the revelation of God. In other words, even someone who has never heard of God can observe that murder is wrong.

But why did we come to this conclusion? If life is meaningless and nothing we do matters, then there is no concept of good. What is good is up to each person to decide and would likely revolve simply around "what advances my desires at this moment." If murder solves a problem or provides an advantage, then it is good for the person who is committing the murder. Since life is meaningless, the feelings of the one being murdered are also meaningless. Good is relative.

Why is this not the case then? Why do we have objective wrongs? A meaningless universe presents no requirement for this to be the case.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Youre talking as if there cant possibly be any more scientific discoveries. Just because it hasnt happened yet, doesnt mean it wont.

Heres a little piece about a giant super laser in development.

Science is working on it, just give it some time.

And lets say, just for fun, that they do prove that these particles exist, would you stop believing in god? Or would you then claim that these particles are god?

I'm not stating that science can't make any new discoveries. We make new discoveries every day. However, there are some things that science tells us are impossible. One such thing is explained by the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither by created nor destroyed. Or do you believe that we will one day find a way to create energy from nothing? You better have some proof for that belief!

By the way, the statement you quoted, "Contrary to popular belief, a vacuum is not devoid of material but in fact fizzles with tiny mysterious particles that pop in and out of existence, but at speeds so fast that no one has been able to prove they exist." Proves my point. A vacuum is not nothing. Before the universe, even these mysterious particles did not exist.

[Combine 017]

Or maybe these particles created the universe, since they come in and out of existence. And theres no proof that they didnt exist before the universe. Theres no proof they exist at all. Also, the laser is supposed to give scientists new info on other dimensions, which im not entirely sure how that works. But if other dimensions do exist, does that mean they each have their own God, or does the one God rule all dimensions too?

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Or maybe these particles created the universe, since they come in and out of existence. And theres no proof that they didnt exist before the universe. Theres no proof they exist at all. Also, the laser is supposed to give scientists new info on other dimensions, which im not entirely sure how that works. But if other dimensions do exist, does that mean they each have their own God, or does the one God rule all dimensions too?

Alright, let's say that the particles did create the universe as we know it. What created the particles? Or are the particles the transcendent cause necessary for a finite universe?

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

Alright, let's say that the particles did create the universe as we know it. What created the particles? Or are the particles the transcendent cause necessary for a finite universe?

Sure. Maybe these little particles are "God". They could call them Godons or something.

[Vampyr]

OK, let's not call it God. It is still a transcendent cause which is necessitated by the fact that the universe came into existence at a definitive point in time before which nothing existed.

Scientists believe a gravitational singularity existed before the universe.

How it happened is actually beside the point though. We are discussing your proof of god existing. Here is a wikipedia page that lists unsolved problems in physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolve...ems_in_physics

I'm a computer science person, so I actually know of an unsolved problem in computer science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete Basically there is no way to tell if a certain type of problem (categorized as NP complete) can be solved quickly. There's a lot of prize money out there if someone can figure out a way to do it.

According to your line of thinking, though, we should give up now, because since science doesn't have an answer, there is no answer, and we must look to god for the answer.

Do you see how little since that makes? There are tons of unsolved problems. People are actively working on solving these problems, the same way scientists, engineers, and mathematicians have solved problems all through history. Many things that were once unsolved are now solved.

No scientist is saying they have the perfect answer to origins of the cosmos, or what came before it. They have hypothesis that they are working on proving. You, and every other religious person, have pulled a random solution out of thin air and said "This is it." - without proof.

But why did we come to this conclusion? If life is meaningless and nothing we do matters, then there is no concept of good. What is good is up to each person to decide and would likely revolve simply around "what advances my desires at this moment." If murder solves a problem or provides an advantage, then it is good for the person who is committing the murder. Since life is meaningless, the feelings of the one being murdered are also meaningless. Good is relative.

Why is this not the case then? Why do we have objective wrongs? A meaningless universe presents no requirement for this to be the case.

Well that's THE question, isn't it? That's basically the question of the absurd that I outlined earlier, with the three possible answers: suicide, religion, and rebellion.

You should read The Stranger. It's pretty short and it's written by the absurdist author and philosopher Albert Camus, and it's basically about murder and justice in an absurd world.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Sure. Maybe these little particles are "God". They could call them Godons or something.

Okay. Are the particles sentient?

[Combine 017]

I dont see why they cant be, but if they are I would assume the act of a giant laser being fired upon them would be considered an act of aggression.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Scientists believe a gravitational singularity existed before the universe.

And what created the gravitational singularity? Sure there may have been singularities, universes, or other things present prior to our current universe, but we still run into the same problem. No naturally occurring thing exists without a cause. At some point, there must be a first cause that existed prior to everything. This first cause must be transcendent.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

How it happened is actually beside the point though. We are discussing your proof of god existing. Here is a wikipedia page that lists unsolved problems in physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolve...ems_in_physics

I'm a computer science person, so I actually know of an unsolved problem in computer science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete Basically there is no way to tell if a certain type of problem (categorized as NP complete) can be solved quickly. There's a lot of prize money out there if someone can figure out a way to do it.

According to your line of thinking, though, we should give up now, because since science doesn't have an answer, there is no answer, and we must look to god for the answer.

Do you see how little since that makes? There are tons of unsolved problems. People are actively working on solving these problems, the same way scientists, engineers, and mathematicians have solved problems all through history. Many things that were once unsolved are now solved.

No scientist is saying they have the perfect answer to origins of the cosmos, or what came before it. They have hypothesis that they are working on proving. You, and every other religious person, have pulled a random solution out of thin air and said "This is it." - without proof.

I never said there is no point to scientific inquiry. What is pointless is the assertion science has rendered belief in God obsolete. Since God created the universe, the only thing science can do is further reveal the magnificence of God's creation. We were made to question and understand the world in which we live (something that separates us from all other animals). This desire is good.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Well that's THE question, isn't it? That's basically the question of the absurd that I outlined earlier, with the three possible answers: suicide, religion, and rebellion.

You should read The Stranger. It's pretty short and it's written by the absurdist author and philosopher Albert Camus, and it's basically about murder and justice in an absurd world.

I wouldn't say that that is THE question. I would agree that it's a key part of THE question though. THE question of course in my opinion is "where did we come from and what is our purpose?"

Obviously, I didn't read The Stranger in this short period of time. I'm a very slow reader. I did however look up a synopsis of the plot. Basically, from what I gather, Meursault has no emotion and is indifferent to world and his actions are irrational. Others find this difficult to relate to. In the end, in prison, Meursault realizes that the universe is also indifferent and irrational and this frees him from worrying about his upcoming execution since it ultimately does not matter whether he lives or dies. Correct?

Are you arguing that morality is a construction of society? Then why has man looked for meaning in his life throughout all of recorded history and likely long before as well? What purpose does this serve in a meaningless universe.

Let's assume that the universe was not created by God, has a natural origin, and is as a result, meaningless and indifferent to creation. If this is the case, then humanity is the random result of atoms randomly smashing together to create larger molecules eventually resulting in a planet capable of supporting life. Eventually, this process resulted in living organisms and through the process of evolution, we have humanity.

Where in this process is the evolutionary purpose for morality, good/evil, and the search for a higher purpose? None of these things provides an evolutionary advantage. Time wasted worrying about right and wrong and our purpose in life is energy uselessly devoted to tasks that do not increase our chances for survival. In fact, many would say that they impair our survival in some circumstances (for those that take option 1 in the absurdist belief structure). It would seem that evolution and survival of the fittest should have seen this as a worthless adaptation and stamped it out long ago. Yet, humanity still struggles with these questions after millennia.

Morality, the concept of good and evil, and the search for a higher purpose has no explanation in a universe without God.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I dont see why they cant be, but if they are I would assume the act of a giant laser being fired upon them would be considered an act of aggression.

Okay, so in other words you accept the idea of a god as long as it isn't the one who revealed himself through Jesus, the Bible, and the early Christians?

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

Where in this process is the evolutionary purpose for morality, good/evil, and the search for a higher purpose? None of these things provides an evolutionary advantage. Time wasted worrying about right and wrong and our purpose in life is energy uselessly devoted to tasks that do not increase our chances for survival. In fact, many would say that they impair our survival in some circumstances (for those that take option 1 in the absurdist belief structure). It would seem that evolution and survival of the fittest should have seen this as a worthless adaptation and stamped it out long ago. Yet, humanity still struggles with these questions after millennia.

Morality, the concept of good and evil, and the search for a higher purpose has no explanation in a universe without God.

It's been forever since I took biology (actually going back to college in a few months to continue the bio degree I abandoned a decade ago in favor of art) so looking forward to having a proper debate on evolutionary once I'm refreshed.

Worrying about trivial things such as if there is good or evil in the world is for people who have time to do so. (I personally don't believe in good and evil. They're just man-made labels.) Once civilizations begun to arise, and you had a bit of downtime, of course the human mind would wonder about these things. Would be as simple as four cave men sitting around a fire after a successful day hunting and chatting about why things are the way they are. Wondering about the way things are gives rise to new ideas, and new ideas gives rise to better techniques of solving the pressing problems.

As for morality. It is ingrained. You want your genes to pass on. That is the ultimate goal. And if not you, then genes similar to yours, so you would also care about your family such as cousins. And so on. Not sure at which point humans began to care for those distinctly related from themselves. Altruism can be beneficial though.

So I would say it's more altruism, rather than morality, since many different species exhibit that. Rather than give you hazy memories of biology class I'd refer you read up on this. It's quite interesting. It's basically do unto others. Do something for someone else and expect to get treated in kind. If someone holds out, then the whole thing can collapse. Take vampire bats. If a bat returns home after a night of bloodsucking but didn't get enough blood, another will feed the bat a share of the blood it collected. So if sometime in the future it happens to the giving bat, it can expect to receive blood on one of its bad nights.



Oh, saw this video yesterday.
http://www.wimp.com/wecould/

Acts more like Jesus than most Christians.

And that's a great part of what I have trouble with. It seems more people use religion to divide and hate rather than love. You don't need to believe to believe in religion to be a good person.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

Okay, so in other words you accept the idea of a god as long as it isn't the one who revealed himself through Jesus, the Bible, and the early Christians?

I never rejected the idea of a god, I just think of it as unlikely. But no, my idea of a god isnt the one that was an incredibly elaborate plan to hide the fact that Mary cheated on Joseph and was really convincing about it, or a 2000 year old book detailing the creation of the 14 billion year old Universe, and with absolutely no other god like events between then and now.