Ask a Catholic

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

What are your reasons for believing that the basis of Christianity is an imaginative writer so that I may address them?

I didnt say thats what I believe christianity is, im just saying that its a possibility, as its fairly hard to disprove it in another way than you saying "thats wrong because God".

Do you believe Jesus was a historical figure who was not divine? Do you disbelieve Jesus existed at all, but that God may exist? Or do you categorically reject to possibility of any supernatural being?

Sure, Jesus could have existed, I wont say no to that, its the parts where he walks on water and turns H2O into a completely different chemical composition, with the only answer of "yeah bros, im the son of God, check this shit out." Im not going to reject the possibility of any supernatural beings, ive got an open mind, I just think that theres a better chance of making contact with alien life, than with supernatural beings.

I would argue that based on our current knowledge of the world, it is far more logical to believe that some sort of supernatural being exists rather than none at all.

Ok, then based on our current knowledge of the universe, is it not far more logical to believe life exists elsewhere than on Earth rather than nowhere else ever?

My reasoning for this is the existence of the universe. We know that in order for something natural to exist, it must have a cause. By definition, in order to create something where before nothing existed, a supernatural cause is required. We call this cause God; a being for which there is no beginning or end.

Could survival of the fittest not be a cause to exist? The urge to live sounds as good a cause as any for the existence of life. As for creating something where nothing existed before, I call that a star exploding. But where did the first star come from? What made that? I dont know, you dont know, nobody knows. The best explanation you have for where life came from is a 2000 year old book, telling you how the quintillion year old universe came into existence. Thats like trying to explain Batman to someone in 2 seconds.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I didnt say thats what I believe christianity is, im just saying that its a possibility, as its fairly hard to disprove it in another way than you saying "thats wrong because God".

OK, understood. If I can provide compelling evidence that the bible was not written by a single writer, but rather by several, would that convince you? Or rather, would you simply say that instead of one imaginative writer, it could be several? I would argue that it is unlikely that several writers decided to get together and write about a new religion on their own, but we can discuss that more if you want to.

As far as a single writer, scholarly study of the bible is almost unanimous in agreeing that the difference in writing styles between the books of the bible is too great to suggest a single writer or even two or three. The academic consensus is that the bible was written by multiple people.

Furthermore, the bible is not the sole evidence for the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned in other, non-biblical writings from the time. I can elaborate on this if you like.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Sure, Jesus could have existed, I wont say no to that, its the parts where he walks on water and turns H2O into a completely different chemical composition, with the only answer of "yeah bros, im the son of God, check this shit out." Im not going to reject the possibility of any supernatural beings, ive got an open mind, I just think that theres a better chance of making contact with alien life, than with supernatural beings.

Ok, then based on our current knowledge of the universe, is it not far more logical to believe life exists elsewhere than on Earth rather than nowhere else ever?

I would agree with this possibility. The Catholic Church makes no statement that Earth is the only place that God has created life. The Church is open to the possibility of life on other planets.

As far as the miracles of Jesus, I assume this falls under your belief that the bible could be made up. Do you agree with the idea I presented above? If so, then I would argue that each of these writers at least believed that the events they were writing about happened. Do you think it is likely that several writers were deceived into believing the same lie? Also, do you believe that they were deceived to such a degree that they were willing to die for it? I would argue that this is unlikely.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Could survival of the fittest not be a cause to exist? The urge to live sounds as good a cause as any for the existence of life. As for creating something where nothing existed before, I call that a star exploding. But where did the first star come from? What made that? I dont know, you dont know, nobody knows. The best explanation you have for where life came from is a 2000 year old book, telling you how the quintillion year old universe came into existence. Thats like trying to explain Batman to someone in 2 seconds.

Your right. We do not know where the universe came from without a doubt. However, can you think of an explanation for something spontaneously coming into existence from nothing that is not supernatural? I cannot.

As far as survival of the fittest, i don't believe it to be a compelling explanation for existence. It may explain the continuation of existence, but not why we exist in the first place. Further, it does not explain morality. Why do we believe that some acts are objectively evil? You cannot explain this without the existence of a higher moral authority, i.e. God.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

OK, understood. If I can provide compelling evidence that the bible was not written by a single writer, but rather by several, would that convince you? Or rather, would you simply say that instead of one imaginative writer, it could be several? I would argue that it is unlikely that several writers decided to get together and write about a new religion on their own, but we can discuss that more if you want to.

1 or 1000, it doesnt really change the possibility of it just being made up. L. Ron Hubbard just sort of threw a story together and seemingly made up Scientology, I dont see why it couldnt have happened with the bible.

Furthermore, the bible is not the sole evidence for the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned in other, non-biblical writings from the time. I can elaborate on this if you like.

I said Jesus could have been around, im not denying his existence, just his magical abilities.

I would agree with this possibility. The Catholic Church makes no statement that Earth is the only place that God has created life. The Church is open to the possibility of life on other planets.

Thats good, although im sure if we ever found alien life, you guys would be cramming bibles down their gizzards.

As far as the miracles of Jesus, I assume this falls under your belief that the bible could be made up. Do you agree with the idea I presented above? If so, then I would argue that each of these writers at least believed that the events they were writing about happened. Do you think it is likely that several writers were deceived into believing the same lie? Also, do you believe that they were deceived to such a degree that they were willing to die for it?

Yes. People are stupid. in the words of the great Agent K. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Your right. We do not know where the universe came from without a doubt. However, can you think of an explanation for something spontaneously coming into existence from nothing that is not supernatural? I cannot.

I think something science happened. I couldnt possibly begin to explain or even comprehend it, but I find that more believable than some omnipotent being simply snapping his fingers and "poof", theres the universe.

As far as survival of the fittest, i don't believe it to be a compelling explanation for existence. It may explain the continuation of existence, but not why we exist in the first place.

Fair enough.

Further, it does not explain morality. Why do we believe that some acts are objectively evil? You cannot explain this without the existence of a higher moral authority, i.e. God.

Morality is just a basic human trait. What I think is right or wrong is probably different than what you think, or any other person in the world. If God was governing these morals, then wouldnt we all just think the same? Then people like Edison and Hitler never would have existed.

[Combine 017]

This was kind of funny and a bit on topic.

Russell Brand talks to some Christians.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 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.