Ask a Catholic

[Teuthida]

Me "grasping at straws" was actually me willing to entertain that there may be slight hints of truth behind this claims.

So really there is no proof of any of these things occurring. Just some stories from an old book. Why should I believe that? I'd be more willing to believe the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun. At least it's known that wax melts.

I don't need to disprove that something didn't happened. If I came to you and told you a dragon just flew down the street and danced the Macarena, I would be the one required to offer proof. You would not have to disprove it because we live in a world where dragons don't exist, and no one dances the Macarena anymore. (Not with the true spirit of the dance at least.)


What you need to do is prove to me that they happened, and cite more than one source. Just because your one source says multiple people saw it, does not make it true.



Damn, look at all those witnesses. There must really have been a leprechaun.

[Vampyr]

I actually don't have "faith" that science will uncover the beginnings of the universe. I'm OK with the idea that we may never know - I'm simply saying that if we ever DO discover how the universe was created, the answer will be scientific in nature. I'm basing this on the fact that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically. Perhaps the Universe has just always existed, as you believe God has always existed? Maybe it was not formed by any one or any event - it just Is.

I actually consider myself an absurdist, if I had to label my life philosophy. I think that life is ultimately meaningless. We live for about 80 years and die. In the infinity of the Universe, where all time exists and all space exists, these 80 years are almost nothing. Your relatives may remember you for a while after you die, but eventually everyone and everything will be forgotten, forever.

This isn't an easy thing to deal with. Everyone must realize their own meaninglessness and accept it in some way. I think there are three options. One is suicide. However, I don't believe this is an acceptable option - to merely end one's own existence is even more absurd than continue a meaningless life. It is an easy out that does not seek to solve the problem.

The second option is religion. To believe in an afterlife of some sort. You realize that this life is absurd, so you look for a life beyond this one - a life that does have meaning and is not absurd. This is just another form of suicide - it is philosophical suicide. You abandon reason for an answer based on no facts, and refuse to actually solve the problem at hand. You choose ignorant bliss, a security blanket, an opiate, over the hard answer, which leads to the third and only solution:

Acceptance of the absurd. You accept the difficult answer - life really is meaningless. But you rebel against that meaninglessness - you carve out your own purpose and meaning in life. You decide what meaning your life will have, and you work towards that, while accepting that ultimately it will not matter.

And I'm still working on it. I still don't like the idea of death. I haven't completely accepted it's unstoppable nature, and it does scare me at times. When my plane takes off or lands, I worry it will extend beyond the runway and into fire - and I worry that I haven't done enough.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I actually don't have "faith" that science will uncover the beginnings of the universe. I'm OK with the idea that we may never know - I'm simply saying that if we ever DO discover how the universe was created, the answer will be scientific in nature. I'm basing this on the fact that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically. Perhaps the Universe has just always existed, as you believe God has always existed? Maybe it was not formed by any one or any event - it just Is.

I actually consider myself an absurdist, if I had to label my life philosophy. I think that life is ultimately meaningless. We live for about 80 years and die. In the infinity of the Universe, where all time exists and all space exists, these 80 years are almost nothing. Your relatives may remember you for a while after you die, but eventually everyone and everything will be forgotten, forever.

This isn't an easy thing to deal with. Everyone must realize their own meaninglessness and accept it in some way. I think there are three options. One is suicide. However, I don't believe this is an acceptable option - to merely end one's own existence is even more absurd than continue a meaningless life. It is an easy out that does not seek to solve the problem.

The second option is religion. To believe in an afterlife of some sort. You realize that this life is absurd, so you look for a life beyond this one - a life that does have meaning and is not absurd. This is just another form of suicide - it is philosophical suicide. You abandon reason for an answer based on no facts, and refuse to actually solve the problem at hand. You choose ignorant bliss, a security blanket, an opiate, over the hard answer, which leads to the third and only solution:

Acceptance of the absurd. You accept the difficult answer - life really is meaningless. But you rebel against that meaninglessness - you carve out your own purpose and meaning in life. You decide what meaning your life will have, and you work towards that, while accepting that ultimately it will not matter.

And I'm still working on it. I still don't like the idea of death. I haven't completely accepted it's unstoppable nature, and it does scare me at times. When my plane takes off or lands, I worry it will extend beyond the runway and into fire - and I worry that I haven't done enough.

Nailed it.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I actually don't have "faith" that science will uncover the beginnings of the universe. I'm OK with the idea that we may never know - I'm simply saying that if we ever DO discover how the universe was created, the answer will be scientific in nature. I'm basing this on the fact that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically. Perhaps the Universe has just always existed, as you believe God has always existed? Maybe it was not formed by any one or any event - it just Is.

I'll touch on the rest of your post at a later date, but I wanted to discuss this part specifically. How is it not faith to believe that the answer to the existence of the universe will be explained scientifically? You state that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically, but this is self defeating. Nature has not produced evidence of anything coming into existence from nothing. Further, everything we have observed in nature has at least a defined beginning if not a currently observable end. Nature has yet to produce evidence that either of these explanations is possible.

Isn't it the common atheistic definition of faith that it is the belief in something without evidence?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

I'll touch on the rest of your post at a later date, but I wanted to discuss this part specifically. How is it not faith to believe that the answer to the existence of the universe will be explained scientifically? You state that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically, but this is self defeating. Nature has not produced evidence of anything coming into existence from nothing. Further, everything we have observed in nature has at least a defined beginning if not a currently observable end. Nature has yet to produce evidence that either of these explanations is possible.

Isn't it the common atheistic definition of faith that it is the belief in something without evidence?

I don't believe that something came from nothing - that's your belief. It's not that I have faith in science's ability to come up with proof - it's that I'm not going to believe anything without proof.

I am not putting forth any hypothesis for how the universe came to be - you are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. I reject the idea that God created everything because there is no basis for it and not a shred of evidence to support it. You are putting forth that idea, so you must provide the proof.

So far your only proof is "You don't have a better idea, so my side is most likely correct." That's not proof or a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Scientists can't just come up with any crazy hypothesis they want and support it with the argument of "The other side doesn't have anything to refute it." They need evidence.

The Bible isn't evidence. It's a book of unsubstantiated stories. Some probably happened, a lot of them probably didn't.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I don't believe that something came from nothing - that's your belief. It's not that I have faith in science's ability to come up with proof - it's that I'm not going to believe anything without proof.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I actually consider myself an absurdist, if I had to label my life philosophy. I think that life is ultimately meaningless. We live for about 80 years and die. In the infinity of the Universe, where all time exists and all space exists, these 80 years are almost nothing. Your relatives may remember you for a while after you die, but eventually everyone and everything will be forgotten, forever.

This isn't an easy thing to deal with. Everyone must realize their own meaninglessness and accept it in some way. I think there are three options. One is suicide. However, I don't believe this is an acceptable option - to merely end one's own existence is even more absurd than continue a meaningless life. It is an easy out that does not seek to solve the problem.

The second option is religion. To believe in an afterlife of some sort. You realize that this life is absurd, so you look for a life beyond this one - a life that does have meaning and is not absurd. This is just another form of suicide - it is philosophical suicide. You abandon reason for an answer based on no facts, and refuse to actually solve the problem at hand. You choose ignorant bliss, a security blanket, an opiate, over the hard answer, which leads to the third and only solution:

Acceptance of the absurd. You accept the difficult answer - life really is meaningless. But you rebel against that meaninglessness - you carve out your own purpose and meaning in life. You decide what meaning your life will have, and you work towards that, while accepting that ultimately it will not matter.

And I'm still working on it. I still don't like the idea of death. I haven't completely accepted it's unstoppable nature, and it does scare me at times. When my plane takes off or lands, I worry it will extend beyond the runway and into fire - and I worry that I haven't done enough.

Thank you for sharing your views. If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a few questions.

First off, why do we search for meaning in our lives (or as you stated, "rebel against the meaninglessness"? Why aren't we like other animals, who from all observable evidence, do not contemplate what will happen when they die and do not long for an afterlife? What point does that serve in a random and meaningless universe?

Secondly, do you believe that there is a good you should strive for? (I'm assuming that you do since you appear to be a law-abiding citizen.) If so, what is that good and how do you know what good is? (In other words, who decides what is "good" and what is "bad" and how do we come to a consensus?)

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Me "grasping at straws" was actually me willing to entertain that there may be slight hints of truth behind this claims.

I'm sorry for the grasping at straws comment. I hope you didn't find it offensive, but these accounts are worthless if they are not accurate portrayals of actual miracles. No one needs a savior that can quickly build a wooden platform just below the surface of the water.

Christianity and our belief in God exists primarily because there is a being capable of supernatural feats that both created us and loves us. It's not by its nature a position where it is worthwhile to meet halfway. Either Jesus is God, or He isn't. If He isn't, there isn't much point in discussing His "tricks" aside from their responsibility in creating a 2000 year old cultural movement claiming roughly 2.1 billion followers.

That's why I was pushing. My claim rests on the divine nature of these miracles, not that there was a man who was capable of a couple of really neat tricks 2000 years ago.

However, let's move on.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

So really there is no proof of any of these things occurring. Just some stories from an old book. Why should I believe that? I'd be more willing to believe the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun. At least it's known that wax melts.

What you need to do is prove to me that they happened, and cite more than one source. Just because your one source says multiple people saw it, does not make it true.

You ask for more than one source. I can cite a couple of additional sources.

Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writes about Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews written around 93-94 AD.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." - Book 20, Chapter 9, 1.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." - Book 18, Chapter 3, 3.

Roman historian and senator Tacitus mentions Jesus in his Annals written AD 116.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". - Book 15, Chapter 44.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor, speaks of the Christian movement in his letters to the Emperor Trajan around 112 AD.

"...were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."

Pliny is writing to Trajan concerning what to do with the Christian movement. At this time in the Roman empire, being a Christian is punishable by death unless the individual repents and sacrifices to the Roman gods. Why would these people, less than 80 years after Jesus' death, willingly die rather than deny their God? It was easy to get out of, yet many died willingly. We were not far removed from Jesus' time. Why die for something if there was no proof? And why did this new religion not only succeed, but positively thrive in an atmosphere of persecution?

In addition to these sources which are the most well known, there are others. However, the Bible remains the most extensive historical document on Jesus precisely because it was written by the experts; the people who knew Jesus. Do you dismiss a historical account because the writer has direct knowledge of his subject material? I would think it would lend additional credence.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

I don't need to disprove that something didn't happened. If I came to you and told you a dragon just flew down the street and danced the Macarena, I would be the one required to offer proof. You would not have to disprove it because we live in a world where dragons don't exist, and no one dances the Macarena anymore. (Not with the true spirit of the dance at least.)




Damn, look at all those witnesses. There must really have been a leprechaun.

If you came to me with the above account, of course I would not be obligated to disprove it. However, if you amassed a following of Macarena dancing dragon believers in spite of governmental persecution leading to death that thrived in spite of that persecution leading to a following of over 2 billion people 2000 years later, I would be looking for some evidence before refuting your claim.