A useful chart for classifying Belief

[Lux Veritatis]

What makes you so sure that they are hallucinations? Don't you know that there are some things in life that science cannot explain?

There are some things in life that we don't understand, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. I don't need to claim some outside supernatural force to explain something since it is no more of an answer than saying it was magic.

 

[Selene]

There are some things in life that we don't understand, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. I don't need to claim some outside supernatural force to explain something since it is no more of an answer than saying it was magic.

And I don't need to claim that something came into being from nothing as if by magic when I already know that it was God who created it.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

And I don't need to claim that something came into being from nothing as if by magic when I already know that it was God who created it.

The causal primary of the universe is existence itself — that is, existence is the necessary primary cause in order for all causal interactions to exist. Without existence of the universe, nothing within it could exist — i.e. the reason causal chains can happen is because the universe exists. If you are going to claim that everything in the universe needs a cause, why is God not included? You claim he is the first cause, but you give no reason why or how he is the first cause, just that he is.

I'm just as correct in saying magic is the first cause. Or that the universe is an infinite regress of causes. Since you cannot show me how God causes anything, the theory that the universe has always existed is just as plausible and does not require supernatural intervention.

 

[Selene]

The causal primary of the universe is existence itself — that is, existence is the necessary primary cause in order for all causal interactions to exist. Without existence of the universe, nothing within it could exist — i.e. the reason causal chains can happen is because the universe exists. If you are going to claim that everything in the universe needs a cause, why is God not included? You claim he is the first cause, but you give no reason why or how he is the first cause, just that he is.

I'm just as correct in saying magic is the first cause. Or that the universe is an infinite regress of causes. Since you cannot show me how God causes anything, the theory that the universe has always existed is just as plausible and does not require supernatural intervention.

He is the first because something must be the source of ALL creation. If you want to believe that the universe itself is the source of all creation and the first, go right ahead. That only makes the universe your god.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

He is the first because something must be the source of ALL creation. If you want to believe that the universe itself is the source of all creation and the first, go right ahead. That only makes the universe your god.

No, that makes the universe the uncaused cause. There is no need for a god. The source of all "creation," or rather, the source of all causal interaction in the universe, is existence. Existence is the necessary cause of all other causes. Nothing "causes" existence because existence has always been. We cannot conceive of non-existence because non-existence is non-existent.

Saying that God must be the first cause only contradicts the whole statement — everything in the universe ( = everything in existence) needs a cause — because God becomes an exception and contradicts the whole thing, making it nonsensical.

 

[Selene]

No, that makes the universe the uncaused cause. There is no need for a god. The source of all "creation," or rather, the source of all causal interaction in the universe, is existence. Existence is the necessary cause of all other causes. Nothing "causes" existence because existence has always been. We cannot conceive of non-existence because non-existence is non-existent.

Saying that God must be the first cause only contradicts the whole statement — everything in the universe ( = everything in existence) needs a cause — because God becomes an exception and contradicts the whole thing, making it nonsensical.

Nothing cause existance? So, you are saying that nothing created the universe and everything in it. That is not logical and unscientific. Can you prove that nothing created the entire universe.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Nothing cause existance? So, you are saying that nothing created the universe and everything in it. That is not logical and unscientific. Can you prove that nothing created the entire universe.

I didn't say nothing created existence, I said that existence has always been—so it doesn't need a cause because it wasn't "created." Saying that "god did it" doesn't mean you've answered the problem, it means you've asserted an answer that equates to nothing more than saying "it was magic" because you cannot tell me how God created anything, how God "decided" to create something even though he is infinite and unchanging, and why God created anything at all. Because you have no answers to those, your answer is as about as plausible as the universe having always existed. The difference between me saying that and you saying "god" is that my explanation doesn't require appealing to the supernatural or making special exceptions for a "first cause," it is accounted for by what already exists in the natural world.

 

[Selene]

I didn't say nothing created existence, I said that existence has always been—so it doesn't need a cause because it wasn't "created." Saying that "god did it" doesn't mean you've answered the problem, it means you've asserted an answer that equates to nothing more than saying "it was magic" because you cannot tell me how God created anything, how God "decided" to create something even though he is infinite and unchanging, and why God created anything at all. Because you have no answers to those, your answer is as about as plausible as the universe having always existed. The difference between me saying that and you saying "god" is that my explanation doesn't require appealing to the supernatural or making special exceptions for a "first cause," it is accounted for by what already exists in the natural world.

Let me see if I understand this correctly......you are saying that things have always been in existence and that nothing was created? Doesn't science say that a cause has an effect, and that for every effect there is a cause?

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Let me see if I understand this correctly......you are saying that things have always been in existence and that nothing was created? Doesn't science say that a cause has an effect, and that for every effect there is a cause?

Science says that for what we have been able to observe, mostly on Earth, we can surmise that effect follows cause. However, the universe being everything in existence, we can't know all of it. Quantum mechanics has shown that things can come in and out of existence with no pattern of predictability. The only reason we know they were there at all was that there is a measurable effect on atoms. However, it comes into existence without any apparent cause.

What I am really getting at is that you can't throw stones at my theory if yours is as equally unprovable. The difference being, my argument doesn't require exceptions and supernatural explanation, it is self contained. Occam's razor says that my theory is more likely to be true.

 

[Selene]

Science says that for what we have been able to observe, mostly on Earth, we can surmise that effect follows cause. However, the universe being everything in existence, we can't know all of it. Quantum mechanics has shown that things can come in and out of existence with no pattern of predictability. The only reason we know they were there at all was that there is a measurable effect on atoms. However, it comes into existence without any apparent cause.

What I am really getting at is that you can't throw stones at my theory if yours is as equally unprovable. The difference being, my argument doesn't require exceptions and supernatural explanation, it is self contained. Occam's razor says that my theory is more likely to be true.

How can your theory be true when in the first place it is just that .........a theory? A theory is an educated guess. Furthermore, to say that things can come in and out of existence is the same as magic and supernatural. To come in and out of existence with no pattern is something we have always believed God to do. In other words, your argument indirectly supports the existence of God.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

How can your theory be true when in the first place it is just that .........a theory? A theory is an educated guess. To say that things can come in and out of existence is the same as magic and supernatural.

Except these were actually observed to happen and are capable of being measured and are accepted science. And you are correct in saying I am making an educated guess. I didn't say it was demonstrably true beyond doubt, I said it was more likely to be true.

The point I'm trying to make is that faith is just that — something without proof. But I am not obligated to accept your faith because the standard for human reasoning is the use of logic and reasoned argument. Faith is the antithesis of reason, by definition.

 

[Selene]

Except these were actually observed to happen and are capable of being measured and are accepted science. And you are correct in saying I am making an educated guess. I didn't say it was demonstrably true beyond doubt, I said it was more likely to be true.

The point I'm trying to make is that faith is just that — something without proof. But I am not obligated to accept your faith because the standard for human reasoning is the use of logic and reasoned argument. Faith is the antithesis of reason, by definition.

To say that things can come in and out of existence is the same as magic and supernatural. To come in and out of existence with no pattern is something we have always believed God to do. In other words, your argument indirectly supports the existence of God and goes against materialsim or physicalism, which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today's world.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

To say that things can come in and out of existence is the same as magic and supernatural. To come in and out of existence with no pattern is something we have always believed God to do. In other words, your argument indirectly supports the existence of God and goes against materialsim or physicalism, which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today's world.

The problem is that you are rationalizing it to fit with your idea of God. Scientists aren't making claims like that, they are simply observing what is actually happening. I pointed it out because it goes against the claim you have made that "something cannot come from nothing," because it appears that out of nothing, something is caused.

You are appealing to the "God of the gaps" idea, that just because we don't have a straight forward answer means it must be a god. However, a god isn't necessary—it is simply a fact of how the universe operates. God is just a poorly defined excuse for ignorance.

 

[Selene]

The problem is that you are rationalizing it to fit with your idea of God. Scientists aren't making claims like that, they are simply observing what is actually happening. I pointed it out because it goes against the claim you have made that "something cannot come from nothing," because it appears that out of nothing, something is caused.

You are appealing to the "God of the gaps" idea, that just because we don't have a straight forward answer means it must be a god. However, a god isn't necessary—it is simply a fact of how the universe operates. God is just a poorly defined excuse for ignorance.

Actually, Christians have always said that God is the Creator of all things and no one created Him. The concept of God came first before Quantum Mechanics. So, if anything, it seems that scientists are now discovering that there is indeed a source of all creation, which has always been the Judeo-Christian idea in the first place.......what you call an "uncaused cause." Of course, I don't believe that something came out from nothing. I believe that that something was created by God.....not nothing.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Again, you are taking the idea of God and rationalizing new findings.

Even if I grant your premise that God is the cause of the universe, that doesn't prove the Christian God, that the god is personal, that the Bible has anything to do with it. All it would prove is that some being or force causes the universe to exist.

 

[aspen]

science is the best way to classify the physical world. good science never claims to do more. religion is the language we use to relate with God. it is a misuse of religion to make scientic claims. i took a college class from steven myers before he helped to start the discovery institute, which is behind design theory and in my opinion, an invasion of religion into the realm of science. meyers is a great philosophy teacher.......not a scientist.

as far as atheism is concerned......seems like a complete waste of time to me. i would not find it fulfilling to define my belief system by how strongly i disagree with another belief system i do not even believe in. how silly is that? i guess i could spend my time being anti flying spagetti monster if wanted to waste my time, but i would rather follow Christ'S example of loving others.

why do you find this idea of loving others so diageeable?

 

[Lux Veritatis]

science is the best way to classify the physical world. good science never claims to do more. religion is the language we use to relate with God. it is a misuse of religion to make scientic claims. i took a college class from steven myers before he helped to start the discovery institute, which is behind design theory and in my opinion, an invasion of religion into the realm of science. meyers is a great philosophy teacher.......not a scientist.

as far as atheism is concerned......seems like a complete waste of time to me. i would not find it fulfilling to define my belief system by how strongly i disagree with another belief system i do not even believe in. how silly is that? i guess i could spend my time being anti flying spagetti monster if wanted to waste my time, but i would rather follow Christ'S example of loving others.

why do you find this idea of loving others so diageeable?

Atheism is the disbelief in any gods. I don't believe in gods so that makes me an atheist. Being anti-christian is a completely different thing.

I don't find loving others disagreeable, I find it disagreeable that I have to believe in a mythical being in order to have love considered legitimate.

 

[Selene]

Again, you are taking the idea of God and rationalizing new findings.

Even if I grant your premise that God is the cause of the universe, that doesn't prove the Christian God, that the god is personal, that the Bible has anything to do with it. All it would prove is that some being or force causes the universe to exist.

God is not a Christian God. Christians only identify Him as such, but the Bible actually says that He is the God of all. His name is translated into "I Am That I Am." Your belief in this kind of science does not contradict our religion at all. As the Catechism says:

CCC #159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge , provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and preserving investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

 

[Lux Veritatis]

God is not a Christian God. Christians only identify Him as such, but the Bible actually says that He is the God of all. His name is translated into "I Am That I Am." Your belief in this kind of science does not contradict our religion at all. As the Catechism says:

CCC #159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge , provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and preserving investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

There have been and still are many different views of the attributes of God. Even if your "argument" is correct, it only proves some formless power and not the attributes and personality of your God.

 

[Selene]

Atheism is the disbelief in any gods. I don't believe in gods so that makes me an atheist. Being anti-christian is a completely different thing.

I don't find loving others disagreeable, I find it disagreeable that I have to believe in a mythical being in order to have love considered legitimate.

Do you really think you can love? Humans don't know true love. Do you think that going to people you like is what true love is all about? They say "God is love" simply because true perfect love is divine. The kind of love that you think you have is not even a perfect one. When someone murders your child, for example, can you love the murderer?

People will often sacrifice their lives for their families and friends, but how many of us can sacrifice our life for those rejected by society? Would you, for example, live among the lepers to help them, knowing that you will end up getting leprosy and die from it? That is really what love is........and humans are not capable of this. Those who did administer to the lepers like Father Damian had a love that is not human. It came from God because no human can love like that.

There have been and still are many different views of the attributes of God. Even if your "argument" is correct, it only proves some formless power and not the attributes and personality of your God.

The different Christian denomination assigns different attributes and personalities to God, but God is one. As you say, there is a formless power, even though you can't see it. You can call that formless power whatever you want, but for Christians, we call Him "God." Whatever formless power it is, it is obvious that there is order behind it as is in all the universe.