Trying again--why is God silent?

[albeto.]

Except that to some people....the scientific explanation of gravity doesn't explain away God. Nor make His involvement superfluous.

 

 

The straw man I saw was the assertion that those who believe in God reject scientific explanations for the material world.

 

Herein lies my confusion. We know what causes things to fall. We can explain it with a level of satisfaction such as to warrant such an explanation to be a fact. Like all facts, it is not dependent on a person's gender, social status, citizenship, political views, or religious beliefs. These things are irrelevant with regard to understanding why things fall. So... where does God fit in this? His actions are unnecessary, except as an additional component, essentially coming along for the ride. Remove this component and the explanation of falling will be no different. Add karma, reincarnation, kami, multiple universes, numerology or anything else, and they neither add nor detract from the natural explanation (gravity). In what way is the god from the bible different? 

 

How does one use the scientific method, developed for observation and experimentation of the material world, to prove the existence of that which is immaterial?

 

It can't be done, nor am I attempting to do so. I'm asking what is meant by "spiritual realm," and subsequently, how one applies that to things that are observed and researched by natural means exclusively. 

[.Michelle.]

Because God is the essence of existence.  He is not a thing within our existence.  He is Existence.  

[albeto.]

Because God is the essence of existence.  He is not a thing within our existence.  He is Existence.  

 

But how can one tell? Existence requires no more God Variable to explain than gravity. This is correlated to the OP's question. It used to be that people believed the stories of others who claimed auditory communication, stories like Abraham and Noah and John the Baptist. These claims are decreasingly acceptable today precisely because we have more reliable, natural explanations. It seems as if God is getting squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps. Like Free said, the gap he's been relegated to is this vague, evasive "spiritual realm" that no one can quite identify.

 

I think that component of reliability is the sticky wicket here. The lack of reliable explanations about this God Variable illustrate the problem the OP is having. This problem seems to be either beyond God's ability to address, or his sympathy, if one is to believe the traditional doctrines regarding an immortal soul and the role belief will play in one's eternal well-being. As this is most definitely a Catholic belief, it's appropriate to expect that to come into play for the OP (herself a Catholic). 

[.Michelle.]

How can one tell what?

 

What are the claims of Abraham, Noah, and John the Baptist that can be explained by natural explanations?

 

I'm a little confused by what you're referring to as the God Variable.  Would you define your terms?  I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

[albeto.]

How can one tell what?

 

How can one tell that "God is the essence of existence.  He is not a thing within our existence.  He is Existence."

 

What are the claims of Abraham, Noah, and John the Baptist that can be explained by natural explanations?

 

They're mythologies, stories no more based on real events than Hercules and his slaying of the Nemean Lion.

 

I'm a little confused by what you're referring to as the God Variable.  Would you define your terms?  I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

 

By "God Variable," I'm referring to any component of the supernatural as is related to the god of the bible (or the koran, or even a pantheistic or deistic entity, but there seems to be a predominantly Christian participation on this thread) to explain a natural phenomenon. The argument to which I'm referring is the argument that "one doesn't have to ignore science in order to believe in the spiritual realm." I suggest when the natural explanation is accepted, the supernatural one is dismissed. Likewise, I'm suggesting that when a supernatural explanation is accepted, a natural one is dismissed. I am unaware of any theory that simultaneously appeals to natural and supernatural explanations, one that includes variables from both natural and supernatural ("God") elements. 

[leeannpal]

But how can one tell? Existence requires no more God Variable to explain than gravity. This is correlated to the OP's question. It used to be that people believed the stories of others who claimed auditory communication, stories like Abraham and Noah and John the Baptist. These claims are decreasingly acceptable today precisely because we have more reliable, natural explanations. It seems as if God is getting squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps. Like Free said, the gap he's been relegated to is this vague, evasive "spiritual realm" that no one can quite identify.

 

I think that component of reliability is the sticky wicket here. The lack of reliable explanations about this God Variable illustrate the problem the OP is having. This problem seems to be either beyond God's ability to address, or his sympathy, if one is to believe the traditional doctrines regarding an immortal soul and the role belief will play in one's eternal well-being. As this is most definitely a Catholic belief, it's appropriate to expect that to come into play for the OP (herself a Catholic). 

 

How can we tell? We can't. We believe through faith which cannot be tested or proved by observable scientific methods. Trying to use scientific law to explain (or explain away God) really is the quintessential argument trying to compare apples to oranges.

[.Michelle.]

Ah, okay.  Well, first I have to say that there would be two ways to know God.  The first is through the use of reason, of human intellect.  So, this is where you see, say, Aristotle and the Unmoved Mover.  I, Catholic that I am, prefer the Quinque Viae of St. Thomas Aquinas. 

 

 

1. Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
2. Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
3. Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
4. Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
5. Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argumentâ€â€” The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)

 

 

Those are all ways that someone outside of any religion could arrive at the idea of God, but not a god that is simply a thing in the universe or an explanation of a natural phenomenon.

 

The second way would be through revealed knowledge, but that would then require faith.

[.Michelle.]

How do you say that when you said this?

 

I actually have no trouble saying that I could accept calling a hypothetical universal essence 'God'. Humans have a mania for naming things. 

 

 

[albeto.]

How can we tell? We can't. We believe through faith which cannot be tested or proved by observable scientific methods. Trying to use scientific law to explain (or explain away God) really is the quintessential argument trying to compare apples to oranges.

 

While this strains the point a bit, I agree with you. My point is a fundamental disagreement with Cricket's comment that one doesn't have to ignore science in order to believe in the spiritual realm. Not knowing how this spiritual realm is yet identified, nevertheless, I suspect one is ignored in lieu of applying the other for any explanation given. 

[albeto.]

Ah, okay.  Well, first I have to say that there would be two ways to know God.  The first is through the use of reason, of human intellect.  So, this is where you see, say, Aristotle and the Unmoved Mover.  I, Catholic that I am, prefer the Quinque Viae of St. Thomas Aquinas. 

 

 

 

Those are all ways that someone outside of any religion could arrive at the idea of God, but not a god that is simply a thing in the universe or an explanation of a natural phenomenon.

 

The second way would be through revealed knowledge, but that would then require faith.

 

Arriving at the idea of God is clearly possible even without such formal reason (reason which has since been logically addressed and reasonably dismissed over the centuries). I don't doubt people believe in God for various and understandable reasons. I'm asking how one can one tell that "God is the essence of existence.  He is not a thing within our existence.  He is Existence." I interpret this comment to explain one can't tell, one can only believe. This is the argument leeannpal is making and I agree. But it doesn't answer my question about a theory that simultaneously appeals to natural and supernatural explanations, one that includes variables from both natural and supernatural ("God") elements. 

[.Michelle.]

I like this.

 

[.Michelle.]

Because it's just a word. I can look at the universe and marvel like the rest of you. I just don't feel a need to give that marvel a supernatural basis. But if someone wants me to call that God, OK. I can equally be fine with calling it Gus. Or nothing at all. 

 

What I am not fine with is calling it the one true god of the Christians. See the difference ?

 

Yes, but that's different from what you said, that you'd tried faith and reason and came up empty-handed. 

 

Arriving at the idea of God is clearly possible even without such formal reason (reason which has since been logically addressed and reasonably dismissed over the centuries). I don't doubt people believe in God for various and understandable reasons. I'm asking how one can one tell that "God is the essence of existence.  He is not a thing within our existence.  He is Existence." I interpret this comment to explain one can't tell, one can only believe. This is the argument leeannpal is making and I agree. But it doesn't answer my question about a theory that simultaneously appeals to natural and supernatural explanations, one that includes variables from both natural and supernatural ("God") elements. 

 

But there is no material element to God.

[.Michelle.]

Heaven isn't a location.

 

Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

 

 

 

[.Michelle.]

I think, in these conversations, sometimes believers think unbelievers haven't already explored these things - read the arguments, watched the videos, done the praying etc.

 

A lot of the time, we have btdt. 

 

I hope I haven't given that impression.  I know many people who have explored these things and come to a different conclusion than me.  I'm not trying to convince anyone of what I believe.  I'm only attempting to answer questions that people are asking me.  If I link to arguments or videos, it's only because I feel they express what I'm trying to say more succinctly.

[.Michelle.]

Souls are immaterial.

 

Bodies will be involved again in the end.  It's the restoration of the material world to its perfect state.  We won't spend eternity in heaven.  We'll spend it here on perfected Earth with perfected bodies.

[.Michelle.]

From the Catechism:

 

362      The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.′²⁹ Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God. (1146, 2332)

363      In Sacred Scripture the term “soul†often refers to human life or the entire human person.²³⁰ But “soul†also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,²³¹ that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul†signifies the spiritual principle in man. (1703)

364      The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of Godâ€: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:²³² (1004, 2289)

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

233

 

365      The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form†of the body:²³⁴ i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366      The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not “produced†by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.²³⁵ (1005, 997)

 

Again, I can only answer from my faith which is why I quote directly from the Catechism.

[HRAAB]

Heaven isn't a location.

 

 

Souls are immaterial.

 

Bodies will be involved again in the end.  It's the restoration of the material world to its perfect state.  We won't spend eternity in heaven.  We'll spend it here on perfected Earth with perfected bodies.

 

Heaven isn't a place but the highest state of human happiness, but then you state we won't (our souls?) spend eternity in heaven but on a perfected earth.  If heaven is a state of happiness then where are we (our souls) between death and the perfected earth, excluding purgatory?

[marbel]

<snip>

 

Even if I had no reason to doubt a monotheistic god, I'd refuse him/her on the basis of that exclusion. I suppose to refuse god, you have to trust in some human ideals and values, which means not believing we humans are intrinsically sinful and fallen....

 

In other words, you'll only accept a god who conforms to your (human, and thus limited) idea of what is right and good and fair?  A god made in your image, one might say?

 

<snip>

 

This is why I think culture specific monotheistic gods are petty. 

 

It gives me the heebie jeebies actually. Why would a loving God want to condemn ANYONE for eternity ?

 

Because they refused him/her/? 

[.Michelle.]

I appreciate the link, but I guess if the Church can't explain of what known or unknown matter the soul is, nobody else is going to, and I must forever remain in ignorance :)

 

I find that explanation profoundly unsatisfactory. 

 

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm

 

 

Article 2. Whether the human soul is something subsistent?

Objection 1. It would seem that the human soul is not something subsistent. For that which subsists is said to be "this particular thing." Now "this particular thing" is said not of the soul, but of that which is composed of soul and body. Therefore the soul is not something subsistent.

 

Objection 2. Further, everything subsistent operates. But the soul does not operate; for, as the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4), "to say that the soul feels or understands is like saying that the soul weaves or builds." Therefore the soul is not subsistent.

 

Objection 3. Further, if the soul were subsistent, it would have some operation apart from the body. But it has no operation apart from the body, not even that of understanding: for the actof understanding does not take place without a phantasm, which cannot exist apart from the body. Therefore the human soul is not something subsistent.

 

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. x, 7): "Who understands that the nature of the soul is that of a substance and not that of a body, will see that those who maintain the corporeal nature of the soul, are led astray through associating with the soul those things without which they are unable to think of any nature--i.e. imaginary pictures of corporeal things." Therefore the nature of the human intellect is not only incorporeal, but it is also a substance, that is, something subsistent.

 

I answer that, It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything else. Thus we observe that a sick man's tongue being vitiated by a feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certaindeterminate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.

 

Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation "per se" apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation "per se." For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.

 

Reply to Objection 1. "This particular thing" can be taken in two senses.

 

Firstly, for anything subsistent; secondly, for that which subsists, and is complete in a specific nature. The former sense excludes the inherence of an accident or of a material form; the latter excludes also the imperfection of the part, so that a hand can be called "this particular thing" in the first sense, but not in the second. Therefore, as the human soul is a part of human nature, it can indeed be called "this particular thing," in the first sense, as being something subsistent; but not in the second, for in this sense, what is composed of body and soul is said to be "this particular thing."

 

Reply to Objection 2. Aristotle wrote those words as expressing not his own opinion, but the opinion of those who said that to understand is to be moved, as is clear from the context. Or we may reply that to operate "per se" belongs to what exists "per se." But for a thing to exist "per se," it suffices sometimes that it be not inherent, as an accident or a material form; even though it be part of something. Nevertheless, that is rightly said to subsist "per se," which is neither inherent in the above sense, nor part of anything else. In this sense, the eye or the hand cannot be said to subsist "per se"; nor can it for that reason be said to operate "per se." Hence the operation of the parts is through each part attributedto the whole. For we say that man sees with the eye, and feels with the hand, and not in the same sense as when we say that what is hot gives heat by its heat; for heat, strictly speaking, does not give heat. We may therefore say that the soul understands, as the eye sees; but it is more correct to say that man understands through the soul.

 

Reply to Objection 3. The body is necessary for the actionof the intellect, not as its origin of action, but on the part of the object; for the phantasmis to the intellect what color is to the sight. Neither does such a dependence on the body prove the intellect to be non-subsistent; otherwise it would follow that an animal is non-subsistent, since it requires external objects of the senses in order to perform its actof perception.

[.Michelle.]

Heaven isn't a place but the highest state of human happiness, but then you state we won't (our souls?) spend eternity in heaven but on a perfected earth.  If heaven is a state of happiness then where are we (our souls) between death and the perfected earth, excluding purgatory?

 

This still defines the afterlife in material terms.  It's not a where.  It's a state of being.  And it's a mystery.  "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.â€

[albeto.]

I like this.

 

 

These arguments are based on faulty premises, which naturally sets up straw men to knock down. Indeed, these arguments have been addressed with facts and critical analysis. These arguments have been presented as alternative to the scientific arguments and have yet to hold up to scrutiny. That is to say, ultimately, it comes down to personal belief again, not knowledge. 

 

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist.

There is no factual statements yet as to the beginning of the universe, so the premise is already founded upon assumptions. The Big Bang theory is currently under scrutiny due to new information (as scientific theories are), and one possible modification to our understanding would be explained by the Rainbow Gravity theory. This first premise may have been acceptable in St. Thomas' day, but is lacks information we have at hand today. Quantum physics may address the idea that "something comes from nothing" (ie, Hawking's Radiation"). 

 

It's not logical to suggest things that appear without a cause would be a stretch, but the god of the bible is immune from this stretch. Why is it immune? Because the bible says so. Circular reasoning, a logical flaw that renders the argument irrelevant. 

 

2.) Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

Information about the Second Law and its application with specific reference to creationism can be found here. 

An alternative video that explains possible origins of the universe, deriving from facts and data, can be seen here. 

 

3.) The universe has a cause

This argument is based on speculation, and no information is given. The thing is, information is available, and it's fascinating!

 

It's not logical to assume just because we don't know enough information today we should give up looking for answers. Isn't it far more logical to assume just as thousands upon thousands of natural explanations have accurately, reliably supplanted supernatural ones (and no supernatural explanations have done so for natural ones), that the next unexplained phenomenon is far more likely to have a natural explanation than a supernatural one?

 

This video appeals to the same argument Cricket did upthread, namely, if the explanation for a natural phenomenon is incomprehensible to an individual, it's appropriate to apply one's personal belief as being equally plausible, regardless of a lack of evidence, and regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. Can you think of another context in which evidence is dismissed if an individual or a group of individuals don't understand it? We don't assume this to be a logical approach with regard to the rotation of the earth around the sun, but it gets a pass when it comes to complex explanations like the beginning of the universe. I find that particularly interesting to be an argument supported on a forum dedicated to education. 

[.Michelle.]

Thank you. I am not being rude, nor over-estimating my human intelligence, but none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me. I feel like Augustine and I do not inhabit the same understanding of what human is.

 

I hope you understand I am not mocking your personal faith. I actually have very little objection to personal faith that remains in a personal arena. 

 

It is difficult.  It's certainly not something I curl up with at night for a bit of light reading.

 

I suppose, for me, my journey within faith began along

before winding up where I am now.  I think that my religion is the one that makes the most sense in light of what can be known by reason.

[Scarlett]

Yes, my children and I most certainly deserve infinite torture for our inability to believe in this stuff. You'd think God would have better design processes. It makes me feel sad that people are OK with this. 

 

Why should lack of belief ( if it is a lack, if good effort was made and inability emerged ? ) be punished by a loving God ? Why would a god who does not conform to our human understanding be so psychopathic about not being worshipped ? Ugh.

 

 

FWIW I absolutely do not believe God tortures anyone ever and certainly not forever.  

[HRAAB]

Heaven isn't a place but the highest state of human happiness, but then you state we won't (our souls?) spend eternity in heaven but on a perfected earth.  If heaven is a state of happiness then where are we (our souls) between death and the perfected earth, excluding purgatory?

 

And for that matter, is purgatory a state of cleansing? Where is the soul when it is 'in' purgatory?  

[Mergath]

FWIW I absolutely do not believe God tortures anyone ever and certainly not forever.  

 

So you don't believe in hell?

[Onceuponatime]

The question "Will we fit?" intrigues me. An awful lot of people have come and gone, the vast majority of them the unborn, infants, and children. Will we all be the same age as each other or the age we died? Will we have memories? What about those who died too young to know anything? Will we eat, drink, and perform other bodily functions? If not, what is the purpose of living on a renewed earth?

[Scarlett]

So you don't believe in hell?

 

 

No, not the burning people for all eternity kind.  

[HRAAB]

This still defines the afterlife in material terms.  It's not a where.  It's a state of being.  And it's a mystery.  "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.â€

 

I do understand where your answer is coming from, but I guess I keep hoping for something more.  So many questions never answered, and I do realize I will never get an answer because there is no answer - other than words strung together to make a nice sounding sentence.  But what does it really mean?  Silence.

 

And I still can't let it go.  

 

So where is Mary's body then?  There was a body, and it was assumed.  To where?  The body?  Did it become an immaterial body?

[HRAAB]

No, not the burning people for all eternity kind.  

 

Do you believe in hell?  I don't know much about the beliefs of JWs.

 

In the past, I would have said hell was separation from God, which would be the ultimate torment. 

[marbel]

FWIW I absolutely do not believe God tortures anyone ever and certainly not forever.  

 

I have often heard "hell" characterized as a place without God.   So the inhabitants are not tortured a la Dante; the suffering comes from knowing that they rejected God and will never be with him.   

[marbel]

Thank you. I am not being rude, nor over-estimating my human intelligence, but none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me. I feel like Augustine and I do not inhabit the same understanding of what human is.

 

I hope you understand I am not mocking your personal faith. I actually have very little objection to personal faith that remains in a personal arena. 

 

I know you're not responding to me, but, I can't help but ask... you characterize God as a psychopath but are not mocking anyone's personal faith?    

 

[sunflowerlady]

So if Heaven is not a place, does it have the streets of gold, rivers, mansions etc as described in the Bible? Or are those just imageryof some sort? Churches I have attended seemed to teach these things were real, actual streets etc.

[Scarlett]

I have often heard "hell" characterized as a place without God.   So the inhabitants are not tortured a la Dante; the suffering comes from knowing that they rejected God and will never be with him.   

 

 

No I don't believe that either.

[HRAAB]

I know you're not responding to me, but, I can't help but ask... you characterize God as a psychopath but are not mocking anyone's personal faith?    

 

 

God, as represented in the Bible, does appear to be psychopathic to me.  I feel that if any human had behaved in the way the OT God did, most people would say that person was psychopathic.  Since a portion of the population believe that characterization is God, we can't honestly evaluate what we read.

 

If what you is believe is Truth, then God is omnipotent.  He can handle my disbelieve and scepticism. 

 

I'm not mocking your belief or even mocking God as described in the Bible no more than I would be mocking a human psychopath - just honestly stating what I see.

 

eta:  just wanted to add.... I was part of group where any and all ideas were up for debate.  You could not attack another person, but ideas were fair game.  I remember many times when some idea that I adhered to was under attack.  I felt like I'd been kicked in the gut.  It was so personal.  I was never personally attacked, but the idea was.  It took me a long time to get to the point where I didn't feel horribly offended, mocked, and angry.  It's still not easy.  I think it's so much harder when it's a religious idea.  Religious beliefs are people identity; how do you separate yourself from a religious belief to the point where you don't feel mocked or attacked.  Not easy.  On the other hand, how do we have these discussions if we can't honestly attack and debate the idea?  When I question or attack the idea, I'm not thinking about you, the person who adheres to that idea.  I'm only thinking about the idea.  

[albeto.]

That is my understanding of hell - that in hell, I will see I was wrong, and will be punished by eternal absence from God. Nor fire required :)

 

I console myself that albeto will be there. Although maybe God will refine the torture by eternal and aware absence from all others. 

Nice.

 

I think we may just have a bus load of people to keep us company! Someone's got to bring the tap for the keg. No doubt I'll forget until I find myself standing morosely with an empty glass. 

[Scarlett]

Do you believe in hell? I don't know much about the beliefs of JWs.

 

In the past, I would have said hell was separation from God, which would be the ultimate torment.

No, I do not believe in a burning hell. I believe when a human dies, they are dead. They cease to exist. God has the power to bring that person back to life but until then they do not exist except in Gods memory.

[.Michelle.]

These arguments are based on faulty premises, which naturally sets up straw men to knock down. Indeed, these arguments have been addressed with facts and critical analysis. These arguments have been presented as alternative to the scientific arguments and have yet to hold up to scrutiny. That is to say, ultimately, it comes down to personal belief again, not knowledge. 

 

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist.

There is no factual statements yet as to the beginning of the universe, so the premise is already founded upon assumptions. The Big Bang theory is currently under scrutiny due to new information (as scientific theories are), and one possible modification to our understanding would be explained by the Rainbow Gravity theory. This first premise may have been acceptable in St. Thomas' day, but is lacks information we have at hand today. Quantum physics may address the idea that "something comes from nothing" (ie, Hawking's Radiation"). 

 

It's not logical to suggest things that appear without a cause would be a stretch, but the god of the bible is immune from this stretch. Why is it immune? Because the bible says so. Circular reasoning, a logical flaw that renders the argument irrelevant. 

 

It would be a logical flaw if God is within the finite universe and subject to cause and effect.  That is not the claim, though.

 

2.) Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

Information about the Second Law and its application with specific reference to creationism can be found here. 

An alternative video that explains possible origins of the universe, deriving from facts and data, can be seen here. 

 

I believe in evolution.  This video isn't referencing evolution.  It's discussion the origins of the universe.  Many of the different theories are mentioned here.  Obviously, though, it's hard to prove at this time how exactly the universe came into being.  And even if we are some day able to prove how, that doesn't disprove God.

 

3.) The universe has a cause

This argument is based on speculation, and no information is given. The thing is, information is available, and it's fascinating!

 

This statement wasn't an argument; it is the conclusion of the argument based on the two prior statements.

 

It's not logical to assume just because we don't know enough information today we should give up looking for answers. Isn't it far more logical to assume just as thousands upon thousands of natural explanations have accurately, reliably supplanted supernatural ones (and no supernatural explanations have done so for natural ones), that the next unexplained phenomenon is far more likely to have a natural explanation than a supernatural one?

 

I don't think we should ever give up looking for answers.  I believe that God wants us to use our intellect and wants us to use our reason.

 

This video appeals to the same argument Cricket did upthread, namely, if the explanation for a natural phenomenon is incomprehensible to an individual, it's appropriate to apply one's personal belief as being equally plausible, regardless of a lack of evidence, and regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. Can you think of another context in which evidence is dismissed if an individual or a group of individuals don't understand it? We don't assume this to be a logical approach with regard to the rotation of the earth around the sun, but it gets a pass when it comes to complex explanations like the beginning of the universe. I find that particularly interesting to be an argument supported on a forum dedicated to education. 

 

This video isn't touching on any of the natural processes that occur within the universe.  This video upholds the use of reason and science to explain how things happen in our material plane.  Science will (hopefully) one day be able to explain exactly what happened when the universe began.  Science will never be able to explain why, though.  That belongs to theology.

 

[.Michelle.]

 

So where is Mary's body then?  There was a body, and it was assumed.  To where?  The body?  Did it become an immaterial body?

 

And those are really good questions.  There are two bodies in Heaven; Christ's and Mary's.  How is that?  It's another mystery of faith. 

[.Michelle.]

So if Heaven is not a place, does it have the streets of gold, rivers, mansions etc as described in the Bible? Or are those just imageryof some sort? Churches I have attended seemed to teach these things were real, actual streets etc.

 

The Catholic understanding is that we have analogical knowledge of the immaterial.  To say that there are actual streets and so forth is a univocal view.  It's like when people say, "God is love."  We only have a human understanding of love, so it's more accurate to say, "God is like what we know is love."

[HRAAB]

And those are really good questions.  There are two bodies in Heaven; Christ's and Mary's.  How is that?  It's another mystery of faith. 

 

Oh, those pesky mysteries of faith  :001_smile: . 

[.Michelle.]

Oh, those pesky mysteries of faith  :001_smile: . 

 

:iagree:   But that's what makes it an act of faith.  Fides et ratio.

[HRAAB]

:iagree:   But that's what makes it an act of faith.  Fides et ratio.

 

Except in the end, it isn't faith AND reason.  It's faith.  Reason might carry one along for awhile but not all the way to the end.  I'm only speaking for myself.  And I failed the faith part.

[.Michelle.]

Except in the end, it isn't faith AND reason.  It's faith.  Reason might carry one along for awhile but not all the way to the end.  I'm only speaking for myself.  And I failed the faith part.

 

I don't think you're speaking only for yourself.  At the end, it is faith.  I'm referring more to my appreciation of being within a religion that celebrates reason and robust exploration of the natural world.

[Pawz4me]

And those are really good questions.  There are two bodies in Heaven; Christ's and Mary's.  How is that?  It's another mystery of faith. 

 

What about Enoch and Elijah?

[.Michelle.]

What about Enoch and Elijah?

 

Oh, goodness.  I wasn't even thinking about Old Testament. :blushing:  This is why I try to just quote from sources. Yes, Enoch and Elijah.  In fact,

 

 

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. 

 

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven." 

 

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven. 

 

[marbel]

<snip>

 

If what you is believe is Truth, then God is omnipotent.  He can handle my disbelieve and scepticism. 

 

<snip>

 

I am really not worried about God's ability to handle anyone's disbelief and scepticism!  :-)   

[albeto.]

 

It would be a logical flaw if God is within the finite universe and subject to cause and effect.  That is not the claim, though.

 

The problem with this answer is that it moves the goalposts to accommodate the argument again. This time, the God Hypothesis can't be illogical because the parameters of logic don't apply to God. In other words, God is outside nature, time, physical laws, and now logic. This is fine if it's used consistently, but then one shouldn't insist their faith is logical and reasonable, and shouldn't feel upset should one argue it is irrational. I expect God is understood to similarly exist outside of the rational, and that shouldn't be understood as an insult or ridicule to hear it said out loud. 

 

I believe in evolution.  This video isn't referencing evolution.  It's discussion the origins of the universe.  Many of the different theories are mentioned here.  Obviously, though, it's hard to prove at this time how exactly the universe came into being.  And even if we are some day able to prove how, that doesn't disprove God.

 

Evolution isn't a belief, it's an explanation of an observed phenomena, namely the biodiversity of the earth. One doesn't need to believe in it as it requires no faith to accept as fact or true. One either understands it or doesn't (or understands some, and doesn't understand some). The origins of the universe are being explored in the same way, using the same exact methodology - appeal to observation, data, experimentation, peer review, etc. In the same way there is no need to apply God to the theory of evolution (not saying one doesn't understand evolution and also have faith in God, but it's not necessary to do so), there's likely no reason to apply God to the theory of the origins of the universe. I'm suggesting the point to which one applies the theory of evolution, one suppresses the God hypothesis. For example, either genes replicate naturally, or they don't, and the theory of evolution doesn't include any suggestion of divine direction.

 

This statement wasn't an argument; it is the conclusion of the argument based on the two prior statements.

 

It seems to me this is the argument the video itself was created to support. 

 

I don't think we should ever give up looking for answers.  I believe that God wants us to use our intellect and wants us to use our reason.

 

Except when he wants us to suppress our reason, right? The bible and the history of the church are peppered with examples of suppressing curiosity and reason in order to hold faith to a higher value. 

 

One prayer of St. Ignatius is particularly illustrative of this virtue of giving up all autonomy, including freedom of thought (which includes satisfaction of curiosity). It is by no means unique in this respect, but particularly articulate of the idea I'm proposing.

 

Suscipe (St. Ignatius of Loyola)

 

Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty,

my memory, my understanding

and my entire will,

All I have and call my own.

 

You have given all to me.

To you, Lord, I return it.

Everything is yours; do with it what you will.

Give me only your love and your grace.

That is enough for me.

 

This video isn't touching on any of the natural processes that occur within the universe.  This video upholds the use of reason and science to explain how things happen in our material plane.  Science will (hopefully) one day be able to explain exactly what happened when the universe began.  Science will never be able to explain why, though.  That belongs to theology.

 

The video upholds reason insofar as it is understood by Dr. Craig Lane, a man who eagerly dismisses information when it does not serve the [his] faith. He's a master of appeal to incredulity, the same appeal Cricket used upthread, the same argument that wouldn't be accepted for the revolution of the sun around the earth. 

[SunnyDays]

Hell might be dry, have you ever thought of that ??

 

And now the pieces are coming together....

[hornblower]

Hell might be dry, have you ever thought of that ??

 

With Tap's boring droning chum telling stories with endless analogies ....

[marbel]

Hell might be dry, have you ever thought of that ??

 

Since many of us consider beer and wine to be among God's good gifts to us, my money is on hell being dry.  Or, the wine will be corked and the beer skunky.