Many of these folks ultimately profess this religion of science because they do not want anyone, any entity saying something is wrong or some act is immoral or that there is a life after this physical life.

I have no problem pleading guilty to your accusation. Finding out the real truth provides the beneficial side effects you have described. We don’t need a deity that we have to kiss up to and that judges us.

I don’t believe, nor do many others, that science provides a framework for ethical decisions.

I don’t believe the Catholic Church should have any say in decisions involving anything having to do with sex and reproduction because it has a bias toward puritanical and superstitious considerations that are inappropriate in this modern world.

If there is no Judeo Christian Muslim God, then there are no laws of that God.

Why? Those arguing with me do not need me to be censored. If this is the Catholic Stand then it should be able to “stand”. What kind of stand do you have if you silence opposing views? You’re not even allowing freedom of speech and yet you wave your First Amendment rights before everyone else.

That sounds fair. I can live with that.

In other words, don’t come to our chamber unless you’re ready to provide an echo? You don’t agree with Bill that your faith should be strong enough to stand on its own? It’s a rather startling admission if you don’t agree with him.

Nworder makes a number of incredible assertions and states as fact things that cannot be substantiated by accepted science, not to mention that are out of line with even RCC teaching regarding science and recognition of scientific understanding of our universe and this earth. I’ve re-read all Bill’s comments here and the only fair conclusion is that only those who can brook no fairly framed challenges would view them as hateful or anti-Catholic.

Why have a forum open on the internet if you’re only purpose is to allow like-minded people to reinforce one another’s prejudices? I will grant you that you have “allowed” Bill’s comments, but as long as he does not use epithets, vile language, or character assassination, why would you feel the need to issue the dire threat: “This is your only warning[?]” Otherwise, why not just close the site except to only those who possess the magic password and make it the love fest of those already singing in the choir?

Hmm, alright, let’s start with the notion that all species that are on the earth today were present at the time of “Noah’s ark.”

Then there’s that kangaroo fossils have been found in Europe.

Or how about this one: “…but what we do know is that increasing numbers of scientists realise
that there is no evidence of Darwin’s theory of evolution or of ‘self’
creation from a scientific point of view.”

Then there’s this recent one: “The cosmos was a show from carl sagan’s imagination – lots of film tricks without evidence – you will be meeting up sometime” There was plenty of straightforward reporting of scientific discovery in Carl Sagan’s series in which he related science that others had established and had nothing to do with his “imagination.” Your assertion that his film was “film tricks” is conspiracy theorism run amok. And just to get us into the present, Neil deGrasse Tyson has produced a new, excellent update and expansion of Sagan’s original “Cosmos.”

There’s your misdirection (deliberate?) of quoting George Gaylord Simpson as supporting scientific rejection of the ideas of evolution.

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing with you because I don’t intend to go down that rabbit hole, but you did ask for illustrations of my statement, so there you have some.

“George Gaylord Simpson was a devout evolutionist .”

Precisely, although I would quibble with your use of devout, because that term is more properly reserved for belief in the mystical and theological. And yet you offered a quotation from him as though he supports your notions of biblical inerrancy, or at least you did nothing to suggest that despite quoting his words he did not agree with your concepts. Deliberate misdirection or just sloppy misdirection?

When the overwhelming majority of the scientific community concur about a well studied and researched scientific theory: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_83_of_139, it is not incumbent on me to prove that your dissenting opinions are not in keeping with accepted science. You will have to do more than provide a couple of cribbed quotes to overcome the presumption that your beliefs are contrary to accepted science.

Why do you ask where I think the manifold species of flora and fauna, both in our present world and in all of earth’s history, come from? You know the answer that I will give: they arose through the process known as natural selection. I know you don’t like that answer but again we’re not dealing with likes or dislikes but with what scientific consensus has arrived at. You’re essentially wanting to have it both ways: you want to argue the science, albeit weakly, but then you want to discount and discredit science by asserting the inerrancy of “God’s word” where you get stymied on your science.

Let me ask you this: Where do you think the birds came from? There is no evidence that the many species of birds that we enjoy today were on the earth during the period when the dinosaurs roamed it. And yet more and more refinement in scientific discovery keeps reinforcing the notion that the dinosaurs and modern-day birds share a large amount of biological and genetic identity. Why would that be? If the creator labored exactly 144 hours (what was an hour before God created the sun and the earth, by the way?) and then laid down his tools and quit for eternity, how is that birds are with us and resemble dinosaurs but birds as we know them weren’t around at the time of dinosaurs that are now nowhere to be seen on earth, except as fossils in museums?

Much of what you assert here on this self-proclaimed site for the faith of Roman Catholics is not in keeping with that Church’s own stances: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?id=236

I believe I did state that I had provided examples because you requested them but that I hadn’t come to argue with you. I don’t have the time or the patience of Bill S. You’ve made your beliefs more than manifest. I can’t begin to agree with much of anything you’ve written. That amounts to an impasse. I wish you well.

Behold:

You:

“NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT EVOLUTION BUT BREEDING
You dont seem to know the difference – evolution is one “kind” or species evolving into another kind like a cow becoming a whale or a coelacanth becoming a human .LOL.”

Me, science, and pretty much everyone else:

“Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with
mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin’s grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but
often misunderstood.”

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

Please note in particular the phrases “relatively simple” and “often misunderstood,” with particular attention to “relatively simple.” You can “LOL” all you like–in fact, I encourage it because it’s good for your health–but there’s an old expression about the last laugh that is particular fitting here.

Please, I beg you, please, for the sake of your own integrity and self esteem, stop writing things like this: “Only someone who knows nothing about science would maintain that natural selection can add DNA to a genome and change it into another genome – such as changing a deer into a whale .” You’re absolutely correct that no one who knows anything about science would write that but the “someone who knows nothing about science” turns out to be you, as Darwin’s theory and subsequent refinements have consistently talked about incremental shifts within very closely related organisms and never the kind of clearly ridiculous transformations you repeatedly bring up to try to make your case.

Here, from 2005 and not 1950 (my birth year, BTW,) is a scientific corroboration of the now scientifically generally accepted theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

The site I provided regarding RCC teaching is sponsored by the Franciscans. I hope you will agree that they are not some isolated little wayward Catholic school. The author of the article is a nun with a Ph.D., Sister Paula Gonzalez from the order of Sisters of Charity. Here’s the lead-in to the article, which I provide because you apparently did not take the time to look at the authentication I provided: “The relatively simple scientific theory of evolution met with resistance, not only when it appeared in 1859, but also today. In this Catholic Update, Sister Paula Gonzalez explores the reasons for this resistance and why the theory of evolution is not inconsistent with Catholic teaching.”

Now, perhaps you might be a bit embarrassed that so much of what you vehemently wrote in the way of an attempt to ridicule me I could refute with verifiable, credible sources rather easily, but somehow I suspect that won’t be the case. Either way, I mean it when I say that I will no longer respond to you. Please take care.

DINOS DID NOT BECOME SPARROWS – and tweet.
At a Glance
Oregon State University scientists have released a new study debunking the alleged evolution of dinosaurs into birds.

The study focuses on the relationship between birds’ leg and pelvis anatomy and their breathing system, and notes the absence of that relationship in dinosaurs.

This is only the latest volley in the debate over bird evolution. Expect to hear either a sharp, vocal response from other evolutionists—or total silence.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs: what creationists have been pointing out for years is now buttressed by new research.

The notion that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds has almost certainly become one of the most widely accepted “facts” of evolution. The question for many evolutionary researchers had transitioned from “if” to “how.”

1 Even artists’ depictions of some dinosaurs (such as velociraptors) began to include feathers.2 Except for a few notable critics, such as University of North Carolina paleobiologist Alan Feduccia, evolutionists seem to have all but agreed on birds’ dinosaurian origins.

Now, a new paper in the Journal of Morphology presents the research of two Oregon State University scientists who don’t agree with the evolutionary dogma on bird origins.3 Doctoral student Devon Quick conducted the investigation into bird breathing and its connection with dinosaur-to-bird evolution as part of her dissertation.

But IF there is the God of Abraham then there ARE laws that He gave.
As we can see in physics , chemistry , astronomy and all around us.

So which parts of the bible are you denouncing as fiction ?

For sure ? Why have you not looked at the evidence I gave you for the exodus.
Why do you say for “sure” without a shred of evidence – which you never give.

Did the Romans come to Britain – yes we know because of the evidence.

But you DO believe in the violations of the laws of nature – you believe the big bang which violates the laws of nature and the 1st law of thermodynamics.
And you also imply that you believe through fear – the fear of man’s ridicule.
You are such a hypocrite but cant look at yourself in the mirror. Everything you criticise is the image of yourself.
I had to answer your ridiculous post – the temptation was too much for me.

So if you agree that mutations are damaging or neutral and cannot create new species eg turn a mouse into a bird and you agree that selection of the fittest cannot add DNA to a genome of a species but actually selects the fittest DNA for that species then :-
You have to come up with the mechanism that created the millions of species.

BREEDING IS NOT EVOLUTION
You are totally confused between breeding WITHIN a species or genome and Darwin’s idea of evolution which is a NEW species evolving from a existing one.
Such as a whale evolving from the deer species or a human evolving from the fish coelacanth (once actually believed by the egg heads lol )

The canine species or “dog” species all came from two dogs. Dogs are NOT an new species but they are different breeds of the same canine species.
A wolf could mate with a poodle since they are still the same KINDS (species)

Now what annoys is that I have posted this many times before but your knowledge is trapped in a groove , like a needle trapped in same record groove making the same replies , or maybe you forget, but six times ???

Breeding is not evolution – a pig will never fly , a cow will never become a whale , a fish will never walk on land , a human will not develop wings and so on

Where did the two dogs come from?

I know you have said it before. I just find it hard to believe a grown man believes in the Flood and the Ark. Were there kangaroos on the Ark?

Is this some kind of joke? How did the kangaroos get to Australia?

I have no fear of my doubting you making me an apostate in danger of eternal damnation. Please.

You should read Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth.

I’m not sure the scientists you have been quoting aren’t quacks. We should just call it a draw. Did you watch the World Cup?

That’s not what trolling is. I am presenting intellectual arguments against religion. I haven’t been convinced that I am wrong.

I have been reading replies and answering questions as best I can. I’m sorry if I can’t convince you that I am right. Like I said, there is an intelligence behind all this and I do not have a good way to describe it so I just call it the Cosmos, as in the TV series. Scientists are studying it and unveiling its secrets. They are not referring to religious texts to do that because they are of no further use.

Cosmos

1. the world or universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious system.
2. a complete, orderly, harmonious system.
3. order; harmony.

You are right. I am using the word differently than the definition in the dictionary.

I look at it as 3. It is the order of the universe. It is a concept. You would ask where that order came from and I would say it always was. It didn’t come from anywhere, anything or ANYONE.

It is fine that we all have questions about the mysteries of the universe. What I have a problem with is when people point to their god as the answer to those questions.

If you point to your god as the answer to these mysteries that scientists are trying to understand, and if they accept that explanation, then why should they keep searching for an alternative? Why don’t they just say that God did it and we don’t need to know how or why he did it because he is all powerful and all wise. He can do anything he wants including parting the Red Sea and letting Jonah live inside a whale in the ANE.

And then. Who is the Creator?

Who made me?
God made me.

Who is God?
God is the Creator of heaven and earth.

Who made God? On and on.

I was making fun of catechism class.

We’re good on believing in the Creator. You just then accept all of these things that have been said about him that I see no purpose in believing.

I wouldn’t assume that the person who made the sand castle was God just because I don’t know who it was. I accept whatever mainstream science comes up with to explain oceans and whales and rainbows and beautiful sunsets.

If you went to a reputable school, you already know the answer. You are just in denial. You got a better education than you think.

I have not seen any intellectual arguments against religion – just old atheistic chestnuts that have been debunked many times

No wonder your argumentation is so dumb. You are a follower of Dawkins.
That man is completely devoid of the capacity to think logically.

You agree with what Dawkins says???
You know the link to that interview with the atheist girl that I gave on the previous thread – once she started to see the errors that most atheists fall into, she read Dawkins and she laughed. She said that it looked like the work of an 18 year old.

And it is. Dawkins has this profound inability to reason. Perhaps he is just not evolved enough or a mutation went wrong in the philosophical regions of his brain.

Serious scientist think he is a joke. You are enthral to this joke.

directed by an intelligence
Great. Then please explain why this Super Intelligence is not God.

You can see God in the things He has MADE . This is the test – the DESIGN in the things he has MADE. This is why Paul says you have NO excuse.
There is astounding complexity in the DNA code , bat radar , the immune system , whale sonar , wings etc etc – it is wilful ignorance.

Zeus never made DNA and neither did a muddy pool.

WHO MADE THE DNA CODE THEN , AND THE RNA CODE at the same time.

Even dim people know that greek mythology is precisely that – mythology – not coherent and divinely written like the Bible.
You still have not managed to point out in detail any inconsistency in the bible.

Thats right the greeks were obsessed with vain philosophies as to their origins.
Such as Diana of Ephesus – who fell from the sky – then Paul the apostle told them the truth. Most of them listened with interest but Bill disagreed and thought a statue was real.

I didn’t say I was abused. I said that you can’t prove that I wasn’t. I can’t prove that the intelligence behind all this isn’t your god and you can’t prove that it is. How do you know it wasn’t Zeus and that the Christians made the Greeks stop believing in a real god and made them believe in theirs instead?

The way you prove that, I will prove that it isn’t your god either.

Since you are saying that they are pure fiction, then the burden of proof rests on you.
So, please prove that they are all pure fiction.

That’s not proof.
Try again.

Again, that’s not proof.
That’s opinion.
If you say that you can clearly see that it’s all made up, then you have to provide proof that it’s all made.
It would have been different if you had said “I THINK” it is all made up.
But you are making a statement that it is A FACT that it’s all made up. So you need to prove that.
Try again.

If God can make the universe in 6 days why could he not keep jonah alive in a whale.
We would expect a god to do these things – God speaks and it happens , thats why He is God. .

It is total belief or none. How can you partially believe in God or a God who finds some miracles too difficult.

But if He is God and He says He does not lie then we must believe ALL the bible says – since God would want us to know the truth.

Evasion will not get you anywhere.
If you are going to make a claim, be prepared to prove it. Otherwise, you are just all bluster and nonsense.
Next time, think before you hit the keyboard.

What has that got to do with anything?
Evasion will – not – get – you – any – where.
So here it is again.
You said, that Genesis and Exodus are pure fiction. If you are going to make a statement like that, you better be sure that you are able to back your claim. So now, prove it.
And don’t say you don’t have to prove anything because that is just pure hogwash.
You know you can’t prove that statement and still you went about typing it. That’s nothing more than bluster.

There are many, many thinks you cannot do.
But there is one thing you can do if you put effort into it. Try to think in a more organized manner. This reply is yet again nonsense and evasion. But because your other posts are showing promise with regards coherence, then I will let this pass.

Utterly stupid statement.
Firstly, you have not proved that there is no God. In fact, you did concede somewhere else that there is a God, just that it is not the God of the Bible.
When you were pressed to prove that God is indeed not the God of the Bible you went mum.
So all you have done so far is make stupid statement that you cannot prove.

Then please put on display your ability for coherent thought.
So far, all you have done is:
1) Make unfounded assertions
2) Make statements you cannot prove
3) Make bad arguments

Yes, perhaps some theists do.
But in this forum, you have been doing that a lot. And you have the nerve to imagine that somehow you are more “enlightened” being scientific and all that — rubbish.

Not exactly since you some arguments rely not on science but on some kind of new age concoction of
Carl Sagan’s and some stupid assumption by Dawkins.
Indeed science enlightens us. But science can only enlighten us in so far as the material world is concerned. Your problem is that you are attributing to science far more than what is within the purview of science.

But that is absurd. If there is more to reality than the material world, then whether interested or not that impinges on you. So no, you do not have all you need in science.
You yourself have affirmed that there is something other than the created world. That “other than the created world” impacts on you whether you are interested in it or not.

But obviously it is affecting your life or you would not be here with your absurd statements trying to show how superior scientism is to those “religious fanatics”.
If all that matters to you is that science is able to explain the material world why debate of the religiously inclined at all?

Deciding by yourself that there will be no judgement for you will not make the judgement disappear.
Breaking the law and seeing the police coming to arrest you , can you make them go way by saying there are no courts or laws.

Apropos my earlier reply.
I actually do no think you are stupid. I think that you choose to be stupid because you chose to be an atheist.
But if you remember our little to and fro, the more I press, the more you backtrack on what you have said before and start to correct your perspective. And example was when you insisted there was no God but then you said there is a God but he is not the God of the Bible.
So you see, when you really think and you really read, you start seeing the errors in thinking that you have made before.
But you are determined to be an atheist. What you don’t see is scientific -atheism is the most stupid kind there is. And because you chose to be that, then there is no way for you to become but stupid – because the whole ism is stupid. It’s like when you walk into a room with a decomposing body and you stay there for several days. In the end, all that stench is absorbed into your pores.
So in short. You are not stupid but your scientific-atheism makes you so.

I did not say that atheists are stupid because they do not accept the gods, angels, etc.
Atheists are stupid because the “arguments” they make against the existence of a supernatural world is stupid.
Take for example the things that you’ve said here.
1) the Cosmos is the intelligence behind all that is
2) the material world is all that is
3) I don’t believe in God because there is no natural proof for Him.
These statements are beyond stupid because straight away there is the assumption that the material world is all there is. And that is an assumption that you cannot prove and yet you cling to that belief.
If you people were not so dead set on “proof”, that belief would just another faith statement. But the problem is you think you are all so intelligent and here you are believing something you cannot prove. Totally and incredibly stupid.

Are you being deliberately obtuse so you can evade my point?
No, I do not mean mistaken. I mean stupid.
In my previous post I have addressed your use of Cosmos as order.
Your use of cosmos (as order) cannot be equated with the Intelligence behind the universe. Intelligence requires an intelligent being. Order is not intelligence, but intelligence can create order.

Do you know what it means to be stupid? We are all stupid by comparison to those with greater intelligence
Excellent point. But that still means that I can use the term stupid to refer to ideas that look like they are the product of the exercise of lesser intelligence.

That would be okay, except for the fact that based on what you have written here, I know for a fact that yours is the lesser intelligence.
Because of that fact, then you are in no position to assess this work.
However, you are free to think what you like because for a change you are writing in a slightly more intelligent manner. Instead of saying the Bible IS the work of a lesser intelligence, you are now more correctly putting it in the subjective and saying it LOOKS LIKE.
So I suppose you are learning.

your reply doesn’t counter the argument that science does not provide a basis for ethics and is otherwise irrational. You’re entitled to an irrational opinion, but please try to give cogent arguments for why you believe as you do.

Bill, I wonder whether you’re like many who have faith that Science (uppercase intentional) explains everything without having published papers, refereed grant proposals, sat on review boards, and most importantly have not read any works on the philosophy of science. They all take their faith in science from the mainstream media, who are poorly educated in science, history and philosophy.
I urge you to broaden your horizons and read some of the references cited in

“Tipping the Sacred Cow of Science” (http://rationalcatholic.blogspot.com/2014/06/confessions-of-science-agnostic.html)

Until you have shown some evidence of exploring other points of view, I don’t see much point in conversation. I’m don’t believe your assertions are carrying much weight with readers of this blog, but if you want to continue to vent your prejudices, that’s your privilege (with certain restrictions).

By the way I haven’t seen anything in any of your comments that relevant to the post–the limitations of science in what it can say about creation.

Asemodeus, you’re rather nasty and haven’t replied substantively to anything that’s been said… bill s, explicitly and implicitly is making the argument that science can explain everything. And if you want to know what I know about science, read my other posts here and at http;//rationalcatholics.blogspot. How about using rational arguments instead of invective. And if you’re not happy having me project my faith in my comments, then don’t read this blog.

And where does your knowledge of what science is all about come from, Asemodeus? I’d be interested (and possibly surprised.)

Asemodeus might be Bill – a troller

Yes. We do take our faith in science from mainstream media. I find a TV series like Cosmos to be very informative. It doesn’t treat religion with kid gloves. I’m ok with that.

Yes. Scientism is some kind of heresy along with modernism. Scientismists, as you call them do have more faith in science than in religion. I think that is a very smart thing to do.

LOL. Being scientism is smart? Scientism is beyond stupid.
Any follower of scientism is one who is not using his intellect at all and incapable of the simplest of reasoning.
And I am sorry to have to say this but your posts are glaring examples of just how stupid scientism is.
You guys accuse theists of believing in a God we cannot prove exist, but you cannot prove your own point that God does not exist.
And yet here you are so passionate and pretending to be intelligent. Your belief in the cosmos is nothing more than faith in a system that cannot be proved true either from science or from philosophy. Your belief system is intellectually impoverished whichever way you look at it.

Why should I have to prove anything to you

Well duh, you made a statement. You said that like Carl Sagan you believe that the natural world is all there. Now, since you are one of those atheists who are always demanding material proof, then you have to know that such a requirement applies to you as well.

If you are going to make claims, you have to have the ability to prove those claims. Otherwise, you are just talking rubbish.

So obviously, you have no proof at all – zero, zilch, nada – of your dearly held belief.
I thought so. Naah. I KNEW IT.

You want material proof that there is no supernatural
No. I am saying that you need to prove the claim you made that the natural world is all there is.
I don’t care how you go about it. Just give me proof.
Because if you can’t prove it, then you believe in something you can’t even prove to be true.

You don’t understand. I can’t prove that there is a multiverse. I can’t prove that there are no such things as dark matter and dark energy. I can’t prove a lot of things including that there are no gods, demons or angels or no afterlife. It’s all just a set of educated guesses

VOILA!! Finally. So therefore, you believe things that you cannot prove – neither scientifically nor philosophically.

So therefore, your belief is much more unreasonable than the theist because philosophically, he can prove his belief in God and from there can make connections that show that scientific findings does point to this.

Since you already believe in an Intelligence apart from the natural world, what you need to really answer is why this intelligence cannot be God.

Your position is in fact borderline Deist – perhaps like Andrew Flew.

Well, then. Before you reply further, google what Deists believe.
If some of the tenets of Deism is what you believe, then list them and list any other tenets that signify your belief. Otherwise we will continue talking at cross purposes.

Well, finally! That was like pulling teeth.
Okay. So you are a Deist. You believe in a Creator.
Ergo, if there is such a being as a Creator, then that Being would be the origin of final cause of everything created.
Would you say we can agree on that?

Great!

Do you think that to be Creator is just incredibly awesome? I mean think of the big bang and the beauty of the universe. Think back to any nature documentary that you have seen before and think that that Creator caused that to exist?

Or think about the beautiful nature and the creation of all the species and the mountains and every created thing. Think about that.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the documentary the Human Body. Think of how complicated and complex and how wonderfully we are made. Think about that.

Would you say that the Creator is awesome?

You know what? I will leave it there. The Creator is incredibly and totally awesome.

So go out there at night and think just how wonderful this Creator is.

And look at yourself and see how wonderfully this Creator has made you.

And wonder at that.

In one of Dawkin’s documentaries, he uttered something utterly stupid for an atheist. He was before this beautiful majestic scenery and he said: Doesn’t all this just feel you with gratitude? I thought how stupid. Gratitude means that there is someone to thank. But since he did not believe in a Creator then to even think of being grateful for this beautiful nature is just plain dumb. But then he is not know for sound reasoning so I suppose that is par for the course.

But since unlike Dawkins you believe in a Creator, then maybe you can express your gratitude for the beauty of you and the beauty of Creation and say a simple thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4k8oVf9v78

It’s been nice conversing with you. May our Creator richly bless you.

Changing from Cosmos to Creator seems minor but it has given me a slightly different perspective. The intelligence we have as humans could be a microcosm of the intelligence of the Creator. We might be made in his image.

See this response. It addresses your question :

I believe that the great mystery that we try to understand and that many of us call “God” is a kind of unexplainable intelligence that controls a process that ultimately results in our intelligence. We know how genes strive to make reproductions of themselves. It is as if this intelligence intended to create an awe inspiring universe and an intelligence that would perceive and appreciate it. The source is an intelligence and the end product is an intelligence. The next step is for this created intelligence to create the next generation of intelligence, which I assume would be a self replicating artificial intelligence of some sort. I think the intelligence that we see as our creator might have kind of programmed into the laws of nature a tendency for us to try to know it through religions that would evolve through survival of the fittest. Christianity was the fittest for two thousand years but I think it will be replaced by scientism. As it was a sect of Judaism that was seen as a heresy, scientism is being looked at as a heresy. So I guess I am a heretic.

I think that we are made in the image of God in so much that God is a kind of pure intelligence, all truth and no error and we appear to be the end product of this whole process whereby perfect intelligence is the source and human (and therefore imperfect) intelligence is as far as this process has gotten. What happens next is in our hands unless we get wiped out by an asteroid or something. So. Is it or is it not in our hands? is there a hand of God intervening still? Or is everything running like a program and is the programer’s work done?

It is like an artist who creates for mere purpose of creating. His next urge is to share his creation with others so he opens an art gallery. It seems that our raison d’être is simply so the creator’s work can be observed and appreciated by others. We are programmed with an ever increasing appreciation of art, music, food, entertainment, astronomy, etc.

I see no other purpose to life other than to provide a continuous supply of intelligences that appreciate creation.

1) Would you say that creation is good?

“Good” in what sense. As a meal is good, creation is good. As Mother Theresa was good, nature is too unforgiving for me to be able to say creation is good in that sense. When he looked at it and saw that it was good. That kind of good.

2) Would you say that there is goodness in us?

Yes. We seem to have a sense of right and wrong and know that we should do right and avoid wrong. In that sense, we have good in us.

3) Do you love? Is there someone that you love other than yourself?

My wife and two sons. Yes. Then myself.

Your argument is hard to contradict. I do believe that our intelligence is infantile compared to the intelligence behind all this. I think it has many of the same facets of the greater intelligence but is only in its developmental phase. Can a greater intelligence evolve from a lesser intelligence? Will our intelligence ever exceed the intelligence behind all this? It is possible. We can create AI that will someday out do ours.

Would you say that we image God in this attributes as well – that our goodness is a “microcosm” of God’s goodness, our love is a “microcosm” of God’s love and beauty is a microcosm of God’s beauty?

Let me sleep on it. (Baby, baby, let me sleep on it). I’ll give you my answer in the morning.

Nature has been programming DNA for billions of years. Now we are intelligent enough to do it. Nature has been creating beauty for billions of years, now we do it. Dinosaurs probably experienced a form of love. Now we do.

Yes. I think creation is a microcosm of the creator.

That’s okay. Take your time.

Just a few corrections though regarding your post.

Nature has been programming DNA for billions of years
Since we have already established that nature is created and has no intelligence as such, then nature was not programming DNA. It is the Creator – the Intelligence behind all that is – who is programming DNA.

Nature has been creating beauty for billions of years
Nature was not creating beauty by the same logic as per my above comment, so it is the Creator who is creating beauty. And yes, we do create beautiful things because we have intelligence.

I know you’ve given this a lot of thought but you have not answered any of my questions.

So before we get derailed again, I re-iterate here what you have agreed with and what you have stated.

As you said in your earlier reply, God is a kind of pure intelligence, all truth and no error. So we can maybe say that God is the perfection – the fullness of – intelligence.

I mentioned the metaphysical principle that more cannot come from less.

I then asked you three questions:

1) Would you say that creation is good?
2) Would you say that there is goodness in us?
3) Do you love? Is there someone that you love other than yourself?

You answered yes to all of them.

So, since you stated that we image the Creator and our intelligence is a “microcosm” of the Creator’s intelligence, I then asked:

Would you say that we image God in this attributes as well – that our goodness is a “microcosm” of God’s goodness, our love is a “microcosm” of God’s love and beauty is a microcosm of God’s beauty?

If you don’t like the term God, then let me re-phrase that:
Would you say that we image the Creator in this attributes as well – that our goodness is a “microcosm” of the Creator’s goodness, our love is a “microcosm” of the Creator’s love and beauty is a microcosm of the Creator’s beauty?

Your detailed answer above did not come even close to answering these questions. It really only requires a simple yes or no with perhaps an explanation for this yes or no.

Take your time thinking about the question but you need to answer it. Otherwise we will just go around in circles.

Okay. Let’s me get this straight so we are clear.

You are saying YES to this statement: Would you say that we image the Creator in this attributes as well – that our goodness is a “microcosm” of the Creator’s goodness, our love is a “microcosm” of the Creator’s love and beauty is a microcosm of the Creator’s beauty?

So basically you are affirming that the Creator is not only the perfection of intelligence, but is also the perfection of goodness, beauty and love?

You’re hilarious 🙂 Calm down, okay.

The reason I am trying to get this as clear as possible is so that we both know where you and I are at in this discussion. Stop jumping to conclusions. I am doing this to avoid confused language and convoluted to and fro later.

So, if our beauty, intelligence, goodness and love is a microcosm of God’s intelligence, beauty, goodness and love, would you say yes to this statement:
In God is the perfection of truth, goodness, beauty and love.

I suppose
Okay then. We are agreed that the Creator is the perfection of love, truth, goodness and beauty.
To simplify our discussion we will henceforth refer to the Creator as God.

At this point in our discussion, I am not ascribing to God anything other than the above – he is perfect goodness, truth, beauty and love.
Where is this going
I had a good chuckle at that. I can sense fear in that little question. Relax. If learning is an adventure then you can take our conversation as one such adventure.
As you may have noticed, I am not forcing on you anything. At each stage we work-out definitions before we move on. This way we avoid talking past each other.
In a previous post, you likened God to an artist who wants to share his creation with others so he opens an art gallery.
Below are 5 points which pick up from what we have agreed above. I ask you to ponder them.
1) Since God is perfection, God needs nothing. He is happy in Himself, complete in Himself.
2) Love moves us to share, goodness moves us share. I am sure you have ample experience of that being a husband to a much loved wife and father to much loved sons.
3) St Thomas Aquinas said: Bonum Diffusivum Sui – the Good is diffusive of itself. Goodness tends to bubble over, to spread. As an example – we tend to be more generous, expansive and gregarious when we feel good.
4) Since God is perfect goodness and perfect love, then the only reason He creates is by a sheer act of goodness and love. We can thus look at creation as a “bubbling over” of God’s goodness, beauty and love.
5) This bubbling over of His goodness, we state simply as : God creates to manifest His glory.
Have a think about the above 5 points and try to see if you can apprehend there a grounding and expansion of your statement about the artist and his art gallery and let me know your thoughts.
I think I need to add a caution to not overthink but just to ponder them. Don’t jump to conclusions. We will get to the conclusions together.

This is a very different God than Yahweh from the Old Testament. It is more like the New Testament God. I think that all Jesus had to work with was a concept that needed an extreme makeover. I reject the Old Testament God. I don’t need it.

As I said earlier, don’t overthink. Here’s your problem: I write something and then you project your thoughts into what I write even when I have not said anything. It’s like you’re so afraid so you think you will pre-empt what I am going to say. Try to get away from that because that is one of the reasons discussions get convoluted and derailed.

To get back on track –
I take it that you agree with the first point: Since God is perfection, God needs nothing. He is happy in Himself, complete in Himself.

Not as much as you might think. I have to admit that, for the most part, it has become all about me. Love moves us to share. I lack that instinct.

Of course we are all selfish. But nonetheless, you do love and you want to share that with those you love. You could not possibly say about yourself that you are 100% about you to the complete rejection of everyone else. In fact, when I asked you if there is anyone you love you mentioned your wife and your sons. Love tends to the other. That’s just the nature of love. Anything that does not move out of the self is not love but egotism.
So again, I take it that you agree that love and goodness move us to share or at least to want to share that love and goodness.

That is definitely not me.

So you are saying that even at your best moment, you are curved in on yourself and you do not think of anyone else? Basically you are saying that there is nothing at all good in you? I doubt that is true.

In general, when people are in a good mood, they are indeed more generous, expansive and gregarious. Goodness does bubble over. Which is why it is best to ask for raise when your boss is in a good mood 🙂

And we know that to be true because we call people who look out for others, who are selfless in their giving as good. Goodness bubbles over.

I like this God.

I’m glad you do. Because THAT is God – One who created the world out of the sheer act of goodness and love.

OK. I’m with you so far. This obviously creates a conflict with the Bible, the Catholic Church and the religions of this world.

Again, please cut down on the unnecessary commentaries. I have not brought up the God of the Bible so there is no need to be so defensive. Stop being so afraid that I am going to ram down your throat the God of the Bible. Just take what I write at their face value.

I can meditate on the distillation of an understanding of such a creator that can be called “God”.

Great. I highly recommend that you do for the meantime. I have to finish a project so I will post the rest tomorrow.

I leave you to meditate on the God who created you out of sheer love.

Good luck on your project, stupid:-)

Ha, ha! Indeed I am. It takes all kinds to make this wonderful world.

First, to summarize: we have moved from no God, to Cosmos is the intelligence behind all that, to Creator, to God.

You said that moving from cosmos to Creator seemed small but in fact it is actually quite a jump.

I would say here too that moving from Creator to God though seemingly small is actually quite significant.

When we speak of Creator, we speak of no more than someone who brought creation into being. There may or may not be purpose behind all this (as you pointed out in your artist analogy). We know that there is great intelligence and power but more than that , we can’t really say. Pretty much what deism is.

But once you move from Creator to God – with the attributes that we mentioned of love, goodness and beauty – that puts a whole new complexion into how we see this Creator.
As you said, we seem to be made in His image – with the intelligence, goodness, beauty and the capacity for love.

Another thing that we have not looked at is joy. The confluence of goodness, love and beauty brings about joy.

Well, here’s something to think about. Love is relational – the lover always inclines to the beloved. Why would God create beings who have the above attributes – most particularly the capacity to love?

The Judeo-Christian faith teaches that God created us to be in relationship with Him. He loved us into existence because He wants to have a deeply personal relationship with us and in the process to experience profound joy.

I suppose one way to meditate on this is to imagine the best person you can ever know in terms of unparalleled goodness and unconditional love who loves you so unconditionally that this causes joy to bubble up in you. A person who knows you so much more intimately than you can ever know yourself and loves you so unconditionally – warts and all.

Because He is complete in Himself and happy in Himself, He can love us unconditionally – His desire is exclusively for our good – for our flourishing.
St Thomas Aquinas’s definition of love is “to will the good of the other as other”. This means to seek the good of a person for that person’s sake alone – not for what that person can do for me.
I’d like to leave that with you to think about and you can maybe let me know what you think about that.

I leave you to meditate on the God who created you out of sheer love.

Here is the way I see it. Let’s just take one law of nature: Gravity. Whatever I say about gravity, much of it can be applied to the other laws of nature and also to phenomina that we don’t list as laws of nature but perhaps we should. And the greatest of these is love.

By some incredibly fortuitous circumstance that might never be fully understood, there exists (and has always existed and always will) what we call the law of gravity. It is not something that exists randomly and for no purpose. It is fine tuned to the exact strength weak enough to keep the universe expanding (after the Big Bang) and not collapsing back in on itself, but strong enough to allow matter to attract other matter into it so as to form stars, planets, moons, etc.

Either this law had no beginning and had no end or it came about from an intelligence which we call the creator or God.

Somehow, there exists an undetermined number of laws and phenomena with the same history as gravity. None of them seem to be random or purposeless. They have all resulted in all this.

To gain mastery of life, we must learn about all these laws and phenomena and use the information for our own purposes by taking advantage of gravity and everything else.

It would also be good to know as much as we can about the source, the intelligence behind all this, the creator, God.

This then means that the whole purpose of creation is so God can have people who can share His joy, and His love and His goodness.

Whether God really planned it like this or it just was in the cards, it seems that the most current, up to date, most developed end product of this 14+ billion year sequence of events is great intelligence, art appreciation, athleticism, humor and…I think you would say the Catholic Church as it is today, taking something like World Youth Day Conferences and the mass as the successful end point. I would look at things like the Academy Awards, Supernowl, World Cup, Olympics, etc. as being as evolved as we have become so far.

I quite agree. I think that is about as far as we can get. The rest is religious mumbo jumbo 🙂

Actually, not by a long shot.

I am a bit short of time at the moment but I will get back to you tomorrow.

What I would just like to leave with you at this stage is to think about this big shift : from creation not having a purpose, to having a purpose and in particular quite a joyous purpose for man. That is a big leap.

You have been contemplating The Artist’s work for a long time – thrilled by it, awed by it, intrigued by it. That is great. But now I think it is time to drop contemplation of the artwork and perhaps focus on the Artist – especially since He wants to actually have a relationship with you.
It’s like having admired “The Starry Night” and “Irises” for a long while and suddenly you realize that Van Gogh is just there and actually wants to befriend you.

Anyway, will pick up on this tomorrow.

I am hoping to take up all your 3 posts in this one reply to streamline our discussion so apologies if this reply turns out to be quite long.

In that case, spiritual laws are beyond the purview of science.

Exactly!

I accept the general concept but the Bible contains extraneous information that goes way beyond the idea of a creator wanting someone to appreciate the creation. If that were the only theme in the Bible, it would be more useful than it is.

Aaah, and that is where you are wrong. The whole point of the Bible is precisely this : God’s desire to be in covenant with the whole of humanity. From Genesis right through Revelation, that is what the Bible is all about – the building of a holy people in loving covenant with Him. This is why the Bible is divided into The Old Testament and the New Testament. Testament is just another word for covenant. So basically we have the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
When properly read , you will realize that the whole Bible is soaked and dripping with this idea of God’s desire to be in communion with us.

I quite agree. I think that is about as far as we can get. The rest is religious mumbo jumbo 🙂

As I said before, not by a long shot.

When people object to the Bible on those grounds, you can tell straight away that they have no clue about the Bible at all :-)

So let’s backtrack a bit.

We agree that God is all good and all loving.

As I have also mentioned, love and goodness always inclines to the other.
Another facet of that is: when you love someone, you want to know and be known by your beloved otherwise a loving relationship cannot blossom. This knowing and being known is easy enough among us humans. Even when we do not fully disclose ourselves we can discern tell-tale signs so we can have a pretty good idea about others. This knowledge of the other becomes easier and deeper when that person discloses him/herself.

But this God who is so otherly other, so totally beyond our realm – how do we get to know Him at all?

In days of old, people followed their ideas of who they think God is; a lot of it bundled up in superstition.

Because God is so far above our own piddly little brains, the only way we can know Him is if He reveals Himself.

We get glimpses of Him in His creation but only by self-revelation will we come to truly know Him – His desires for us and His Will. Without this Self-revalation, this communication from God, the most we can do is make god in our own image.

God being all love, and all goodness, it is only natural that He will want to be known by the creature to whom He has given the capacity to know.

We Christians believe that in Holy Scripture, we see God’s self-revelation which culminates when, in the fullness of time, He decides to enter human history.

But you might ask, but how do we know for sure that He is revealing Himself in the Bible?
This is when faith comes in. A very large part of this comes down to faith. We cannot prove that with an empirical proof. However, it is not blind faith because reason informs this faith. Faith is reasonable.

Having said that, without religion, we don’t reach that conclusion.

No, not without religion, rather without God’s self-revelation.

There are many religions but apart from the Abrahamic religions, (I think) their holy writ never claimed to a revelation from God rather man’s attempt to understand God. The Judea-Christian religion and Islam claim that their Holy book is a revelation from God.

At this stage I know you will ask, but how then do you know which one is indeed a revelation.

The answer to that will involve a very lengthy explanation so I will not get into that in this discussion save to say that the Judea Christian faith is the truth and that we can reasonably prove this.

The thought process that leads to it is not followed by scientists, except that they be influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition of a creator God.

I would be surprised if the scientist should follow such a thought process considering as you have rightly said, this is outside of the purview of science.

Why would you want to ruin it all by insisting that the intelligence that we have agreed to call God reveals itself to us through the Bible and Quran?

Firstly, I did not say that God revealed Himself in the Quran. I said that only the 3 Abrahamic religions “claim” to be a revelation of God. I then said that of these, I can prove that the Judea-Christian claim is the truth.

I suggest you re-read the part of my post that leads to this point. If you have an objection to any of these then we can go over that. But if you don’t have a problem with the arguments, then it would be foolish to disagree with the conclusion.

It reveals itself to us through philosophy and scientific discoveries. Eg. St. Thomas Aquinas and Einstein.

Firstly, God is not an “it”. He is not a thing. If He were a thing then He would not be God. Since we are made in His image, then obviously God is so much more than an it.
I think your use of pronoun at this stage in our discussion is significant. I think there is a fear there that if you acknowledge that God is a person (you’ve already acknowledge that He has attributes similar to human beings) then it would mean that God is indeed personal – that there might actually be something that He would require of you.

Secondly, while it is true that we get an “idea” of who God is based on philosophy and science, these are all indirect knowledge that only “point” to Him. This would be a very limited knowledge of Him.

Take your Artist analogy. Van Gogh is so much more than “The Starry Night” or the totality of his works, for the simple reason that Van Gogh cannot be captured in the harmony of colours in a canvas. To get to know Van Gogh, he needs to open himself up to others. He needs to reveal himself. As I said before, you are so focused on the artwork you are forgetting the Artist.

Scientific discoveries only reveal the workings of the material world. True, it displays the brilliance of the One who came up with the material world, but nevertheless science can only speak of the material world.

As for Philosophy, while it does give us a better apprehension of who God is, it still falls short. At most, it gets us to God – the Creator and even to conclusions about His attributes. But that again, is not enough. To really get to know this God, He has to make a disclosure of Himself. Without this personal disclosure we cannot know what His Will is. This only happens through a personal revelation as we see in Scripture.

Now of course you can say that the revelation in Scripture is false, but I would say that you have no grounds for such a statement.

I fear that someone thinking he knows what God requires of me tries to impose it on me.

Indeed that is a reasonable fear…… if you have not already come to the conclusion of the reasonableness of a personal God.

If God is the God you agreed with me, the He has a will. It is then important to find out what His will is. If God has the attributes you agree He has, then to find out what He will is important.

It is not about imposing someone’s idea of what God requires, but finding out what God requires. Philosophy and science will not be able to tell you what God requires of you.

Otherwise we will not come to know our purpose. We will be left with Deism and the existential angst returns.

I will answer your two posts with just this one as they are completely intertwined.

The purpose of a perfect intelligence setting a process in motion to ultimately create intelligent beings is to have someone appreciate its creation. That is the purpose of my life. To take it all in and enjoy it and pass it on, perhaps.

How do you know that that is so?

You see, that is an assumption on your part which actually goes against logic.

You agreed that God is the perfection of truth, goodness and beauty. He is thus a Person who can communicate His will. He is personal. The glimpses of His will that we discern from science and philosphy does not give us real knowledge of that Person.

And yes, part of the purpose of your life is to appreciate creation but that is not all of it. From appreciation arises gratitude and gratitude is personal.

The selection of a set of ancient writings over all other writings as being divinely inspired… seems a bit illogical

Actually it is very logical. Logic has taken us so far to a very personal God. If personal, then obviously He wants to communicate His will to us.

As I have explained before, science and philosophy can only take us so far.

and the exclusion of the others as not being divinely inspired seems a bit illogical.

This too is very logical because of the principle of non-contradiction. When several ideas are being propose and each contrary to the other then they cannot all be true.

So you have to find out which is true because as you agreed with me, God is the perfection of truth.

You’ve managed to be very convincing until you make the leap of faith of accepting the Bible as divinely inspired. The God I am willing to accept wouldn’t do something like that.

Actually, not accepting that God wishes to actually communicate with a part of His creation – who He has imbued with the capacity for truth, goodness and beauty – is the one that is illogical.

You may not want to accept that God makes a personal revelation of Himself, but all that means is that you are being illogical. You went so far as accepting the premises but then because the conclusion does not suit, then you reject the conclusion even though all the premises point to that conclusion.

You see, your whole thinking is still bound up in the illogic and stupidity of those who are immersed in scientism – like Dawkins. Dawkins and his like are resolved to not believe in God, so even when the latest scientific findings allow glimmers of an Intelligent Source for all creation, they are determined to find other explanations rather than accept the obvious. So they come up with multi-verses and aliens as the source for our universe. Completely stupid but there they are, otherwise intelligent men but determined to remain in this laughable worldview.

So yes, you can stick to your position and believe that there is no other purpose to your life than to appreciate creation and live life as you please according to your rules. No one is imposing on you the God who revealed Himself in Holy Scripture and in Jesus. Just don’t label that view as intelligent and logical because it isn’t.

That might not be exactly how I would word it, but it is close enough. The men who wrote the texts that were compiled into the Bible did not know God any better than I do.

Now you are really talking rubbish. A couple of weeks ago you did not even know God and now all of a sudden you know God better than those who were used by God to write Scripture? I think you need to have a little reality check here.

In fact, they had even less information about life and the universe than I do.

Big deal. So you know more about the material world. So what? If God was material that statement would carry weight. If we were talking about the Big bang, then that with be plausible. But considering, God isn’t material , then that statement is one of your more illogical ones. Didn’t you write a few posts ago that the spiritual world is not within the purview of science?

I trust the conclusions that I have arrived at (with your help) more than anything that was written by less informed people.

No doubt, you trust your own conclusions. But that doesn’t say much about the conclusions themselves – whether they are right, wrong or indifferent. Many pilots who have plunged to death, have trusted their conclusions. If that is all you can do, then that ain’t much.

Who were used by God to write Scripture? I don’t acknowledge that.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, it is the height of hubris (or stupidity or both) for you to come along this late in the piece and claim to know more about a subject that other’s have been studying for centuries. You – an infant in this game – claim to know better than all the adults put together who have made this subject their life ‘s quest.
It’s like a 7 year old who having spied Saturn from a kiddi telescope presuming to know more about the Cosmos than veteran cosmologists.

You need to take a reality check!

God can communicate with me without any need to use antiquated texts and religions.

Indeed He can and have done so countless of times. All you need do is read conversion stories and many of them recount how they were touched by God prior to becoming Christian. Most of them can pinpoint the exact moment of this event and how through a happy set of “co-incidences” sooner or later ended up in the Catholic Church.

To say that he is limited to the point that we have to read the Bible or listen to a priest to know his will is extremely illogical.

But I never said that He is limited to Scripture. Not at all. The Church has approved many private revelations. Scripture is God’s very public revelation.

Many have become Christian by a very private and very personal movement from the Spirit. But you know what, once touched by God in a very personal way, the intelligent creature sooner or later will come to know and accept His very tender and personal self-revelation in the Bible.

And it is not in the least illogical to expect to read the Bible and listen to a priest to know His will. If as you say God can communicate with you directly, so He also, through a priest and through Scripture. In fact, because the revelation in Scripture is very public, then there is less chance of getting it wrong.

To claim that He can communicate with you and not through Scripture and not through a priest is extremely illogical. In fact, it is not only illogical but delusional.

Private revelations are tricky because the evil one can communicate with you as well. And it requires great wisdom and a lot of grace to discern who is actually talking to you.

But, since you can communicate with God, then I do suggest that you do so pronto! Why wait? Talk to Him right now. Talk to Him every waking moment: when you are appreciating His creation, while driving, while waiting in a queue. Talk to Him as you would any friend who is present. Tell Him your problems. Tell Him your worries. And yes, tell Him you don’t believe in Scripture and priests. Tell Him everything. And don’t forget to thank Him daily for every blessing He has given you. And if you think you have been hard done by, you can complain to Him as well. He won’t mind. You’ll be quite surprised how available He is to your musings and your blabberings.

There are two books that I highly recommend. Both of these women are atheists and yet God spoke to them powerfully from where they are.

http://www.bookdepository.com/Memory-for-Wonders-Veronica-Goulard/9780898704303

http://www.bookdepository.com/Something-Other-Than-God-Jennifer-Fulwiler/9781586178826

I leave you with the opening paragraph of the foreword to the New Jerusalem Bible by Henry Wansbrough – The Bible is not a book but a library, joining together dozens of writings, history, stories, poetry and letters. Almost the only common factor is that they all speak to us of God, revealing His nature, His awesome sovereignty and His tender love.

God bless you. Tremendously!

My understanding of what I called the “Cosmos”, then the “Creator”, and now “God” does not correspond to the biblical description of God or that of the Catholic Church.

So what? You’re an infant in the field. There’s hope of course that you will mature. Time will tell whether you will but I think you will.

You’ve done the best you can to make me believe in your god. It’s not gonna happen. Thanks.

Indeed. Conversion is always the work of the Holy Spirit (whether you believe in the Holy Spirit or not). Many men and women of far, far greater intellect than yours , and far more convinced of the non-existence of God have fallen…. hard…. on their knees.
It’s a battle between you and God. And I’m putting my money on God.
So, again, I say talk to Him. You were the one who was insistent that you don’t need anyone to communicate with God. So, please have a little intellectual integrity and put your money where your mouth is. Talk to Him. Have a nice tete a tete.

I will try to talk to God about this but I’m not making any promises.

Hey, you don’t have to promise me anything. You don’t owe me anything.

But it would be kind of hypocritical if you don’t speak to Him since you have already come to the conclusion that He is personal, the perfection of goodness and intelligence and above all the perfection of love.

Since He is the perfection of love, then He loves you – absolutely unconditionally. Since He is the perfection of goodness, then He wills nothing but good for you. Since He is the perfection of intelligence, no matter the incoherent blabbering that may come out of you, He will understand.

Why would you not want to talk to someone like that?

And here’s something I can guarantee 100%. He really, really wants to talk to you.

And you know the other reason why you should talk to Him? Because you are simply dying to 🙂 So get on with it.

Happy conversations!

Also, do take up my challenge and read those books that I gave links to.

May you know how tenderly you are loved by God.

I have been careful not to say that perfect intelligence, goodness and love is a person.

Well duh! Can someone with perfect intelligence, love and goodness be any other?

My sense of self resists this concept. I don’t look at the world and life with a personal god in mind.

You may not like the idea (as children don’t like vegies) but whether you like or not has no bearing on whether it is or not. Our likes and dislikes do not create the reality of God.
I don’t like the idea of increased taxes either.

You assume that more cannot come from less and that since we are personal, the Creator must be personal.

It is not an assumption. It is a principle. A metaphysical principle.

I understand your reasoning but it is counter to the whole process evolution from lower forms of life to higher forms, which is what happens through evolution.

Because you assume that evolution as proposed by Darwin is true – that it is by chance. That is one of the more stupid assumptions of Darwinists. But as you have stated before there is a purpose to it all, therefore it cannot be by chance. Chance excludes purpose.

A program no matter how complex was still created by the programmer. The programmer may build into the program a capacity to become more complex but it still is the product of the programmer.
In evolution, even if you were to accept the Darwinist view is not the higher life forms were not the product of lower life forms. They were the product of chance.

I’m not saying you are wrong, just that there are other ways to look at all this.

The other way of looking at this that you proposed fails. It just showed that you did not understand what more cannot come from less meant.
You know what, you sort of go in a convoluted ways in your reasoning. And all to avoid the obvious conclusions. You are free to go about in such a manner but the only one you are deluding is yourself.

My sense of self resists this concept.

I think of all the things you have written, this little sentence speaks much about you.
Basically, for you this is not about discovering the truth. Maybe somewhere inside you there is something that is yearning for the truth – not so much because you desire it but because you’re stuck in that hell hole of existential angst. Because really, I do not see why you are posting here at all.

You’re in a real quandary. You’ve obviously pre-determined what you will believe (as you have expressed above) but your belief is really leaving you quite miserable. But when you get a glimpse of a lifeline, you will tenaciously cling to what you believe rather than admit that perhaps you were wrong.

Your past 3 posts were a rehash of what you had proposed before and which I have shown to be false.

So Bill, much as I have enjoyed conversing with you, I think I have already addressed all your arguments. You are going back to the same old same old that has already been done and dealt with.

If you don’t want to believe, that is all fine. But it would not be because of intelligence or logic. It will be because you don’t want to – against all evidence to the contrary.

I do suggest you read the two books I linked. These women are far too intelligent to be dismissed (especially Veronica) so easily.
So I leave you to God, whether you follow the correct conclusion that He is a person or not.
It is foolish though to say that you can communicate with God directly yourself and then turn around and say that he is not a person. That is just plain hilarious.

I leave you to God and I know that one day you will truly know Him and how tenderly you are loved by Him. I know that He has planted in you, the hunger for Him. And no thing else and one else will do.

May the Peace of the Lord be with you. May the Holy Spirit fill you with His grace and draw you even more into the communion of love between the Father and the Son.

And I entrust you to our (yes OUR) Blessed Mother to lead your to her Son. Amen!

My understanding of your approach to believing in God has been improved by a most seemingly unlikely source: a lecture by Richard Dawkins. As you know, I see myself as a materialist, someone who refuses to consider that anything might exist beyond the material world. But I am totally incapable of understanding quantum physics. For all intents and purposes, it might as well apply to something beyond what I would recognize as the material world. It begs the question, what else does what I consider my materialistic view of the universe keep me from understanding. My worldview makes no allowance for any consideration of the supernatural. Your worldview assumes the existence of the supernatural that, like the natural/material, is intelligible. The gap between us isn’t much different than the gap between me and a quantum physicist.

Religion has progressed for longer than science and truths from it cannot fit within the narrow spectrum of what I can accept as real. That doesn’t make me right and religion wrong.

You are absolutely right.

“…but I am a materialist. And materialists don’t believe that. Does not compute…”

I can no longer call myself a materialist (or an atheist). I’m at least a deist. And I marvel at the cosmos, the order of things. And I believe in the creator and call him “God”. And it is quite possible that we are like him in terms having intelligence and appreciating his creation.

Since then, you have moved much further than that but you just have not connected the dots or are afraid to connect the dots even when it’s very obvious.

We have intelligence and creation is the product of an intelligence. We can see how the laws of nature work through observations.

The next step is to acknowledge moral laws as also coming from an intelligent source. Did the intelligence that gave us gravity also give us a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable behavior or is this sense just a product of evolution, trial and error, natural selection?

This is as far as I have gotten. And no, I do not want my morality dictated to me through some supposed form of revelation. This is where my concept of God and the Abrahamic God part ways.

Perhaps the first thing you should ask is why you hate the idea of revelation and why you are repulsed by the “Abrahamic God”.

The Abrahamic God cannot possibly be real. Apologists go through a whole rational argument as to why there has to be God. But once they convince the skeptic, it’s like: “Ah, so I finally have convinced you that there really is a God. I suppose now you will want to learn all about him. Just read this book”. The skeptic starts reading the Bible and goes “WTF?”

The thought process leading to the acceptance of an intelligence that one could call “God” followed by reading the Bible is like convincing someone of the importance of Christmas and then putting on “The Christmas Story” where the kid gets a BB gun. There is no segway from one to the other. As soon as God begins punishing Adam and the rest of humanity for not obeying him, the Flood, Sodom and Gamorah, Ten Plagues, etc. that becomes a totally unrelated fictional God.

I’m skipping all that and focusing on a God who can get me through what I am going through here and now. I couldn’t care less about Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Pope Francis or anyone else who supposedly knows him any better.

Ok then. I will think of God as being personal but not limited to being fully knowable through any one religion.

It’s like when Apollo Creed said to Rocky “the thing is that I did teach you everything you know, but I didn’t teach you everything I know”.

Religions might appear to have all the knowledge anyone needs about God, but actually we learn more about him by just living.

I consider going back to Catholicism as going back to kindergarten. Been there, done that. It presents fairy tales about the real God. Genesis, Exodus, etc. are fairy tales told to the ancestors of the Jews to have them all follow one God and one religion and be governed by one king as one nation.

Jesus started a whole new religion and I don’t even think we need to know about anything that came before him. His personal god was our Heavenly Father. I am willing to go with that concept.

That’s as far as I can get. I don’t accept what Jesus taught about himself, eternal life, his return, his church, saints, angels, demons, etc.

Catholicism is the most intelligent and beautiful expression of faith in God.

Thank you for the video. What you say about Catholicism is true. I am a cradle Catholic and only stopped believing a few years ago. My wife is devout and, this will surprise you, I accompany her to mass and say the rosary with her every morning driving her to work.

I never went through the process you have taken me through and the God that it leads to is quite different from the God I stopped believing in. It is as if I did have a kindergarten belief that was easily dismissed after reading the books of the New Atheists.

I could use a fatherly God right now and I have already put my troubled relationship with my son (who hates Catholicism but surprised me by saying he does believe in God he knows I don’t) in his hands. I can’t do more than that now. My wife is sticking with me through this and is sure the faith will come back to me.

I wasn’t lying when I said I was an atheist or deist. I just forgot to mention that I am in a heavily Catholic environment and I see many things that I disagree with but I don’t want to tell anyone so I blog.

I couldn’t tell her I hated it and why. I wanted to be able to do what I wanted to do without someone brooding over my neck.
That is the Abrahamic God that I don’t accept. From the Garden and the Fall, the Flood, Sodom, on and on. So somehow you reconciled the love and the vengeance. That is why I see that God as fictional. 
You have one job left to do: leave your son alone. God will only accept you back into his grace if you do this. If you cannot, then you are truly destined for an eternity in hell.
These are the last words that my son spoke to me last week. He’s not religious so I was surprised when he said them. By the way, every age you might have assumed I am is decades lower than I am. My son who wrote this is 30. We are both very immature. I know you thought I was a teenager at one point. A stupid one at that. 🙂

I will read your next comment.

Every time your son comes to mind, surrender Him to the Lord.

Wow. That’s EXACTLY what I am doing right now. This is a case where there is absolutely nothing else I can do.

So yesterday I told my wife that I wanted to go to Eucharistic Adoration like we used to do before I stopped believing. We did an hour and they were doing soaking prayer which I also used to have done to me once in a while. She led me to the laypeople laying hands and they were just waiting for someone else and she put me up to having it done. I had no choice. They were two of the same people I used to go to and a friend who did her Cursillo with my wife in 2009 (a month after I did mine). I just went along with it and felt at peace. I wouldn’t say I felt God’s presence but the people and my wife were so nice to me that I couldn’t see why I would have ever wanted to be an atheist or deist and I thought that if I am a theist, I might as well keep being a Catholic theist. They gave me something called the swap where you pray for Mary’s intentions and she prays for your. I just took it and read it on the way home. Mary is taking it too far but I didn’t say anything to my wife. She gave me a big hug and kiss when we got home. There is no sense in resisting. It’s futile.

I do draw the line though at the fanaticism that I have seen in some because I think that in some cases it borders on idolatry.

I see a lot of this as fanaticism. It’s all relative though. It seems that people always want you to believe more and more.

I met a woman who was so thrilled because she touched the hand of a supposed “seer”.

It is a slippery slope. My wife is going to drag me to a place I don’t want to go. Ivan and those others are con artists. I don’t want any part of that bullshit. I would rather tell people I am an atheist and then move closer to God at my own pace.

I’m so glad you share my attitude toward Ivan and the other Medjugorje visionaries. My wife would like to visit Medjugorje and I don’t want any part of it.

The Church at which we made the Eucharistic visit and I had the soaking prayer is very much into Medjugorje. You would never know that the Vatican does not endorse it. I will read your links.

I am at BillS1225@gmail.com if you ever need to reach me.

Looks like its been taken care of. Thanks.

I don’t believe that God expects us to choose the right religion. He is not the God that I came to believe in as a Catholic but I see why Catholics do interact with God through their faith and rituals. I don’t believe that God expects us to choose the right religion. Instead, I believe that he goes along with the one we feel closest to him in following. For this reason, like speaking English, I will continue practicing Catholicism. I will not fret about what is factually true and what conveys the truth in its own metaphorical or symbolic way. That’s the best I can do for the time being.

I think He does. But this will not be forced. He will present the truth to you at your pace and He will show you why it is the right path – and you will assent of your own free will.

Don’t think just because you don’t “feel” your Catholicism that there is no value to it. Fidelity is what is more important. To love (to will the good of the other as other) when you don’t feel in the least the warmth of the emotion is so much more important for then it becomes an act of will.

And I am sure that one day, as your knowledge of the faith grows, you will also become convinced that the Catholic faith is the true faith. But for the meantime, I think the important thing is to keep doing what you are doing – going to Mass and praying the Rosary with your wife. One day I am sure that God will show you the graces that this simple obedience has worked in your life.
In the meantime, I would like to share this musing by Nabeel Qureshi – a Muslim who became Christian.

When Nabeel was struggling with the decision whether to remain a Muslim or to follow Jesus, he asked: how is it conceivable that Allah, the highest being of all, would enter into this world? This world is so filthy and sinful, no place for the One who deserves all glory and all praise….To have to eat, to grow fatigued, and to sweat and spill blood, and to be finally nailed to a cross. I cannot believe this. God deserves infinitely more. His majesty is far greater than this.

But then he asked: But what if His Majesty is not as important to Him as His children are?”

Now of course you can say that the revelation in Scripture is false, but I would say that you have no grounds for such a statement.

What grounds do you have to dismiss the Quran but to accept the Bible as revelation? The way you look at the Quran, I look at the Torah and the Bible.

The selection of a set of ancient writings over all other writings as being divinely inspired and the exclusion of the others as not being divinely inspired seems a bit illogical.

You’ve managed to be very convincing until you make the leap of faith of accepting the Bible as divinely inspired. The God I am willing to accept wouldn’t do something like that.

love is one of the transcendentals. They are not physical laws of nature but spiritual laws.

In that case, spiritual laws are beyond the purview of science.

Marc, note that this quote is at the beginning of the post. Fine quote…expresses all that one needs to know to believe in a Creator.

I would say yes and no. Yes, if one’s sense of the spiritual has not been deadened. No, if from the beginning one has been immersed and bombarded with the propaganda that the created world is all there is. If one is in that second category, one might conclude that the firmament is just one beautiful accident.

This is why when conversing with atheists, I think it is important that from the start, the poverty of that materialistic assumption be exposed for the stupid argument that it is.

Yes. We do take our faith in science from mainstream media
Then that explains why your posts are so up the creek.
If you are going to argue from science at least properly argue from science not from some garbled report in the mainstream media.

The History Channel.
The History Channel is full of rubbish and inaccuraries. PBS is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
The MSM is to be taken with a grain of salt. If you are not ashamed to be informed by the MSM, then maaan, you should be.

MSM is not all bad if you swallow everything they spit out then no wonder your thinking is the way it is.

And what is the proper place of Christian conservative values?
Do you realize that if I were to take your “atheist non-conservative value” to its logical conclusion, I could have you tortured then murdered (if I have enough power) and that would be just all par for the course because in an atheistic world view you’re value is the same as the earthworm that is fertilizing my garden? That you are as valuable as the staphylococci that people take antibiotics for, to kill.
After all, if we are nothing more than by products of random mutations your life has absolutely no value at all. And if you have kids, they are absolutely disposable and if someone powerful enough were to think they would want to dispose of you and your family, why you have absolutely no grounds for complaining because you are nothing more than the by product of random mutations – same as the fly and maggot that we zap with insecticide.
And yes, increasingly that is the kind of value that your beloved MSM is feeding its minions.

Then please explain why this intelligence cannot be God.

I will never meet Carl Sagan. He is dead.