ok, i'll try, but with the caveat of reasonable doubt vs. absolute certainty. first, lets start with the cosmological argument. cosmos (world) logos (reason), or meaning of the world. We begin with the principle of sufficient reasons. There is an undeniable assumption that something exists. If you touch your arm, you feel it. If you walk outside and the sun is shining , your shadow exists, as well as trees, grass, etc. Whatever you feel about the day, the amount of sun, the temperature, the amount of flab on your arm, the one thing you cannot do is deny they exist. The cosmological questions asks, "why do things exist?" We could suppose nothing existed, because nothingness requires no explanation. but, the second that something exists, we are forced to ask why. Why something rather than nothing? The principle of contingency relates to the need of everything for something else. Most everything is dependent on something other than itself. trees need air, grass needs water, humans need food..... nothing is utterly dependent or self reliant. The prevailing theories of cosmology confirm this. The big bang theory says the universe didn't exist at one time and probably will not continue to exist forever. The 2nd law of thermodynamics teaches us that everything in our universe is in a gradual state of entropy, and slowly losing energy and complexity. These first 2 rationales - that everything is dependent on something else and all is fading, leads to the 3rd rationale: If all that exists is indeed contingent, who or what is the explanation for all of these contingement objects and beings? If everything is relying on something else, what is the basis that supports the whole? If there was a big bang, who pulled the trigger? Based on probability, i choose to believe that God is responsible.
i know you are not serious, but you are. your god is nothing if not a disembodied fairy, casting spells on those he favors.
Again, I ask how does this diminish the church's teaching authority? Were any of the doctrines of the Church in error? If your point is that Catholics are sinners... well guilty as charged. If it is that men in power sometimes abuse it... ditto. Its pretty clear you didn't read the entire article. You should do that because it doesn't really say what you obviosly think it says. And in a similar line as the inquisition, I don't think you understand what infallible means. It does not mean a pope is perfect or even moral. Some popes were genuinely bad people. It means that a pope is protected from teaching something that is not true. That book is slanderous filth, but don't take my word for it. Read what Jewish leaders had to say about Pius's zctions twords the Jews. Here are some quotes: The sex abuse scandal was disgusting, but Christ told us there would be wolves among the sheep. And again which Catholic teaching is not true because of the sex abuse scandal? None. The scandal exposed a great number of hypocrits, but not heretics. These men were teaching truth, and living vile sin.
I think the whole sticking point was the word "infallible". I have issues with anything that claims to be infallible. We'll just have to agree to disagree Supa. I don't think it will be possible to see eye to eye on this. It's like an Auburn fan trying to convince an Alabama fan that his team sucks. Ain't gonna happen :wink:
Fair enough, but I think a good bit of your objection has to do with a lack of understanding of what it really means.
Most people think when we say that the church or pope is infallible that it means the pope can never be wrong. That is not true. Infallibility simply means that the doctrines of the Church are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. I should also say here that the Bible is not infallible. It is inerrant. Those are not the same thing.
Martin, I read your posts everyday about sports and nonsense, but when I read your religious posts it makes me sick how use them to irritate instead of enlighten. You posts these quotes of philosophers every time but fail to quote the great minds that do believe in a higher being. You criticize people for a belief that they base their whole lives upon. You tell them they are ignorant for this belief and quote an obscure reference for your opinion. Red tries to tell you you are incorrect, but you are so arrogant in your RELIGIOUS belief in atheism that you can't even see that you have twisted yourself into a corner. Then we just wait for another quote. How can you tell one what reality is? Especially when no one truly agrees on the definition of reality and it realms. For your reality is definetely different than the majority of the world. It seems that you have FAITH in beliefs of your reality. There is no proof of your reality. You can not provide us evidence that your reality is any more relevant or real than ours. But you try to tell this forum that it is. You try your best to disprove ours b/c if you can disprove it, then yours must be right. You then quote great thinkers that have a similar belief in you, but also lack any proof of evidence. Please don't quote evolutionary biology anymore either, because any Christian biologist can tell you that evolution can be a foundation for the belief in a creator. In no way does evolution null and void a God. My point is that you and I and the rest of the people that have read or posted on this forum are one in the same. We all FAITH in something that can not be explained. You are the only one that continually posts closed minded thoughts. I respect your lack belief in a God, but I do not respect your actions and words. You mentioned Christian laws were based off of common sense, then you should know better than any (with your worldly wisdom) that is improper to ridicule people that differ in opinion. Martin, these threads will continue until either God or an asteroid take us away, but I ask of you to please respect other peoples opinion. We all welcome intelligent, thought provoking statements on your minority belief. I know Jesus didn't teach you manners, but your mother did. PS. Catholics do not put their belief in the bible. TRUE Roman Catholics put their belief in the Catechism, a book written by man interpreting the bible written by man. Just one more way the RC Church keeps free thinking minds out. That's why I left.
most really great thinkers quit being religious hundreds of years ago. red and i are really only discussing word interpretations and definitions. i cant twist myself into a corner, because what i believe is so uncomplicated. i believe in science and provable things. if i say the world is round, you can go do some work in a lab and with telescopes and astronomers and you will see that it is true. that is reality. i dunno what you are talking about. the definition of reality is not personal or subjective. i never came close to saying it did. also, in general, a christian biologist is a bad biologist. a christian who is a scientist of any kind is generally going to be so poor at critical thinking that he is no more than a simple technician who will never accomplish anything really interesting. no, YOU have faith in the unexplained. i do not know about the unexplained until it is explained. [qoute]I respect your lack belief in a God, but I do not respect your actions and words. You mentioned Christian laws were based off of common sense, then you should know better than any (with your worldly wisdom) that is improper to ridicule people that differ in opinion. [/quote] they call it free speech alley for a reason. i do not and will never respect opinions if they are nonsense, and neither should you. i respect people, not opinions. i respect all the people i discuss things with. are you finished lecturing me now?
