Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Twitter Replies II








No atheist arguments hold.  Atheists who enter a discussion with a closed mind have their minds already settled on how to respond to any proof provided to them.






I already answered the question.  The Vatican in 2005 denounced the 800 year old Limbo hypothesis.  See more here:  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html






Not at all.  It is the story of how God has directed the redemption of man and prepared the world for the Christ.







Hogwash.  The Bible contains the story of man's salvation; of course, any story involving human beings will have the drama of the human experience.






Sick how?  How can God kill if He created it?   God gives and takes.  We belong to Him.  Atheism has the lowest retention rate of any religion.   It appears to be growing, but this is due to the social media which exaggerates reports.







I seriously doubt it since abortion is the thing that is slaughtering children today, not plagues.  You asked me about the Bible, not current times.  People thought differently then than they do now.







You have to remember that the people at the time thought the world was not this huge thing we know it is now.  They literally thought the Earth was a semi dome.  The "whole" world was whatever they saw.  They had no idea there was more to the Earth than their local areas.  In light of this. other species could have survived without being in an ark.







The Burden falls on anyone who makes any claim, negative or positive.  See:  http://www.sacerdotus.com/2011/12/burden-of-proof.html







The problem exist when one reads the account as if one were reading a newspaper.







No one really knows the age of anything.  Carbon dating is not perfect.  We can only make estimates.  Some believers believe the Earth is only about 5000 years old but this is because they are basing it on the Jewish calendar.  In my opinion, knowing the age of the Earth will not answer anything.   






God can be proven.  You can prove God is not real if you can trace God to an original thinker.  If you can find the person responsible for formulating the idea of God, then you have successfully proven that God is nothing more than fiction.  When we say God will judge, we don't mean that He will be there like Judge Judy yelling at people.  God will measure our lives by the love we gave and how we put faith and hope to work alongside it.  An atheist like Hitchens or Dawkins who are angry, hateful can easily be forgiven and enter heaven just by saying I'm sorry.   God is not this cry baby.  He holds us to high standards and expects us to be that Image of God that we are.






I would say the Hebrew's.  The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews and had their first born killed.  Moses was spared from this.






I suggested Pangaea because of the ease animals had in traveling to and fro.  It is possible kangaroos could have been in the area, who knows?  Maybe traders could have brought some.  It is not uncommon for travelers and traders to bring back exotic things, including animal life.








Not at all.  The justice fell upon the Egyptians who enslaved God's chosen people and had their firstborn male children killed.   Remember, these plagues were a sign to the Egyptians that the God of the Hebrews was GOD.






I never claim to have the answer.  I can answer based on the knowledge we have.  There is no such thing as not being able to give an answer.  Some answers will be more detailed than others based on the data available.  This does not mean the question cannot be answered.






Israel were an autonomous people who lived in Canaan.  The God Yahweh was added to the pantheon after the fact, and not during.







Proof of what?








The text does not mention dinosaurs or any specific animal by name.  Gen. 6:19-20  says:

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

It may have been possible that dinosaurs were on board.  The ark was a huge vessel which could have fit a pair of any kind of animal including dinosaurs.  I could imagine possibly young dinosaur pairs being accommodated on board as opposed to older ones.  However, the taxonomy list of the ark is not what the text is about.










I answered using the available information.






How so?






I do try to keep it simple.  However, I am an academic so I have to stick to an academic style of writing.









Yes VMAT2 aka "God gene" does exist.  








Free will exists while God knows and sees all at the same time because we are subject to space and time, not God.  What does this mean?  It means that God can know every outcome and every decision we make because He is outside of space and time.  Being that He is God, His perception will be extremely advanced.

We are in space and time, they have an affect on us.  We exist in 4 dimensions and are limited to them.  We cannot perceive the others.  Because of this limitation, we are only aware of those 4 dimensions.  String theory is interesting when comparing it with free will and an all knowing God.

To sum it up, string theory is the idea that particles are strings existing within and interacting with different dimensions.  For example, string theory posits that what I am doing now is just one of the many outcomes within "reality."  In this dimension I am blogging, in another, I could be blogging but chewing gum, etc etc.  All of this can happen at the same time or in different times.

In light of this, God who is outside of space and time can observe the many variations in the "strings" of reality.  Therefore, He can see all and we can be free in our respective dimension because we are part of that dimension and are subject to its laws.

You can test this with something that refracts light and a flashlight.  When you put the beam on it, the light will "split" into parts pointing at different points.  It is the same light, but they are in different points in space and time and in different dimensions.  You can observe this because you are outside of that light, but if the light were conscious it would not be aware of this and would only be aware that it can exist in its respective point.

8 comments:

  1. Let start from the bottom up...

    Refracting light is in no way related to string theory. Shining a white light from a prism will divide it into it's colour spectrum (think Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon album cover), but this was nothing to do with "different dimensions". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were only trying to use it as an analogy, but in the future don't use the word "test" if you're only speaking metaphorically.

    In general I find your attempt to insert string theory into my question of free will vs. omniscience completely irrelevant. If anything you prove my point: "God can know every outcome and every decision we make because He is outside of space and time". If god exists I would assume he would have a to exist outside of our concept of space-time. It only stands to reason that a creator would not be limited by his own creation, so I'll happily give you that. If that is the case and he can observe my actions outside of time, all my decisions and their consequences would be laid out before him in the same instance, and this applies for all things from the beginning to the end of time; he would be aware of all of it in the stance instance. All we are therefore doing is acting out a script that was penned long ago, and we only have the illusion of free will.

    Let me put it this way: is there choice I could make that would surprise god? One that god wouldn't see coming? I'm going to have a stab in the dark and assume your answer would be "No". If god knows my choices before I make them, then how is it a real choice, a real act of volition, and not just some another set action that god demanded happen a certain way and could therefore not happen in any other way?

    The free will vs omniscience question is one I pose to theists often, because it was this exact issue that started me down the path away from Roman Catholicism and towards being an agnostic atheist (and yes, you can be an atheist AND an agnostic)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. /////Let start from the bottom up...

      Refracting light is in no way related to string theory. Shining a white light from a prism will divide it into it's colour spectrum (think Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon album cover), but this was nothing to do with "different dimensions". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were only trying to use it as an analogy, but in the future don't use the word "test" if you're only speaking metaphorically.////




      Yes, this is demonstrated in physics courses in every university. It is part of lab assignments. We use laser beams.




      /////In general I find your attempt to insert string theory into my question of free will vs. omniscience completely irrelevant. If anything you prove my point: "God can know every outcome and every decision we make because He is outside of space and time". If god exists I would assume he would have a to exist outside of our concept of space-time. It only stands to reason that a creator would not be limited by his own creation, so I'll happily give you that. If that is the case and he can observe my actions outside of time, all my decisions and their consequences would be laid out before him in the same instance, and this applies for all things from the beginning to the end of time; he would be aware of all of it in the stance instance. All we are therefore doing is acting out a script that was penned long ago, and we only have the illusion of free will./////




      It is not irrelevant. You are being a contrarian and demonstrating your inability to accept even science. This is one of the reasons why atheism fails.

      Notice I never mentioned the Bible nor Philosophy. I used physics!

      No, there is no script nor anything penned long ago or any such thing. Remember, there can be many outcomes to any event. Being that we exist within a particular dimension, we experience free will. Remember, we can only perceive what our senses allow us to perceive. There is no illusion because our existence is behaving as it should within the laws of that dimension. An example is the sense of touch. We never touch anything! What we sense as touch is the coulomb repulsion. This is so because of the laws in our reality.


      //////Let me put it this way: is there choice I could make that would surprise god? One that god wouldn't see coming? I'm going to have a stab in the dark and assume your answer would be "No". If god knows my choices before I make them, then how is it a real choice, a real act of volition, and not just some another set action that god demanded happen a certain way and could therefore not happen in any other way?////



      Absolutely! This would be called a paradox which does exist in the universe! So it is possible to surprise God and God knowing the surprise at the same time. This would have no bearing on free will because we are behaving within the parameters of our reality.





      /////The free will vs omniscience question is one I pose to theists often, because it was this exact issue that started me down the path away from Roman Catholicism and towards being an agnostic atheist (and yes, you can be an atheist AND an agnostic)/////




      I understand. It can be a complicated issue. However, as I've shown, the issue is not that complicated if you look at it differently.

      Delete
  2. "We use laser beams" - I have to admit this made me laugh and I'm not sure why. Again I don't see you making any point in that section. Again trying to give you the benefit of the doubt again (something contrarians tend not to do I'll add) and guess you're trying to refer to the double slit experiment. Again, dont see what it has to do with the topic.

    "demonstrating your inability to accept even science"
    "Notice I never mentioned the Bible nor Philosophy. I used physics!"
    I find accepting science quite easy actually. What I really can't stomach is when its used badly. Its like new age gurus trying to incorporate quantum mechanics into their spiritualism: just makes me cringe. You are doing the same in trying to misuse string theory. Coulombs law for example deals with the forces between charged particles,and nothing to do with this discussion. Don't just through physics terms at expecting me to accept them at face value.

    "This would be called a paradox which does exist in the universe! So it is possible to surprise God and God knowing the surprise at the same time"
    You've just stated a paradox and also admitted that god can be surprised, so therefore he is not all knowing, because if he is all knowing he wouldn't be able to be surprised. It took a while but we got there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. /////"We use laser beams" - I have to admit this made me laugh and I'm not sure why. Again I don't see you making any point in that section. Again trying to give you the benefit of the doubt again (something contrarians tend not to do I'll add) and guess you're trying to refer to the double slit experiment. Again, dont see what it has to do with the topic.////




      It is obvious you have never taken a physics course. Students make use of labs in order for them to conduct experiments and "see" physics in action. In this way, the material in the texts which can be difficult are brought to life, so to speak. The point with the light beams and string theory is to show that there are different outcomes within the same reality. It has everything to do with the topic because it deals with our spatial and temporal existence. It is within these that we exist, think, and act. Remember, we are looking at it scientifically. Therefore, we have to take into account how man exists in this universe and how God who is said to be outside of space and time and both transcend and act on this existence simultaneously.





      /////"demonstrating your inability to accept even science"
      "Notice I never mentioned the Bible nor Philosophy. I used physics!"
      I find accepting science quite easy actually. What I really can't stomach is when its used badly. Its like new age gurus trying to incorporate quantum mechanics into their spiritualism: just makes me cringe. You are doing the same in trying to misuse string theory. Coulombs law for example deals with the forces between charged particles,and nothing to do with this discussion. Don't just through physics terms at expecting me to accept them at face value./////




      Nothing was used badly. Just because you may not have a grasp on the material does not mean it was presented badly. Again, these ideas relate to temporal and spatial existence. Notice how you cannot counter them other with "it can't be." This is what exposes atheists as being incapable of accepting anything objectively and why atheism fails. Atheists are basically in denial.

      If I had a video of God talking to your mother, you will say "it is photoshopped" or "it is video editing software" despite the video being tested and showed to have no additional effects. There is always that denial despite the evidence there staring at you. The issue then is not intellectual, but psychological. Something psychological is preventing you from accepting the reality before you. This is similar to the shock some family members experience when they lose a love one to death. They still cannot believe it even at the wake when the corpse is there laying before them in state.

      Spiritism is different. It would not make sense to use quantum mechanics because "spirit" is not material. Physics deals with the physical. However, what I'm demonstrating is an aspect of physics that deals with existence within spatial and temporal terms. This is the realm we operate in as physical beings.






      /////"This would be called a paradox which does exist in the universe! So it is possible to surprise God and God knowing the surprise at the same time"
      You've just stated a paradox and also admitted that god can be surprised, so therefore he is not all knowing, because if he is all knowing he wouldn't be able to be surprised. It took a while but we got there./////



      I wrote that it can be BOTH: He can be surprised and can know simultaneously. This is what a paradox is - in a sense, a big contradiction. They exist in this universe. A close but not perfect example would be a movie that has a surprise ending that you have already watched, but still get surprised when watching it again.

      Delete
  3. Sacerdotus wrote in a comment elsewhere:

    It completely ignores what is biologically determined via genetics. One is either male or female, there are no other genders. In response to zoebrain, the existence of deformities does not negate the presence of the xx and xy chromosomes.

    Some facts:

    1 in 300 men aren't XY. Some women are.

    A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis. -- The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism January 1, 2008 vol. 93 no. 1 182-189

    Worth noting as most XY women give birth to XX girls, as do most XX women.

    This whole idea that chromosomes infallibly determine sex is erroneous. It's like saying height determines sex. To define everyone who's XY as male and everyone who's XX as female makes no more sense than to say that everyone of above average height is male, and below, female. It's true after all that most men are taller than most women.

    Then there's the 1 in 400 people who are neither XX nor XY.

    Finally, there are those whose chromosomes change over their lifetimes. While there are a number of uncommon medical syndromes that can cause this, the most obvious case is with bone marrow transplant recipients.

    Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients Ikoma et al Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8

    Transplanted human bone marrow cells generate new brain cells Crain BJ, Tran SD, Mezey E. J Neurol Sci. 2005 Jun 15;233(1-2):121-3

    These show that a bone-marrow transplant recipient's entire bodies gradually become genetically identical to that of the donor due to cell turnover. Even the brain. Even the reproductive glands.

    That doesn't change the patient's sex.

    If one is going to talk about biological determinism, one had better know a bit more than the simplified children's version of the biology.

    For that matter, what was perfectly reasonable for Leo XIII to conclude on the basis of the best evidence known at the time (1884) is now no longer tenable.

    I really hope the Church gets its act together regarding biology, or it will be damaged even more than it was by the Galileo affair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your position. I once held the same views back in my freshman college years. These are the years when they try hard to get you to accept all these ideas that when closely scrutinized make no sense.

      First:
      Yes there are variations in the human race in regards to genetics, but not all are considered "normal." Not all are beneficial to the human species in regards to speciation and reproduction.

      An example that comes to mind are the "guevedoces" in Santo Domingo who are children who when reaching puberty either change dramatically (physically) or can develop both male and female genitalia. This is what is called a genetic abnormality, disease or defect.

      The examples you provide demonstrate this. This is what you have left out in your comment. Just because these cases of genetic defects exist does not mean that we have to rewrite the definition of sex determination.


      Second:
      People who have these kinds of genetic makeups suffer all kinds of complications and many cannot even reproduce themselves. This is the reason why these are called genetic diseases.

      If all human beings had these kinds of genetic makeups, we would go extinct immediately. The presence of genetic defects does not indicate that there are other genders. This is unfortunately a mishap of nature and evolution.


      Third:
      That being said, quoting examples of genetic diseases is not evidence that there are more than 2 genders/sexes within the human species. If these genetic abnormalities were an indication of other genders/sexes, then they would not have a problem surviving and would live life normally without complications.



      Fourth:
      In regards to the bone marrow cells. To my knowledge, the cells only generated glia. Studies are still being conducted to see if cells were really generated or if they were just going through transdifferentiation. Microchimerism is common in human beings and therefore it is possible for cells from different people to fuse or coexist.

      Fifth:
      The teachings of previous Popes are still valid despite the times. You are assuming that a genetic defect is what determines gender/sex or is evidence that other genders/sexes exist, this is fallacious. The normative indicator of gender/sex are the XX XY chromosomes. It is the male/father who determines the gender/sex of the child via sperm. This is why this is taught in schools.

      No one hears of gender theory until they enter college which is a place for academic freedom that allows discussions and the questioning of already established knowledge. This questioning does not disprove the knowledge, but allows one to look at them differently.

      Any variation of sex chromosomes is a defect and must be taken into consideration. Even in these cases which are extremely rare, one sex is more dominant than the other.

      The Church has scientists studying this matter since gender theory has appeared in the USA from the Feminist movement - not science.

      The Galileo affair was due to Galileo's suggestion the the Bible was wrong. He had a literal interpretation of Scripture. The scientific position and community at the time was against Galileo. Moreover, Galileo had a hard time because he did not defend himself well against the argument of Aristotle in regards to the shift of stars. So there is more to the story than what is told...




      Delete
  4. Since you agree the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of a claimant, when do we get to see the proof of your deity's existence, Sacerdotus, much less the proof of the existence of the other 2,500+ deities mankind claims exist? Do you agree that we are entitled to such verified proof and you are not exempt from providing it when asked?

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am working on a series of blog posts with proof of the One and only God. This is a large endeavor that takes time to complete. Most likely, I will end up posting it piece by piece. Rome wasn't built in a day.

      The problem you and other atheists seem to have is that you think these 2,500 gods all share existence/the universe with God, they don't. There is only ONE God. These 2,500 are the different variations of how man understood this ONE God.

      Delete

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (456) God (309) Atheism (239) Jesus Christ (212) Jesus (208) Bible (174) Pope Francis (165) Atheist (145) LGBT (130) Science (117) Liturgy of the Word (104) Christianity (84) Rosa Rubicondior (76) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (65) President Obama (56) Prayer (54) Vatican (39) Physics (38) Christian (37) Philosophy (36) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Christmas (31) Psychology (31) Women (29) Biology (28) Politics (28) Liturgy (26) Baseball (25) Religious Freedom (23) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Supreme Court (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Donald Trump (15) Health (14) Death (13) Astrophysics (12) Christ (12) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Poverty (10) Illegal Immigrants (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Muslims (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Apologetics (6) Barack Obama (6) Big Bang Theory (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Massimo Pigliucci (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)