The Only Way God is Real.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I believe I have seen your attempts - and if I recall correctly, they were distinctly underwhelming.

Underwhelming accoring to who? You People? Everything i have mentioned is backed up by science. Why dont you check it and disprove it. And if you finde something i will help you out and explaine.

originally posted by: colbe
Creation is God's doing, I don't care about the time frame. He does not evolve humanity from the animals. Catholicism accepts a certain kind of evolution, I will have to look it up, I forgot the name. The faith does not accept Darwinism.

Catholicism has no problem with microevolution (changes within a "kind" over time), the Catholic Church is opposed to macroevolution (a population belonging to one "kind" changing into a new "kind").

Get it, makes sense. We have an eternal soul.

This is incorrect. Catholicism is against a materialistic interpretation of evolution that would say the soul is purely an epiphenomenom of the body, and that's it. It doesn't reject macro-evolution at all. It only contests it being purely random (I already explained how true randomness doesn't exist anyway and is just another name for our lack of perfect information) and propose it being responding to a divine impulse. I.e. life is not appearing and evolving by chance but by purpose.

It's really impressive how people still believe the Church is retrograde when for centuries it has been looking very closely at the latest scientific discoveries, and reinterpreted sacred texts in their light instead of keeping a literal approach no matter what like some protestants.


More pope quotes showing that the Catholic church considers literal interpretation of genesis as incorrect:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ... herein ... lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

^^^^^
Clearly shows the pope doesn't believe "adam and eve" were the first biological humans. More like creation is an allegory for the birth of the spiritual human.

Most people on ATS really seem to have no understanding of the Church's position and think all Christians believe like the bible-thumpers. This is ridiculous and almost insulting.


The Church isn't trying to answer questions about biological origins. It's trying to answer two questions science cannot ever answer because they are philosophical in nature:
- Could it be that there is "some form" (please don't make the mistake of seeing it as anthropomorphic) of intelligence in nature and the universe, as it's perfection seems to indicate.
- What is the purpose of all this?


That's the scope of modern religions, while the scope of modern science is to understand and explain the rules by which everything takes place in this universe. It never intended to answer philosophical questions.

Science and religion are not exclusive, actually they are quite complementary and it's healthy to keep a philosophical look at the universe unless you think we are nothing but meat robots programmed to have sex and eat (then I would be sad for you because cynicism never made the world a better place).

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

I really have to ask. How is it that so many people on ATS can be so wrong about the Church positions? Where does all these incorrect beliefs you have come from?

I'm pretty sure most of those who make these mistakes never had any contact with Christian faith (or even with religion in general) other than through anglo-saxon protestants.

You need to open yourself to the world, guys, there's so much more than that, you can't believe everyone think the same as you and your neighbors.

originally posted by: colbe
One reason to show Darwin's evolution is not true. You would have to believe Mary, Our Lord's mother is descendent from the apes!

Give God credit, He can keep His systems straight, evolution happens only within a system, there is no animal to
human evolution.

Humans have a part of God in them, their eternal soul.

You're really funny....

So evolution is not true because lord's mother can't be descendent from apes? Seriously?

This just not show your ignorance toward science, but also how uneducated you are...

If you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we are not descendants of apes, but apes and we share common ancestor, ape-like creature that evolved into different subgroups... we have many remains of different trenches of our family tree and there is no doubt how close we are related to apes, but again, we are not direct descendants of them.

Please educate yourself before making statements like that...

Even pope said that evolution is not mere hypothesis... and that is not one of living popes, but John Paul II back in 1996.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Dude can you really be surprised? After thousands of years of every religious person in history trying to find some proof, any proof their religion is true.... As what do we have to show for it? Testimonials lol


While science has sent us to the moon. Put 2 cars in every garage. Gene theropy and cloning ( niether would work if evolution were false smart guy) micro waves and air planes.

It really is hilarious how uneducated the religious side can be. :p

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

The church has and the bible have tried to provide for the origin of life and the universe. Even to this day. The problem is they're theory WAS WRONG! The not retarded Christians have mixed as much of their religion into science as science couldn't disprove. We are at the point now that the only supernatural thing in the bible they haven't debunked are the concept of god and the miricales of Jesus. But science hasn't evolved enough to disprove a negative and there's no way to prove or disprove something that happened 2000 years ago.


So science has always disproved what they could of religion and the sheep ( why do you think it's called a flock?) have always moved there beliefs and morphed them to fit what couldn't be denied. Science has NEVER had to morph there findings to match religion...

originally posted by: ArtemisE
It really is hilarious how uneducated the religious side can be. :p

It's sad how condescending non-religious people can be.

You basically, once again, ignoring everything I posted so far, postulate science and faith are contradictory, and that no religious scientists can exist.

To prove you that this is not only false, but that actually a great deal of the most important discoveries were made by theists, I invite you to check the following names (selected few from a very long list), their contribution to science and their belief in a universal deity:

- Roger Bacon (the scientific method)
- William of Ockham (principle of parsimony)
- Nicolaus Copernicus (heliocentrism)
- Tycho Brahe (astronomy)
- Francis Bacon (experimental science)
- Galileo Galilei (heliocentrism)
- Johannes Kepler (planetary motion)
- René Descartes (philosophy)
- Gottfried Leibniz (calculus)
- Isaac Newton (gravity)
- Carolus Linnaeus (taxonomy)
- Antoine Lavoisier (chemistry)
- Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (electrostatic)
- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (evolution :lol
- John Dalton (physics)
- Michael Faraday (electromagnetism)
- Gregor Mendel (genetics)
- Heinrich Hertz (electromagnetism)
- Louis Pasteur (microbiology)
- Lord Kelvin (thermodynamics)
- Henri Becquerel (radioactivity)
- Max Planck (quantum physics)
- Georges Lemaître (Big Bang)
- Wernher von Braun (rockets)
- Kurt Gödel (mathematics)
- etc...


Not only all these people were believing in a higher force, belief that motivated their scientific endeavor, but also many of them wrote extensively on religion or were even engaged in the clerical life.

That should settle once and for all that there is no correlation between scientific skills and the belief in higher power.

The contribution of these people is the basis of modern science, and to deny them their faith is an intellectual deception.


In the future I hope you'll learn to be more careful when making broad and condescending remarks showing that your knowledge of science is at best incomplete and at worse, anecdotal.

"Gene theropy" couldn't have existed without the input of monk Mendel, and the series "Cosmos" wouldn't be the same without priest Lemaitre contribution regarding the Big Bang.


All you achieve with your post is to prove to this site that you are not interested in truth, but only to ridicule the people you consider as your enemies because they chose to believe in a higher power and purpose rather than a meaningless universe.


You can do much better

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

The church has and the bible have tried to provide for the origin of life and the universe. Even to this day. The problem is they're theory WAS WRONG! The not retarded Christians have mixed as much of their religion into science as science couldn't disprove. We are at the point now that the only supernatural thing in the bible they haven't debunked are the concept of god and the miricales of Jesus. But science hasn't evolved enough to disprove a negative and there's no way to prove or disprove something that happened 2000 years ago.


So science has always disproved what they could of religion and the sheep ( why do you think it's called a flock?) have always moved there beliefs and morphed them to fit what couldn't be denied. Science has NEVER had to morph there findings to match religion...

This post shows once again that you have no knowledge of religion and religious history besides what you read on an internet forum (there is a real world outside) and that you talk simply out of a profound disdain for anyone who doesn't share your atheism rather than trough a critical analysis.


0/10 can do better than generalization, caricature and insults. Please read a book

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

That's disinformation.


Almost everyone on that list was an agnostic. You can count the real scientists that believe in Christianity on one hand. The belief in the concept of a god is not the same thing as belief in Christianity.


There is no REAL scientist that doubts evolution or believes in the biblical creation story. 85% of all Nobel winning scientists in science are atheists. Most of the remaining 15% are agnostic.

Every religious scientist pre modern times didn't have the info to debunk the bible. Now that the bible has been debunked Almost No one in the science community believes in the bible and pointing to the one in a million who does is proof you would rather lie to people so they believe what you do. Then look at your religion with logical eyes.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

And yet none of those people are credited with doing anything but giving man the power to live without God. Ironic, isn't it?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

That's disinformation.


Almost everyone on that list was an agnostic. You can count the real scientists that believe in Christianity on one hand. The belief in the concept of a god is not the same thing as belief in Christianity.

Nope, you are the one guilty of disinfo.

They were all Christian (I told you some were even monks or priests) and I can back that for each of them.

I challenge you to pick 5 from the list and show me written account from them showing that they are agnostic and not Christian.

Good luck, your vision of the world is based on a caricature. Reality is much more complex.


edit: alternatively, if you are really too lazy, pick 5 you choose and ask me to prove they were christian theists. I have 0 problem doing that and showing ATS how ignorant and deceiving your are calling this disinformation when it's nothing but the truth (sorry you don't like it).

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

And yet none of those people are credited with doing anything but giving man the power to live without God. Ironic, isn't it?

Scientific advance has nothing to do with living with god or not.

Do you have comprehension problems when I say that science is for the laws of the universe and religion for philosophical questions?

Science cannot answer philosophical question so it's not a substitute for philosophies or religions.

Your arguments are really weaker and weaker.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
Every religious scientist pre modern times didn't have the info to debunk the bible. Now that the bible has been debunked

The bible never needed to be debunked because it was not read literally.

Are you really so lazy you skipped all my post where I explained literal reading of the Bible is a modern, anglo-saxon, protestant invention?

All these scientists read Genesis as an allegory.

It's not my fault if you have a sect of crazy people in the US who read it literally.

I said countless times the rest of the world does not. Thus there is no need to "debunk" the Bible.


You must be really young or really biased to be incapable of understanding that simple fact.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

All these scientists read Genesis as an allegory.

The funny thing about allegories is that they generally have layers of meaning, subjective to each observer. Kinda puts a hitch in the whole "science" thing, doesn't it?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

All these scientists read Genesis as an allegory.

The funny thing about allegories is that they generally have layers of meaning, subjective to each observer.

So? How does that disprove anything I said?

The contribution of these Christian scientists did not help the world to live without God because the material and philsophical world are different realities.

I'm really expecting better arguments from you guys. I feel like talking with trolls for the moment.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

So your saying the bible is a philosophy book. I agree 100%.

..oh for the love of...

Look, here is where most "anglo saxon protestants" sit. And by most, I mean the majority of mainline, Christian denominations, of which I do not count the Catholic church. So beefs with them need to be taken up with them.

Your average, devoted (many, if not most are only Christian because it serves some purpose for them from a consumerist outlook) Christians believe in a literal garden, literal adam and eve, and all that. They take the Bible as history, find serious flaws in the "debunked" idea, especially in light of recent archeological developments, and find truth in Jesus the man/God, and hope for His glorious appearing one day, possibly soon.

What they are not sure of is what the time period between Day 1 and Day 7 of Creation was. Was it a literal 6 days? Dunno. Probably not. More likely it was such a vast undertaking that it took 6 days for God to reveal it to Moses on Mt. Sanai in a way that didnt make the tiny human primitive's head explode. Fossil record proves much of that. No doubt. When it comes to human evolution, they take exception, because there are several lines of Scripture and other religious texts, although obscured within other stories, that describe many of the types of "prehumans" that have been found.

I personally am fascinated with Creation, wether it was a billions of years process or a few days. I don't really care, honestly, and so I don't debate it. What inspires me is that there is a God out there who is infinite enough to create a vast universe for Himself (even the Scriptures say it was made for HIS glory, not ours, and so we got that part wrong), and yet is intimate enough to know how many hairs I have on my head. There are many things I do not know, and science has helped me figure out, and I am a HUGE fan of science (just ask my very bored wife when I waste a Saturday reading and watching various science shows and youtube vids), but science cannot answer certain things, and science cannot quantify some of the experiences I have had or some of the things I have seen. I'm not asking it to, either. Nor am I asking science to reframe itself around a deity or belief system. I simply find that science and the metaphysical idea of a GOD can actually be reconciled without the enormous amount of animosity and angst and ignorance I see in so many threads that remain here on ATS, including this one in some respect. On behalf of the religious community, I apologize for goatfarts, because while he/she may represent a significant portion of the ignorant, he/she does not represent me, nor the vast majority of my religious peers. We were designed to make use of our intellect, not check it at the church door.

Good day.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

And yet none of those people are credited with doing anything but giving man the power to live without God. Ironic, isn't it?

Scientific advance has nothing to do with living with god or not.

Do you have comprehension problems when I say that science is for the laws of the universe and religion for philosophical questions?

Science cannot answer philosophical question so it's not a substitute for philosophies or religions.

Your arguments are really weaker and weaker.

So what you're saying is...that God is merely a philosophical device and not actually a real live god watching over us?

originally posted by: Everlastingknowitall
On behalf of the religious community, I apologize for goatfarts, because while he/she may represent a significant portion of the ignorant, he/she does not represent me, nor the vast majority of my religious peers. We were designed to make use of our intellect, not check it at the church door.

Good day.

The catholic church represents the majority of the Christians in the world, and the Christians who believe in a literal reading of the Bible (Biblical literalism) only become a thing since the reformation, and popular since a few hundred years with unilateral claims such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.

I state and reapeat that these views are protestant, anglo-saxon (mainly american), modern, and only represent a fraction of Christians worldwide.

Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God

Not even talking about the rest of the world where that figure is much much lower.

Sorry guys, you do not represent the view of the majority, far from it.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
So what you're saying is...that God is merely a philosophical device and not actually a real live god watching over us?

To discuss this subject would require you to get rid of your preconceptions about what the concept of god entails (watching over us, lol. The old guy in the sky, right? Anthropomorphism) and to do a minimum of research from your side to accept my inputs without being ridiculed because you are simply not equipped to understand what I talk about.

So far you have shown none of this.

If you want my vision of God as a pantheist (just repeating myself here, again, because obviously no atheists reads my post), no it's not a person watching over us, nor a philosophical device. It's an intelligence permeating the universe. Including you.


If you truly want to deny ignorance, I suggest you consider everything you think you know about god and religion as incorrect (it is mostly anyway), and read about that, not on an internet board, but through serious sources, and not solely via the lens of biblical literalism.