Answering the New Atheism by Scot Hahn

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

So you simply picked an answer. And then complained about science not having an answer because they weren't prepared to simply make one up.

Brilliant :rolleyes:



Evidence that you cannot verify in anyway to any standard, yet complain about science not giving you an answer.

If anyone, including yourself, were able to actually back up these explanations to any sort of rigorous standard (like science does) then that would be the scientific answer.



That is exactly the point. Science doesn't simply guess at answers and then pick the guess that is the most appealing.

How you think that is a criticism is beyond me

but lets say science were able to give me an accurate answer I'd still have to put my faith into their explanation and answer.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

God speaks to us through his own ways, through people and in many other cases he does it supernaturally too.

Every religion is full of people who think their particular god or spirit speaks to them.

Such a claim therefore is utterly pointless, since most likely you are simply wrong or mistaken or deluded. With no way to determine accurately who is or is not talking to god we just end up with people accepting, largely arbitrarily, which religion they choose to believe in or not with none of them having any way to actually assess in any proper fashion if they have picked the correct one.

If that was the way it worked for every explanation about the world around us we would still be living in caves.

If only there was some rigorous method, independent to the personal assessment of individuals that could be used to verify the accuracy of claims about the world around us.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

but lets say science were able to give me an accurate answer I'd still have to put my faith into their explanation and answer.

Why?

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So then why doesn't he reveal himself and cure everyone, since you now say we'd still have free will if he did? You're contradicting yourself

Thomas said that unless he saw Jesus he wouldnt beleive, Jesus then appeared, thomas put his fingers into his wounds, but whats suprising is that St.Thomas had the power of free will and could still of refused to believe. ''Blessed are those who do not see yet believe''

only through faith can we ever know God.

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

not contradicting, I'm correcting myself and expanding even more on my thoughts and your posts are helping me to do this.

Then please expand. I pointed out that god does not cure billions of people so there is no reason to think that he is involved in the few cases where something happens that current medical science can't explain. You said that he doesn't sure everyone because that would effect our free will. I pointed out that god already does things that effect our free will and you said that even if he revealed himself and cured everyone we'd still have free will and that people still wouldn't believe.

so the question again: why does god pick a few arbitrary people to cure in ways that can always be explained through simple probability (it's never things like arms regrowing) and let countless billions suffer and die since curing everyone - or not letting them get sick in the first place - would not effect our free will? Why was the 158,356th person in the Lourdes queue worthy but not the previous 158,355?

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

Every religion is full of people who think their particular god or spirit speaks to them.

Such a claim therefore is utterly pointless, since most likely you are simply wrong or mistaken or deluded. With no way to determine accurately who is or is not talking to god we just end up with people accepting, largely arbitrarily, which religion they choose to believe in or not with none of them having any way to actually assess in any proper fashion if they have picked the correct one.

If that was the way it worked for every explanation about the world around us we would still be living in caves.

If only there was some rigorous method, independent to the personal assessment of individuals that could be used to verify the accuracy of claims about the world around us.

of course this is why the Catholic church is prudent to examine the claims of those who say that God speaks to them, the devil is at work too, and causes confusion, so one has to be prudent in ruling all the above possibilitys out and make sure that it is God that is speaking to them. you should read more into that if you wish to find out. its too lengthy of a disscussion for me to expand on.

Sam Vimes

Also I think you missed my question before: Even if I was to accept that there was a supernatural influence in these cures, why should I believe that the hand involved was that of a Jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago and not that of any of the other thousands of gods, goddesses, demi gods, pixies, fairies and spooks that have been said to exist throughout the years?

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then please expand. I pointed out that god does not cure billions of people so there is no reason to think that he is involved in the few cases where something happens that current medical science can't explain. You said that he doesn't sure everyone because that would effect our free will. I pointed out that god already does things that effect our free will and you said that even if he revealed himself and cured everyone we'd still have free will and that people still wouldn't believe.

so the question again: why does god pick a few arbitrary people to cure in ways that can always be explained through simple probability (it's never things like arms regrowing) and let countless billions suffer and die since curing everyone - or not letting them get sick in the first place - would not effect our free will? Why was the 158,356th person in the Lourdes queue worthy but not the previous 158,355?

Because to God there is no such thing as dying, therefore his doctrine is not about clinging to the current world, but working out ones salvation here in fear and trembling to be assured of a place in the next.

I'm reminded of a saying by St.Padre pio, when it was his birthday a fellow monk said ''to padre, may he live to be a hundred'' and padre pio said ''what did I ever do to you?'':pac:

Kepti

PDN wrote: »

Rather ironic since Dawkins has turned misunderstanding theology, philosophy and Christianity into a career choice.

McGrath, of course, has the advantage over Dawkins in that he understands history, philosophy and theology as well as understanding science.

Care to back up these bold claims?

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also I think you missed my question before: Even if I was to accept that there was a supernatural influence in these cures, why should I believe that the hand involved was that of a Jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago and not that of any of the other thousands of gods, goddesses, demi gods, pixies, fairies and spooks that have been said to exist throughout the years?

because it was done through his one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

hinault

Stephentlig wrote: »

Thomas said that unless he saw Jesus he wouldnt beleive, Jesus then appeared, thomas put his fingers into his wounds, but whats suprising is that St.Thomas had the power of free will and could still of refused to believe. ''Blessed are those who do not see yet believe''

only through faith can we ever know God.

Thomas is a very good example to cite.

There you have it : one of Christ's apostle's, a man who had met and known Christ, even he doubted.


I am not sure that there is any point in wasting time discussing the existence of God with agnostics/atheists.

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

Because to God there is no such thing as dying, therefore his doctrine is not about clinging to the current world, but working out ones salvation here in fear and trembling to be assured of a place in the next.

So why does he cure anyone since his doctrine is not about clinging to this world? And why is anyone convinced by these unexplained cures since, again, his doctrine is not about clinging to this world? Since there is no such thing as dying to your god, surely if anyone is involved in these cures it's not him?

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

because it was done through his one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Did you really just say that I should believe it was Jesus because it was Jesus?


That didn't really answer the question tbh. If someone is cured and the cure is unexplained by medical science, why should I attribute the cure to a Palestinian who was written about 2000 years ago and not, say, an Arab who was written about 1500 years ago? Or any of the other religions and superstitions that people have attributed such things to in the past

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

because how do I know its true? like I said with St.Thomas, such is the power of free will that he could of rejected that it was Jesus standing in front of him, even after he had touched his wounds.

I have to put my faith into a human explanation of things and its evidence, no matter what we beleive in it requires both belief and trust which is faith.

hinault

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So why does he cure anyone since his doctrine is not about clinging to this world? And why is anyone convinced by these unexplained cures since, again, his doctrine is not about clinging to this world? Since there is no such thing as dying to your god, surely if anyone is involved in these cures it's not him?

Physical body dies.
The soul is eternal.

PoleStar

hinault wrote: »

Thomas is a very good example to cite.

There you have it : one of Christ's apostle's, a man who had met and known Christ, even he doubted.


I am not sure that there is any point in wasting time discussing the existence of God with agnostics/atheists.

The funny thing is that as an atheist, I totally agree with you, Thomas is a good example to site!

Show any hardened atheist the physical proof that Thomas had of a man who was clearly dead and yet now not dead and we would be converted!

Things is tho, we only have the word written in a book pieced together written in a book 2000 years old.

Tell me, if I said to you I met a man in a forest with fatal wounds who told me he was the son of god and then he ascended into heaven last friday, would believe me?

Sam Vimes

hinault wrote: »

Physical body dies.
The soul is eternal.

Ok. That didn't really answer the question of why one or two people being cured in unexplained ways indicates the existence of the specific god mentioned in the bible, given that there are billions who are not cured.

hinault

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ok. That didn't really answer the question of why one or two people being cured in unexplained ways indicates god's existence, given that there are billions who are not cured.

True, many are not cured.

Some, are cured however.
And where there is no "scientific" explanation as to why a person with a terminal condition, there has to be some other explanation for that cure.

The existence of God is revealed in many ways. to millions/billions of people in different ways.
I am sure that where a cure is provided without scientific explanation, this may persuade some people to believe in God.
But I am certain that God's existence is revealed through many more ways.

Sam Vimes

hinault wrote: »

True, many are not cured.

Some, are cured however.
And where there is no "scientific" explanation as to why a person with a terminal condition, there has to be some other explanation for that cure.

Sorry mate but all I'm seeing there is "I don't know so it must be god". The fact that we can't explain something means nothing more than we can't explain it. Imagine yourself in Iron age Scandinavia asking yourself the very same question about thunder and lightning and it wouldn't be long until you were a fully fledged believer in Thor.

hinault wrote: »

The existence of God is revealed in many ways. to millions/billions of people in different ways.
I am sure that where a cure is provided without scientific explanation, this may persuade some people to believe in God.
But I am certain that God's existence is revealed through many more ways.

Such as.....

And do these ways point specifically to the christian god as described in the bible or could they just as easily be attributed to many other deities?

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So why does he cure anyone since his doctrine is not about clinging to this world? And why is anyone convinced by these unexplained cures since, again, his doctrine is not about clinging to this world? Since there is no such thing as dying to your god, surely if anyone is involved in these cures it's not him?

he lets some live to be a witness to his existence so that others may hear and be converted, and he does this out of his boundless mercy, but our intelligently stupid ignorance rejects their witness and refuses to acknowledge the one true God.

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

Thomas is a very good example to cite.

There you have it : one of Christ's apostle's, a man who had met and known Christ, even he doubted.


I am not sure that there is any point in wasting time discussing the existence of God with agnostics/atheists.

exactly, after all the miracles of Jesus and healings he did in the Gospel, thomas witness them all and yet still doubted at the very end.

even the religious pharisees had the same attitude as non believers, they posed the same question that the devil quoted to Jesus in the desert whi was ''if you are God then you'll.........;)


No God will not meet us on our conditions and never will, either we believe under his condition ( faith ) or we dont.

hinault

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry mate but all I'm seeing there is "I don't know so it must be god". The fact that we can't explain something means nothing more than we can't explain it. Imagine yourself in Iron age Scandinavia asking yourself the very same question about thunder and lightning and it wouldn't be long until you were a fully fledged believer in Thor.



Such as.....

And do these ways point specifically to the christian god as described in the bible or could they just as easily be attributed to many other deities

Err, sorry mate, but I don't judge the existence/non-existence of God upon whether or not a cure is granted to a person who is sick.
And I'd prefer it if you'd kindly desist from parsing my replies - and instead
quote my full reply.
OK?

There are many factors which persuade me that God exists.
Whether these factors would persuade you to believe in the existence of God, is for you to decide.

What I will say in finishing is that faith is highly subjective : and what may persuade one person, may not persuade another person.

PoleStar

hinault wrote: »

Some, are cured however.
And where there is no "scientific" explanation as to why a person with a terminal condition, there has to be some other explanation for that cure.

Ah yes, the god of the gaps!

The argument of assuming that our current level of human understanding must be the ultimate peak and thus anything outside of our ability to explain in current times must be god.

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

he lets some live to be a witness to his existence so that others may hear and be converted, and he does this out of his boundless mercy, but our intelligently stupid ignorance rejects their witness and refuses to acknowledge the one true God.

So this is what happens:

1. God allows billions of people to suffer horrendously and die horrible deaths when he could prevent it all if he chose
2. He doesn't prevent this suffering and death because there is no such thing as dying to him. Free will is irrelevant because you acknowledge we would have it even if he did cure everyone or stop them getting sick in the first place
3. He arbitrarily chooses to cure the occasional person with no discernible pattern and never in a way that is clearly physically impossible such as re-growing an arm, he only cures people in ways where medical science may not be able to explain it but recovery was still possible, however unlikely. He does this despite the fact that death is meaningless to him
4. While wanting people to be witness to him, he never makes it objectively and abundantly clear that it was specifically him that was involved (and he hopes that no ones sees the contradiction in the idea of a god to whom death is meaningless helping someone to avoid death), leading to a situation where followers of other faiths think that the god they were raised with cured them and they gain an ever stronger faith in this false god (or begin to believe in this false god), thereby dooming themselves to hell.

Makes perfect sense

Fanny Cradock

Any particular reason why I should allow this thread to stay open? We have been here before, no?

Sam Vimes

hinault wrote: »

Err, sorry mate, but I don't judge the existence/non-existence of God upon whether or not a cure is granted to a person who is sick.
And I'd prefer it if you'd kindly desist from parsing my replies - and instead
quote my full reply.
OK?

I did quote your full reply and asked a question about the last part which you didn't answer. I asked you what these other things were. I know that people being cured is not your sole reason for believing but you did infer that if science cannot find an explanation then saying god did it is logical, which it is not, as I explained.

hinault wrote: »

There are many factors which persuade me that God exists.
Whether these factors would persuade you to believe in the existence of God, is for you to decide.

What I will say in finishing is that faith is highly subjective : and what may persuade one person, may not persuade another person.

Such as......

hinault

PoleStar wrote: »

Ah yes, the god of the gaps!

The argument of assuming that our current level of human understanding must be the ultimate peak and thus anything outside of our ability to explain in current times must be god.

I am not making the assumption that you assert.

I am suggesting that in the absence of a scientific explanation, that there has to be some other explanation.

Sam Vimes

hinault wrote: »

I am not making the assumption that you assert.

I am suggesting that in the absence of a scientific explanation, that there has to be some other explanation.

Yes there must be some other explanation. There is an explanation for everything whether we happen to know what the explanation is or not. If that's all you're saying then we have no dispute but if, as I suspect, you are suggesting that if we don't have an explanation for something it is reasonable to infer the involvement of a specific deity.....

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So this is what happens:

1. God allows billions of people to suffer horrendously and die horrible deaths when he could prevent it all if he chose
2. He doesn't prevent this suffering and death because there is no such thing as dying to him. Free will is irrelevant because you acknowledge we would have it even if he did cure everyone or stop them getting sick in the first place
3. He arbitrarily chooses to cure the occasional person with no discernible pattern and never in a way that is clearly physically impossible such as re-growing an arm, he only cures people in ways where medical science may not be able to explain it but recovery was still possible, however unlikely. He does this despite the fact that death is meaningless to him
4. While wanting people to be witness to him, he never makes it objectively and abundantly clear that it was specifically him that was involved (and he hopes that no ones sees the contradiction in the idea of a god to whom death is meaningless helping someone to avoid death), leading to a situation where followers of other faiths think that the god they were raised with cured them and they gain an ever stronger faith in this false god (or begin to believe in this false god), thereby dooming themselves to hell.

Makes perfect sense

You should read Pope benedicts Jesus of Nazereth chapter 2, this will help you with the above. God came and allowed himself to die a horrible death at the hands of his own, and Pope Benedict takes you through this argument.

people know its Christ because if a priest is praying over a man with cancer and the man is cured through the CHRISTIAN prayers of the priest then the miracle is attributed to Christ. but you need FAITHHHHH to beleive in that one FAITHHHHHHHHHH:D

hinault

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I did quote your full reply and asked a question about the last part which you didn't answer. I asked you what these other things were. I know that people being cured is not your sole reason for believing but you did infer that if science cannot find an explanation then saying god did it is logical, which it is not, as I explained.

Such as......

You didn't.

You failed to quote a major part of my message number 69, in your direct reply number 70.

Sam Vimes

hinault wrote: »

You didn't.

You failed to quote a major part of my message number 69, in your direct reply number 70.

Your entire post is in my reply. I responded to each part separately.

Stephentlig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Any particular reason why I should allow this thread to stay open? We have been here before, no?

probably not Fanny, I cant come up with any reason, my fingers are almost ready to fall off with all the typing too, so you'd be doing me a favour and preventing a trip to the A&E lol :pac:

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

You should read Pope benedicts Jesus of Nazereth chapter 2, this will help you with the above. God came and allowed himself to die a horrible death at the hands of his own, and Pope Benedict takes you through this argument.

Ah yes, god came to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us for being the only way it was possible for us to be, the way he made us. It makes little sense to me. If he wanted to forgive us he could have just forgiven us (or not made us in such a displeasing way to begin with). And I see nothing particularly virtuous in believing one old story of supernatural tales over another in any case.

Stephentlig wrote: »

people know its Christ because if a priest is praying over a man with cancer and the man is cured through the CHRISTIAN prayers of the priest then the miracle is attributed to Christ. but you need FAITHHHHH to beleive in that one FAITHHHHHHHHHH:D

What about all the people who prayed to other gods and ended up being cured? Does that prove the existence of those other gods?

And what about all the miracles that are said to have happened that weren't prayed for?

And if god really really wants me to believe then why is it that I know for a fact that if I pray to be able to sprout wings and fly, that prayer is not going to be answered?


edit: when you say that you have to have FAAAAAIIIITTTTHHHHH, all I'm hearing is that you have to ignore the fact that when someone is cured there is no more reason to believe it was Yahweh than to believe it was Vishnu, Allah, the great Ju Ju under the sea or simple chance.

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah yes, god came to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us for being the only way it was possible for us to be, the way he made us. It makes little sense to me. If he wanted to forgive us he could have just forgiven us (or not made us in such a displeasing way to begin with). And I see nothing particularly virtuous in believing one old story of supernatural tales over another in any case.



What about all the people who prayed to other gods and ended up being cured? Does that prove the existence of those other gods?

And what about all the miracles that are said to have happened that weren't prayed for?

And if god really really wants me to believe then why is it that I know for a fact that if I pray to be able to sprout wings and fly, that prayer is not going to be answered?

I've just made a big reply to this but due to my poor connection my computer knocked off and I lost it.

I'm wrecked tired, so will probably make an effort to retype in the near future.

Pax Christi
Stephen

hinault

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah yes, god came to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us for being the only way it was possible for us to be, the way he made us. It makes little sense to me. If he wanted to forgive us he could have just forgiven us. And I see nothing particularly virtuous in believing one old story of supernatural tales over another in any case.

God sent His Son, to re-establish the covenant between God and Man.

It is the Christian teaching that Man has the freedom to decide whether to partake in this convenant or not.

It is Man who makes the decision to accept/reject God.

According to Christain teaching, God wants to be in covenant with Man.
But it is Man to decide if he wants to be in covenant with God.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What about all the people who prayed to other gods and ended up being cured? Does that prove the existence of those other gods?

Who prayed to other Gods and got cured?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And what about all the miracles that are said to have happened that weren't prayed for?

Examples?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And if god really really wants me to believe then why is it that I know for a fact that if I pray to be able to sprout wings and fly, that prayer is not going to be answered?

It is your decision as to whether or not you choose to believe.

Fanny Cradock

A lot of heat, not much light.