tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post8320583672150038747..comments2024-02-09T02:48:13.776-06:00Comments on Daily Meditations with Fr. Alfonse: Fr. Alfonse Nazzaro Blog: John 1:35-42 They Followed JesusFr. Alfonsehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02557206560119402976noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-77662960890185179572014-11-27T15:03:16.664-06:002014-11-27T15:03:16.664-06:00He didn't mind being on the stage for any numb...He didn't mind being on the stage for any number of people in the Bible. Why should my eternity require more faith than theirs? Especially given the superstitious nature of the people writing these stories. It is easily demonstrable that they wouldn't doubt the types of tales in being presented. Anyone with a good story was believed. So why should I take those accounts seriously? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-34481648352377525912013-09-13T05:38:08.147-05:002013-09-13T05:38:08.147-05:00Fr. Alfonse, you completely misjudge what atheism ...Fr. Alfonse, you completely misjudge what atheism is. You think agnosticism is a weak flavor of atheism whereas almost all atheists are agnostic about ALL gods. But agnostic doesn't mean 50/50, it simply means there is no strong evidence for the god hypothesis but no definitive proof that there couldn't be one or many. In that situation one is a functioning atheist, but is agnostic about the possibility of there being gods, simply show the evidence and an atheist becomes a tentative believer.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-49756612468777627402013-09-12T18:30:59.378-05:002013-09-12T18:30:59.378-05:00I usually do not allow comments after 30 days (ple...I usually do not allow comments after 30 days (please see the conditions for leaving a comment). Anyways, I am more than happy to answer your objections. I will start from the bottom up.<br /><br />YOU SAID: "Now, you can make the argument that the arguments for gods existence are more likely than the arguments against his existence, but it's just flat out wrong to say that it's a 50/50 chance since the number of arguments is equal"<br /><br />I SAY: You're absolutely correct. It's nonsense to make a legitimate argument based on the number of arguments. That's why I didn't make such an argument. This is what I said at the very bottom of my meditation:<br /><br />"For every argument that an atheist makes against God, the same argument may be made in favor of God (or shown to be irrelevant or erroneous); for every argument that appears to deny God, a similar argument can be made in favor of God." <br /><br />This is a qualitative statement, not a quantitative statement. Who cares how many arguments you make in favor or against something. It is the quality of the argument tha matters, not the quantity. <br /><br />I have yet to see an argument that an atheist has made that cannot be either refuted or rejected by a superior argument.<br /><br />YOU SAID: "Second, I'm not a religious scholar, but it seems odd that the Christian god would be ok with you believing in him simply for the sake of playing the odds and not out of a genuine love for Jesus Christ."<br /><br />I SAY: Thank you for admitting that you are not a religious scholar. Now what's so odd about a Christian God who would be okay with you believing in him simply for the sake of playing the odds. It's a start. Actually, it's a humble start. The writer Niel Gaiman, an agnostic, (who I am not a big fan of) wrote: "I think we can say that God exists in the DC Universe. I would not stand up and beat the drum for the existence of God in this universe. I don't know, I think there's probably a 50/50 chance. It doesn't really matter to me."<br /><br />If God is willing to save the unbeliever (read what the Pope just recently said), then why shouldn't he save the one who is willing to take a chance on him. It's a heck of a lot better than placing our allegiance on the promises made by human leaders, of the promises of success and or power. That's crazy!<br /><br />What you find hard to believe is that God could be God; that is, superior to our human standards. What I find incredibly hard to understand is how anyone (without universal knowledge) could slam the door shut so tightly on the notion of God. I can understand agnosticism. I cannot understand atheism.<br /><br />SOMEONE WROTE: "Father's explanation makes perfect sense, for there are reasonable and qualitative arguments for God that are just as reasonable as those against God (and here I am giving "the arguments against God" some undeserved benefit)."<br /><br />I SAY: Thank you! But this is very confusing...sounds like you understand me one minute and then the next minute you are giving arguments that simply do not accurately represent my meditation.<br /><br />Fr. Alfonsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02557206560119402976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-49905214580312040882013-09-12T15:58:22.650-05:002013-09-12T15:58:22.650-05:00"Father's explanation makes perfect sense..."Father's explanation makes perfect sense, for there are reasonable and qualitative arguments for God that are just as reasonable as those against God (and here I am giving "the arguments against God" some undeserved benefit)."<br /><br />His argument doesn't make any sense. First, as has been pointed out many, many times, this argument (which IS a reformulation of Pascal's Wager whether or not the author wants to admit it), only tells you whether or not to believe in god, but it doesn't tell you which god is the correct one to believe in. Wouldn't it be ironic if you used this argument to believe that god exists, and then the god that exists is one that would send you to hell for believing that a god exists?<br /><br />Second, I'm not a religious scholar, but it seems odd that the Christian god would be ok with you believing in him simply for the sake of playing the odds and not out of a genuine love for Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Now, in terms of why the "50/50" argument is just wrong, it doesn't matter whether or not the numbers of arguments for/against the existence of god are equal. What maters is the probability that those arguments are true. Let's say I have a million arguments that claim A is true, but little or no evidence that those arguments are sound. On the other hand, let's say that now I only have one argument that claim A is false, but based on whatever criteria are at hand, there is a 99% probability that the argument is sound. Clearly you are more likely to be correct if you believe that claim A is false.<br /><br />Now, you can make the argument that the arguments for gods existence are more likely than the arguments against his existence, but it's just flat out wrong to say that it's a 50/50 chance since the number of arguments is equalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-64391693954198318532013-04-28T13:51:34.871-05:002013-04-28T13:51:34.871-05:00Father's explanation makes perfect sense, for ...Father's explanation makes perfect sense, for there are reasonable and qualitative arguments for God that are just as reasonable as those against God (and here I am giving "the arguments against God" some undeserved benefit). <br /><br />YOU SAY: There are an infinite possible number of deities that one can imagine... <br /><br />I SAY: EXACTLY...that one can imagine. But it seems as though you can't imagine any. Well you don't have to, for there is only one that can imagine others or better yet, create them in His "image."<br /><br />YOU SAY: Merely being able to imagine something and make arguments is not evidence of existence.<br /><br />I SAY: Again, you're absolutely right..."If one simply imagines it." But if the One reveals himself, well, then, there need not be any imaging required, just reflection and meditation. <br /><br />As an atheist, you assume that all arguments in favor of God are baseless. You are a biased individual. For the arguments for/against the Christian God will never be scientific, but rather philosophical and theological. <br /><br />No one in their right mind expects to find God under a microscope or telescope, just as no one expects to find the brain matter of an artist in their painting. However, they can expect to find Him in his art and in the meaning and purpose of his artwork. They may even be able to speak to him and study under him, and imitate him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-55925479831391428022013-04-11T14:05:19.200-05:002013-04-11T14:05:19.200-05:00"Does an artist need to stand in front of his..."Does an artist need to stand in front of his painting to prove he painted it?"<br /><br />Artists normally leave a signature so we know who painted it. That way we don't go around thinking it was someone else. Where's the signature that shows Jesus (or His Father) was the creator? Why not Allah, Atum, Ptah, or any of the thousands of other gods people have claimed were the creator of the world/universe?March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-54439688126213607362013-04-11T12:15:39.138-05:002013-04-11T12:15:39.138-05:00If I have understood correctly, what I believe the...If I have understood correctly, what I believe the good atheist is saying is that God has failed to impress him/her. And that would be consistent with a society today that refuses to take blame for themselves and prefers to blame others for their failures. <br /><br />But mayby God refuses to do what the good atheist recommends. Maybe God is not about being on the big stage. Maybe he prefers the barn and manger. Maybe he isn't interested in a throne on earth but a cross instead. Maybe he doesn't want to be seen by all and all at once. Maybe he prefers to come to us, one by one. <br /> <br />For too many atheists, even Pope Francis has failed to impress them. They say his humility is false, his love is deceptive and his honesty is "too little to late." <br /><br />The question is: Who has failed to impress? Who has failed to comprehend?Fr. Alfonsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02557206560119402976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-91722305154942693832013-04-11T11:55:15.676-05:002013-04-11T11:55:15.676-05:00Does an artist need to stand in front of his paiti...Does an artist need to stand in front of his paiting to prove he painted it? Does he need to paint it in front of the entire world to prove he did it? Does he need to repaint it every day to prove He did it? Of course not, but you say that God needs to stand in front of us, rise from the dead in front of all of us and come back over and over again to remind all of us.<br /><br />It's clear from the number of people who believe in Him that He doesn't have to. <br /><br />That's not the reason why you don't believe in Him, anonymous. Otherwise no one would, right? And please, don't insult us, like so many atheists do, and say it's because we are stupid or ignorant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-15714128393483659102013-04-11T11:28:53.949-05:002013-04-11T11:28:53.949-05:00Anonymous writes: "Respect is always earned....Anonymous writes: "Respect is always earned."<br /><br />My answer: To an atheist, respect is always earned. That is why they live in vicious circle: "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" or even better, "You love me, I love you." That is why an atheist can never be depended upon to bring peace to earth. Why? Because the other must deserve it first. <br /><br />How is it that you have never thought carefully about what you believe in? <br /><br />You say that in Fr's first post that he lacked respect. Can you blame him? According to you, they should have earned his respect, right???<br /><br />But of course, you contradict yourself only when it is convenient for you. Typical...of an atheist, who is a living, breathing and walking contradiction.<br /><br />You say God should make himself known in a completely unmistakable, inarguable fashion worldwide. <br /><br />And then??? what would happen??? Did you ever think of that? Would you love Him because He is powerful or would love Him because He is good? Would you obey him out of fear or would you obey Him out of love?<br /><br />Is it possible that you have never asked yourself these questions??? Is it possible??? That would do nicely. It would help you to think about what you are saying. No wonder why so many parents are utterly surprised and shocked when their children leave their nest and go off to College and become crazy partiers! Is it because mommy and daddy are no longer behind them? Is it at that moment that the truth comes out?<br /><br />Oh my goodness...you haven't thought about this???<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-9039796158740665312013-04-11T07:44:20.583-05:002013-04-11T07:44:20.583-05:00Sorry Christina, you didn't actually take the ...Sorry Christina, you didn't actually take the question back. You posted it. So here's your answer. And I'll ignore the utter lack of respect for atheists that Fr. Alfonse demonstrated in his initial post, and simply give you the broader answer: Religion and those who serve it are not automatically entitled to respect, any more than anyone who espouses any other belief. Respect is always earned, and you don't earn it simply by saying you believe in the supernatural. Al also has the additional handicap of being a Catholic, a sect which has a tremendous amount of horrific deeds to answer for, but refuses to do so, making anyone intimately associated with it even LESS worthy of respect.<br />Miracles, huh? They couldn't POSSIBLY have been coincidences, long shots that paid off, or have any other explanation not requiring a supernatural being? Whatever. You won't be convinced otherwise by anyone because it's become critical to your worldview to believe they were miracles. But just because your emotional reaction to whatever these occurrences was is real, that doesn't in any way help confirm that they were miraculous. People have emotional responses to the imaginary all the time.<br /><br />Finally, if you're going to waste your limited time praying, and praying about atheists, pray to your god to make himself known in a completely unmistakable, inarguable fashion worldwide. Pray for genuine evidence. That will do nicely. No more atheists. But I wouldn't hold my breath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-53494232257687242722013-03-22T06:29:21.855-05:002013-03-22T06:29:21.855-05:00Wow, you atheists are wearing me out. Pounding yo...Wow, you atheists are wearing me out. Pounding your point over and over again and again. How about you good old boys go play somewhere else with your disrespectful attitudes. Father Alfonse had dedicated his life 100% to his devotion, always for the good of his brothers and sisters in Christ. Why are you bashing and hating on him? No I take the question back, as I do not want to encourage more venting on your part. Perhaps you like to stir the pot and keep it going, lets agree to disagree. But be respectful in the process, please.<br /><br />I hope in your lifetime you receive a miracle or witness a miracle from God. So you can know what I know, which is Our Heavenly Father is real. I have been blessed with two absolute miracles during the last 4 months of my husbands life. Now I have believed in the Lord all of my adult life, so I guess The Lord didn't have to give me the gift of these miracles but he did and I am eternally grateful for them. I wish I could tell you about them in person, because writing about them just doesn't do justice to what happened. Nor does it allow the reader a opportunity of hearing it with their own ears, or see that the emotion it invokes in me is real and not some made up piece of fiction. <br /><br />I will pray that every atheist discovers the Lord and invites the Lord into their lives. God bless you all...<br /><br />God bless you Father Alfonse, and may our Heavenly Father continue to inspire you with wisdom for all of your days.Christina Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-77935291259519095412013-02-09T12:19:07.033-06:002013-02-09T12:19:07.033-06:00I remember a debate I had with an atheist. She sa...I remember a debate I had with an atheist. She said "Life has no purpose". I replied: "But all it's parts do...Right?"<br /><br />She thought herself very scientific. But what she was actually doing was philosophizing. <br /><br />She wasn't doing a good job with either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-18353160575919121382013-02-09T10:36:51.842-06:002013-02-09T10:36:51.842-06:00“Ah, lightsabers of the gaps” I am surprised that...“Ah, lightsabers of the gaps” I am surprised that you, an atheist, would be taking the position against science. History teaches us that for someone to build their case on what science has not yet been able to do or explain is foolish, for tomorrow it may be able to do it. I am surprised that you, an atheist, would take such a position! <br /><br />I on the otherhand do not take such a position: because I am a man of faith in science and in God.<br /><br />Unfortunately, like some religions and religious (I include myself as well), inconsistency, incoherency and contradictions continue to plague the atheistic movement as well. <br /><br />Anyways…The problem I believe you are having is in your inability to see the correlation between man's created “world” and God’s created world, between what man can take credit for and what man can never take credit for; between stuffed animals and organ-filled animals; between light sabers and light, between the Internet and the Universe, between computers and brains, between actors and creatures, between scenes/acts and days/years, between a stage and soil; between a theatre and a world, between a toaster and fire, between decorations and nature, between drama and life; between created things not knowing who their creator is (stuffed animals, computers and the Internet) and created things able to know who their creator is(man).<br /><br />When you read a biology book or a physics book, do you say to yourself: “Look at all we can understand and explain!” or do you say, “Look at all we can do!” Do you understand that “explaining” something and “doing” something are two different things? Do you understand the difference between a brain and thinking? Do you understand the difference between an eye and seeing? Do you understand the difference between material and efficient causes and formal and final causality?<br /><br />Do you understand that if you try to explain everything scientifically, you exclude a great deal of knowledge and wisdom, purpose and meaning? <br /><br />Do you know understand how YOU reduce the world and man to only what you can see through a microscope or telescope; while philosophers and poets, and musicians, and artists and theologians,etc. are continually expanding it? Do you now see the difference between a black hole and a big bang?<br />Do you understand that the only reason why we have stuffed animals is because we are not bright enough to create an organ filled one? Not yet, at least. And when we do, guess what: we will be its creator, correct? Now, will it know that? That's the question!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-91051623016179044092013-02-09T04:17:15.329-06:002013-02-09T04:17:15.329-06:001. I have a torch, does that count. (If you insis...1. I have a torch, does that count. (If you insist in diluting the definition of things in this way then what is it about god that mmakes it/him special?)<br />2. Plasma cutters are awesome, as are high powered lasers. However, lasers do not stop at a fixed length like light sabres and neither of them can stop energy blasts from going through them. Surely you saw in the movie how sabres blocked both blaster fire and that they sabre beams would not pass each other - good luck getting lasers that won't pass through each other.<br />3. Ah, Light Sabre of the gaps. Excellent riposte.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-64872733207523795422013-02-08T12:13:34.614-06:002013-02-08T12:13:34.614-06:00You don't get it do you? You are wrong in ever...You don't get it do you? You are wrong in every possible way. <br /><br />1. You've limited your understanding of a lightsaber to your own definition of a lightsaber. Lightsabers do exist and they really work in the movies with special effects. So you are wrong in this aspect.<br /><br />2. You are also wrong in assuming that a light sabers do not work outside of movie theatres. a laser is a device that emits light (electromagnetic radiation), and a saber is simply a light beam. And yes, there is a light saber that actually exists that cuts through steel. Look it up.<br />So again, even in this aspect. You are wrong.<br /><br />3. Finally, you are playing a game that will soon end; that is, one day, we will create a handheld light saber and then what??? What will you say then? That they don't exist? What will you say when we create our first flesh and blood unicorn? What will you say? But the real question will be, what will they say about us? Will they treat us (their creator) like some people treat our Creator?<br /><br />Do you say that the toy sabers and stuffed unicorns were not created by man just as you say that light and narwhals were not created by God?<br />Fr. Alfonsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02557206560119402976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-67000473422886369012013-02-08T00:20:20.064-06:002013-02-08T00:20:20.064-06:00but I had the biggest prize GOD always even before...but I had the biggest prize GOD always even before birth :) didn't even have to gamble :)mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00942726536937939098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-64763318009706848942013-02-07T23:42:00.435-06:002013-02-07T23:42:00.435-06:00“ Why does a lightsaber have to cut through steel?...“ Why does a lightsaber have to cut through steel? Why? And where did you get your definition of a lightsaber? From the movie theatres?? Where did you get your information from? George Lucas??? And you say they don't really exist???”<br /><br />Do you often have a difficult time distinguishing reality from fantasy? I am going to assume you are familiar with Star Wars and know what a lightsaber is (or if not, you have the capability to look it up). If I were to ask anyone who has seen the movies, they would probably understand what I was talking about if I mentioned one. Can YOU produce a real one for me? Not a toy. Not a model. A real working lightsaber that does what is portrayed in the movies. Yes, there are toys. Yes, there are models. Yes, there is the idea and/or concept. But you cannot produce a real working physical lightsaber, because NO SUCH THING EXISTS.<br /><br />“Try the U.S. Government next time for your source of information and the latest technological demonstration in which a "lightsaber" destroyed a missle.“<br /><br />You do realize this is not a real lightsaber, it is a laser. It does not meet the requirements I have asked for. Lasers are real. Many people use them daily. You can go buy a pretty cheap one at Radio Shack.<br /><br />Let us move on to something else. Say I am a military contractor. The government has just paid me several trillion dollars to give them a jet fighter that can go Mach 15, pull 20 g’s, is invisible and can turn into a submarine. I give them a drawing on a cocktail napkin in crayon and a model I carved out of a bar of soap. Does that plane exist? According to you it does. According to anyone reasonable, it does not.<br /><br />Or perhaps I am a building contractor. You pay me lots of money for a house. I give you the blueprints and say “all done.” There is the house. Houses are real, they exist. The blueprints are real and they even depict your actual house. Does your house exist? Where do you put your stuff? What color are you going to paint it?<br /><br />The next one I will leave to you. Please describe something (physical) to me that you know does not exist. Next, all you have to do is make a fake one, and then the real one will suddenly exist.<br /><br />“Please child...You are out of your league.”<br /><br />If by “out of your league” you mean “not within a group who cannot tell fact from fiction”, then yes I am.<br /><br />“Also...the rest of what you say is meaningless after such a pitiful opening argument.”<br /><br />Debatable.<br /><br />“When you say that someone's argument is not true (the dollar bill example) but then use a different argument to prove your point (a lightsaber), you didn't prove a single thing…”<br /><br />It was actually Fr. Alfonse who used a different argument (dollar bills) against someone else’s argument about multiple gods. Are you saying that you can use a different argument to prove something true, but not to prove something false? In any case, we know dollar bills exist, you probably have some. We also know fake dollar bills exist, it is possible (but maybe not probable) that you have one. Does my statement actually prove anything? No, but it does show that the original statement is not always true.<br /><br />“…except for the fact that for every argument made against God, a similiar argument can be made in his favor. And by the way...you're wrong on both examples as I just mentioned above.”<br /><br />And for every argument against (Shiva, Ra, Dionysus, Baal, etc), a similar argument can be made in their favor. Or do you disagree with this? Now using Father’s argument about a million fakes proving one real, how can you tell which one is real? Doesn’t each have a 50:50 chance?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-74715025113721537882013-02-07T22:23:22.079-06:002013-02-07T22:23:22.079-06:00Why not try...
on one hand: The lottery, other h...Why not try...<br /><br />on one hand: The lottery, other hand: belief in God.<br /><br />Both offer a chance of winning a big prize. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-58411657113204397292013-02-07T18:37:09.466-06:002013-02-07T18:37:09.466-06:00"No, Father Alfonse said nothing about the qu..."No, Father Alfonse said nothing about the quality of the arguments. All he said was for every argument for (or against) god, a similar argument can be made against (or for) god. Nothing is stated about the validity of any argument. That is why his whole 50:50 idea fails. I can just as easily say the exact same thing about anything; Quetzalcoatl, Arawn or (gasp!) unicorns."<br /><br />Read the blog again. It was clarified a couple of days after it was written for people just like you: atheists and those who wish to shred an argument with the thinnest of threads.<br /><br />Now, to your argument:<br /><br />Your confusing "discovering" God with "imagining" God. You are doing so by criss-crossing worlds with words. It's like attempting to write music with an x-y axis or a curve on staff paper (i.e. music paper).<br /><br />Now, to make it clearer for you.<br /><br />You add God to the list of man's creations. By doing so you criss-cross worlds: man's world with God's world. If you wish to say that unicorns do not exist, then you might as well say that man does not exist, for unicorns as well as the Internet and the computer are evidence of a world created by man. Of course, you could confuse the "evolution" of the computer with survival of the fittest, correct? And therefore, write it off as simply a blind and random process. But the evidence points to the contrary.<br /><br />If you try to write off God, then you might as well right off the Universe, the narwhals, and humans, for although we may be able to explain these things that exist, we can't take any credit for them.<br /><br />Your arguments are confusing because your arguments are not very well structured or logical to say the least.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-49625577369604002872013-02-07T09:41:38.715-06:002013-02-07T09:41:38.715-06:00You say that Fr. Alfonse did not make mention that...You say that Fr. Alfonse did not make mention that these arguments are qualitative but quantitative. So what does "erroneous" and "irrelevant" mean? Are these quantitative measures or qualitative measures?<br /><br />"What about all those other people with a similar desire for truth who have found it in their religion?"<br /><br />Truth is not subjective. Truth is objective. I would never take away the good intentions of others and their desire to know the truth. But I would not call every good intention truth.<br /><br />What would I say? Keep looking. What's 20 years compared to eternity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-71824374696053467792013-02-07T09:38:27.317-06:002013-02-07T09:38:27.317-06:00A "real lightsaber...one that cuts through st...A "real lightsaber...one that cuts through steel, etc.." Really? Why does a lightsaber have to cut through steel? Why? And where did you get your definition of a lightsaber? From the movie theatres?? Where did you get your information from? George Lucas??? And you say they don't really exist???<br /><br />Try the U.S. Government next time for your source of information and the latest technological demonstration in which a "lightsaber" destroyed a missle. <br /><br />Please child...You are out of your league.<br /><br />Also...the rest of what you say is meaningless after such a pitiful opening argument.<br /><br />But I will say a few things. When you say that someone's argument is not true (the dollar bill example) but then use a different argument to prove your point (a lightsaber), you didn't prove a single thing, except for the fact that for every argument made against God, a similiar argument can be made in his favor. And by the way...you're wrong on both examples as I just mentioned above.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-68926320899304498802013-02-07T00:16:13.371-06:002013-02-07T00:16:13.371-06:00' In the Catholic Church no one professes &quo...' In the Catholic Church no one professes "I know there is one God." '<br /><br />Yet, I would guess that if you started asking people if they "knew" there was a god or not, many would say yes.<br /><br />"I will even grant to you that some people have the faith the size of a mustard seed"<br /><br />How exactly does the measurement of faith relate to a volume?<br /><br />"A million fake one dollar bill doesn't prove a real one, sir? On the contrary, it does"<br /><br />Really? How? I could go to some toy manufacturer's warehouse and pull out a million toy lightsabers. By definition, they would be fake because there is no such thing as a real lightsaber. And I'm not talking about real in the sense of "representation of an idea" or "image and likeness,” I am talking something that I can cut through steel plates with or deflect lasers. The real thing. But no such thing exists no matter how many fake ones are made.<br /><br />Looking at your post on unicorns on 01/15/13, you make a ridiculous argument about existence. I doubt anyone is going to argue the idea that something can't exist because it isn't "flesh and bone;” that is an argument that you yourself inserted here. Even worse is your statement that plants, rocks, the sky, etc. can’t exist because they are not flesh and bone. (Yes, I know you are not making this claim, but the fact that you are presenting it in such a way to make it seem that someone did is completely absurd.)<br /><br />The whole point about unicorns is that if someone says unicorns exist, more than likely they mean a real unicorn; one that I could ride, I could breed to sell as pets, I could take DNA samples to figure out their ancestry, etc. Nobody is going to confuse the existence of the idea of something with the real, physical existence of that same thing (where such a thing can or could physically exist, I’m not talking abstract concepts like “love,” “democracy,” or the number 12). Nobody is dismissing the idea of unicorns, they are dismissing the actual, physical unicorn. <br /><br />Now to make the connection to god, when you say god exists, I’m guessing you don’t mean an abstract representation but a “real” thing. If you want to make that claim, fine, but in order to show it is real, you are going to have to start by giving us things that we can strictly define or measure so that we can test this claim to definitively show not only that a god exists, but that it is your god, not one of the several thousand other possibilities. Now before you start saying “Wait, how do you measure love or democracy, aren’t those real?”, I will say that yes they are, but they are abstract, not physical objects. Abstract concepts cannot create a universe, forgive sins, give eternal life, etc. And when you can give us these definitions or properties, we can then see if the chances are actually 50:50.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-81803649356484266282013-02-06T23:15:20.512-06:002013-02-06T23:15:20.512-06:00(continued)
"What the religious person does ...(continued)<br /><br />"What the religious person does is examine each one. What the atheist does is dismiss them all."<br /><br />Really? How many religious people have examined each one; 20 something major religions and countless minor ones? And on top of that each denomination of Christianity (I've seen numbers ranging from 20,000-40,000 different denominations). How many religious people are of a certain faith simply because of where they live or what their parents are? Would Fr. still be a priest if he had grown up in India with Hindu parents? Now I will not argue that there are not people who have searched, but I doubt their numbers are significant.<br /><br />As an atheist (and I can only speak for myself), I will admit that I have not studied each of them, but I still have dismissed them all. In my own religious upbringing, I realized there were some claims that simply were not possible or made no sense no matter how I looked at them or they were explained to me. From there, I found other religions were making similar, unprovable, untestable claims. I did not need to go through every single one to know that if it was making an untestable, supernatural claim, there was no way I could make myself believe it. To state it simply, I do not need to search every garden to dismiss someone who claims "faeries make flowers grow." Checking a few (if any in this case) is enough to know their claims are false.<br /><br />"Now to study a religion doesn't take a lifetime. It simply takes some time and a desire to know the truth" <br /><br />How much time is enough? Was my 20+ years not enough? Not enough desire? Do I just need to keep going until I believe what you do? What about all those other people with a similar desire for truth who have found it in their religion? Why is their truth wrong?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-42762979099739064812013-02-06T22:38:39.101-06:002013-02-06T22:38:39.101-06:00(Different Anonymous than above, it's hard to ...(Different Anonymous than above, it's hard to keep all of us straight.)<br /><br />"What Drew just did is demonstrate his lack of comprehension with regards to the argument presented in the blog. Fr. Alfonse argued 50:50 with regards to the quality (not quantity) of arguments made for and against the existence of God. "<br /><br />No, Father Alfonse said nothing about the quality of the arguments. All he said was for every argument for (or against) god, a similar argument can be made against (or for) god. Nothing is stated about the validity of any argument. That is why his whole 50:50 idea fails. I can just as easily say the exact same thing about anything; Quetzalcoatl, Arawn or (gasp!) unicorns.<br /><br />Now let's look at something where the quality of arguments is readily apparent (just as an example); evolution. Proponents of Intelligent Design or Creationism will say that for every argument you can make for evolution, a similar argument can be made against it. But when you look at the actual arguments made, evolution is a thoroughly tested, observable, highly scientific theory, whereas ID is a complete joke. Now the way Fr. Alfonse has it stated, there is a 50:50 chance either one is right. Would you agree with Fr. or would you go with the vast majority of scientists and say evolutionary theory is MUCH MUCH more probable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-439331035718369167.post-91673783142022375892013-02-06T03:09:50.741-06:002013-02-06T03:09:50.741-06:00Let's see... on one hand : The lottery, other ...Let's see... on one hand : The lottery, other hand : proof of God...hmmmm. I don't get it at all. lottery = another word used for game or gambling. God = another word used for love. just don't understand the comparisons or similarilites at all!mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00942726536937939098noreply@blogger.com