Catholic priest views on god.

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Free Thinker, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. this priest spent many years studying the word of god for the truth. his conclusions should carry some weight. what are his conclusions?

    About Me: I am age 76, math teacher retired from classroom teaching, now self-employed as a private math tutor. I live near Houston, Texas. My hobbies are music and chess. I invite you to visit my website (see above).

    As a young adult, I was a seminarian and then a Catholic priest, for a total of twelve years.
  2. Lucrum


    If someone posts a video of a former atheist who has embraced religion, will that cancel out your videos?

  3. jem


    in our last conversation you accused me of bringing up religion, when you did. now you do it again.

    It odd because as noble prize winning scientists are uncovering proof of a creator you are turning to priests who change their mind.

    Were you not one of the atheist who you to say give me science not faith?

  4. proof of a creator. thats funny jem. maybe you should listen to the videos. the priest used well thought out reasoning.
  5. Sorry, but nobel prize winning scientists are not uncovering proof of a creator. They may have ideas as such, but not proof.

    There is no proof of a creator, there is only inference to that conclusion based on an interpretation of the evidence...

    ...and you know that I am a theist, so don't bother with any baseless accusations.

    Science is limited to the field of materialism, and God is beyond materialism, by definition.

  6. jem


    would you be more comfortable if I used the word evidence of a Creator?

    “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

    - Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.


    The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”

    - Albert Einstein

    Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

    - Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.


    It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”

    “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

    -Anthony Flew
    Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater

    There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter—not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.”

    - Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931).


    16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

    - Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16
    (for more of these coincidences click here)


    “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

    - Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)


    and there more at that link...
  7. jem


    but the way 777.. that is uncovering proof...

    if you saw a watch... you would say that is proof of a watch designer.

    Unless you created a theory that there are infinite universe and everything is possible so therefore it is possible molecules came together just right to create a watch.


    now I know that is an update to the old watch maker argument... but it is science who is now confirming that if there is only one universe our universe could not have gotten here by chance. Top scientists are stating that in overwhelming numbers. Just look at the last quote. And that is from the field of biology.
  8. This statement alone proves you are not a "freethinker". You probably don't even know why, so I will explain it to you...

    You said his conclusions should carry some weight because he was a priest for part of his life. This means that someone who has studied God for as long as he did (12 years) and still believes in God, must also carry some weight, by your own logic, right?

    You claim to be a man of science, but you only gather evidence to support YOUR hypothesis instead of gathering all evidence from both sides and then weighing it against each other. A true free thinker will do this.

    If you found 100 reasons to support the existence of God, and 1 reason to support no existence, you would stand behind the 1 reason first because thats your bias.

    Change your name to slavethinker.
  9. stu


    There is no science confirming any of that.

    Parroting a few harvested quotes out of context from religious apologist GodBot web sites is not science.
    It's letting imagination run wild to form your weird unsupported conclusions. As usual.
  10. Could you summarize your "journey" as it were, from Scientology to "Theism", and also provide a basic synopsis of what Theism is, per your understanding? Thanks.

    #10     Feb 4, 2011