Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[nihilistcat]

Nice job ... and so it remains to be seen whether or not this can account for the creation of a universe. This is obviously a super-interesting topic (for science geeks anyway, and although I'm a molecular biologist, I've taken quite a few physics courses, as you had to for EE). So I wonder how the possible existence of a multiverse effects the theology of the Catholic church?

I doubt it will have little impact.  Omnipresence and all.  Argument will likely attest that just as one person may engage in multiple chess games so to might God engage in multiple existences.  Also the latest version of the multiverse which I have heard was M-Theory.  By which infinite number of Universal membranes exists in 11th dimensional space and at times collide with one another creating any number of "big bangs" by which properties of one universe may be transferred to another.  Naturally as correlation is set between God and the single proactive cause without cause of all it would be argued that God is the cause of the 11th dimensional space (which is why you did not see him when you flew into the clouds )

God of the gaps goes multiverse (can't wait for the Marvel movie about that one)

It even remains to be seen whether or not some other underlying cause exists (i.e. even if this hypothesis is largely true, is there something else causing things like quantum fluctuations)? The answer is of course ... we don't entirely know. But it is possible that this hypothesis describes a non-particle space that represents the end of the chain of causation (though I should say, one major problem I've always had with cosmological arguments is they're premised on human intuition, and I'm not a fan of measuring scientific possibilities against human intuition, since humans really only have the capacity to understand things, roughly speaking, between grains of sand and mountains, we did not evolve in a way that enables us to understand quantum mechanics intuitively, as I'm sure you'd agree).

While agree that we were not able to intuitively understand quantum mechanics.  I have faith in the transcendental nature of the human intellect to understand that which is beyond direct anecdotal sensibilities.  It is for this reason why I am in agreement with Kant and not willing to limit myself to synthetic aposteriori alone as evidence or proof in order to further understanding and seek to have synthetic apriori supported by what is experienced (less we say the equations which state the Moon, Uranus, and Neptune should and are not there actually prove what is there is not).

Kant was Nietzsche's shoe shine boy

Personally, I've accepted the fact that we don't know everything. In my mind it's okay to say that "we don't know" ... more investigation is needed, without feeling the impulse to attribute these things to the myths of our ancestors. For me, an analysis of religion starts with, well, an analysis of religion. What do they claim today, what were they claiming yesterday, the day before that, the century before that, and so on.  

In like manner I accept there is much I do not know and will continue to work to understand.  As I said much earlier in this thread; God cannot serve as the foundation of an argument though he may be the conclusion.    However, I do contest your means of analysis of religion.  I think religion like science should evolve with our understanding of the world (that was why religion, specifically Catholicism, has been a ardent supporter of scientific study and learning.  To understand the Creator by means of the creation).  Otherwise I would say what does science claim today, what did it claim yesterday, the day before, and a century before?  Seems like a snake oil salesman refining their pitch right?

This is a ridiculous argument. Apples and oranges (to say the least).

And the fact remains that religious theology continues to rely on a god of gaps argument, and by now so many of those gaps have closed, the credibility of these arguments are strained.

I would say science as a field of study is reliant on positing a plug of gaps argument. Then by assuming the plug and further analysis it affirms or rejects the plug not in accordance with the objective truth but rather the effective truth (a big distinction as made earlier by noting that which looks, walks, and quacks like a duck is not necessarily a duck while being effectively a duck).  Now the limitation of science as expressed is that it does not determine the truth of the matter as much as it determines, which fanciful explanation is most effective in describing the anecdotal observations.

Just as in your quantum mechanics example the gap is filled with virtual particles that effectively facilitate our understanding of spooky action at a short distance between actual particles until such time as they are effectively dethroned by a better fanciful explanation.  Give the current gap filler of virtual particles we then proceed to assume this is true and extend virtual particles to construct the entire quantum foam upon which quantum processes occur.  In this way virtual particles are serving as the quantum god of gaps.

Generally the new fanciful explanation subsumes the old rather than refutes it or the old fanciful explanation is considered a special case and not refuted by the new, in such a manner as to be consider a shifting of the goal posts. By your argument science becomes untrustworthy due to the great majority of fanciful explanations being bullshit or being subsumed into new theories in continuation of bullshit under another name.  So should you continue to buy the snake oil science is selling?

Bottom line, science works. You confirm aspects of physics every time you turn on the light switch, it's science that's enabling you to communicate via the internet, science cures disease ... religion tells fairy tales. Many may find those fairy tales soothing, but when they get sick they don't run to their priest do they?

Moreover, I like Pope Francis so much that I really don't want to spend very much time criticizing (he's almost as left wing as I am, with the exception of issues like gay and reproductive rights, albeit I understand that no Pope could change the churches position on these issues in a credible way, but even in these sensitive areas, he's not very dogmatic, which again is commendable).

Funny thing is I am not a fan of Pope Francis.  I think he is too ambiguous in what he states such that people construe things from him that he is not saying.  I have heard tons of people tell me how he is changing the Catholic Church for the better and has said things that no pope before him would have.  I will be the first to tell you he has not said anything different than was understood in the 30+ years I have been catholic.  It was always held that Atheist and Agnostics may go to heaven (It is called men of good faith), that any number of persons of immoral conduct are welcome in the church (condemn the sin not the sinner), clergy are asexual so there is no such thing to us as gay or straight clergy.

No such thing as gay or straight priests? Hahaha ... thanks, I needed a good laugh

Quite frankly, I'm far more interested in having a decent society where people care about each other as opposed to wasting huge amounts of time and energy battling with religionists over questions that we'll probably never resolve. I'd be happy enough if people became a little more skeptical, to the point where they no longer feel like they have a mandate from a god instructing them to commit murder or inhibit the rights of others and so on (as far as I'm concerned, I love our Bill of Rights, and I think that people have a right to their beliefs, again, as long as they're not impeding the rights of others).

On this we are in agreement.  As the original argument of this thread started out and was supported in the long post to Nestor, to endeavor to have a decent society by means solely of ethical restriction is to result in a society focused on the ends rather than the means of conduct.  In order for you to have the decent society you prefer you are going to need moral appeal to a fictitious entity as determinate of right and wrong, not just legal or illegal.

Of course the laws are written by the establishment for the benefit of the establishment, hence, I'd agree with you (although I'm sure we're talking about two very different things).

Like the Catholic church wants to say that a small collection of cells, which are not sentient in any reasonable sense, somehow comprise "life" ... and as absurd as I may think that position is, I'm not bothered by the fact that people hold this view, I'm only bothered when these views inform our public policy). This is why we have a judicial branch of government. To enforce our Bill of Rights, which is to say that we're a secular democracy founded upon a separation of church and state, and thus where religious dogmas appear in our public policy, our court system should strike it down. But then, our courts are only as good as the justices who sit on the bench, and there's always the possibility that we could return to a dark and theocratic society (especially in a reactionary culture, where the religious feel threatened by the encroachment of other faiths, like Islam, and instead of dealing with that threat in an enlightened way, it's very easy for a society to reflexively go down the path of tribalism).

1.  Umm... the bill of rights is heavily based on the rights determined of persons by the Catholic Church during the inquisitions throughout Europe (in order to avoid witch hunts) and the rights outlined in the Magna Carta as determined and written by the Catholic Church.  YOUR WELCOME
2.  In accordance with the law the bill of rights may be amended by means of constitutional change by which the religious dogma of the majority (which is not contra to public policy but is generally considered public policy) may supersede the authority of even the Supreme Court.

So the catholic church did the inquisition, and then takes credit for ending the inquisition? Well done catholic church, well done ... Machiavelli would be proud

At the same time, I'm real apprehensive about Pope Francis' call for a truce of sorts with atheism (I think that really reflects a church that's worried about the increasing secularism of Europe, and to a lesser extent, the US). Pope's die, our next Pope could be another Benedict type (or worse), and so I'm not gonna team up with the RCC just because the current Pope seems like a really nice guy, who seems so devoted to socialism that he might be willing to roll out a sleeping bag and do some protesting with us. Nonetheless, I have worked with Catholic groups (and some Episcopalian clergy members) during occupy wall street (which I was somewhat involved in), and consider many of them to be good friends (I've maintained those relationships, because they're good people who give a shit). And incidentally, I've always viewed Jesus as the first famous anarchist (and I really think that somewhere along the way, some Roman inserted that bullshit about 'give to Caesar' ... since it's so inconsistent with everything else Jesus said, and so obviously self-serving for the then existing Roman government). I'm willing to view Jesus as an anarcho-socialist superhero of sorts, just not a godman.

I really think people misinterpret the give to cesar part.  Simply because they do not properly recognize who is Cesar.  Most hold it to be the government, but what it is properly understood to be is us, human society.  We are Cesar!  This is why Jesus later states to reconcile with your brother before you seek to reconcile with god, there are two great commandment and in the second lies the first (love one another as I have loved you).  I swear to God every time I hear someone say "We God has forgiven me" I want to drop kick them in the face.  God is not the only one you offended so he can forgive you all he wants, but you still have to reconcile with the rest of us!

I think the passage is clearly aimed at subservience to the state ... totally inconsistent with everything else Jesus preached, but conveniently, very consistent with the interests of the ruling power structure that made christianity the official religion of the roman empire.