Your God offers no better explanation for the origin of the universe than anything else.  In fact, belief in God doesn’t explain anything.  When you hit a wall, you can just throw up your hands and say God did it.  Physics and chemistry have shown us explanatory mechanisms for many things from the very big, to the very small.  Can it explain everything?  Not yet, but the fact that it doesn’t have the answers to everything doesn’t give theists license to import a supernatural explanation to fill in the gaps.  If you want to posit a supernatural explanation, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it exists and it is responsible for the observations you see.  Even if you do, there’s still the other hurdle in demonstrating that God is the God of your holy book.  As for the Bill O’Reilly tactic of employing the association fallacy on the association of Stalin and Mao to atheism, I’ll give that all the attention it deserves.  There I did it, and I’ll also point out that if you live in the United States, you’re living in a secular nation, sorry. It’s the parties of God driving many of the evils I see in the world, and I’m simply tired of taking your word for it that it’s God directing the ship, that you know what God wants and you have God on your side.

Be prepared for secular trolling ahead.
:)

And steve b provides the tired, worn out atheist diatribe to start things off….

I agree that production values make a huge difference.  I admit that when I first saw a link to “Why I Love Religion, and Love Jesus” I groaned inwardly.  I thought of religious videos I had seen before (our RE director insists on using VHS tapes of a puppet-wielding priest from the 80s) and also of most other white rappers I’ve experienced, and figured it would be awful.

Boy was I shocked.  What I got was a well-crafted statement put into good verse, presented with sound and image that wouldn’t be out of place on MTV.  Its intelligence and religiosity would be, but that’s a different argument.

After watching that first video, I instantly conceived a powerful affection for Fr. Pontifex and love for his mission.  I am glad he is staying rooted in his daily priesthood.  Too many “celebrity priests” have damaged the Church and themselves, and it would break my heart to see Fr. Burns fall into that trap.

Long live Father Pontifex!

Jennifer M ,
“puppet wielding priest”
That’s pretty funny.Thanks!
Many religious videos of this type qualify for the “lame” category- either amateurish, preachy, or both.I’m glad someone broke the mold.

I’m definitely on the way to becoming a fan of Fr. Pontifex’s spoken word videos. He has good rhymes, good points, and relies on talent rather than gimmicks to get the message across.

On an unrelated note, I’m shocked that there are so few comments on this post. Have you scared away the trolls, Jen, or have they finally realized that flaming your posts is like shouting at the rain?

Where is everybody?

Well I’m here waiting for someone to refute my points.  Does anyone have anything substantive to say against my first post?  I’ll reiterate: what proof can you demonstrate to me (or indeed any atheist) that there is some entity out there (call it God) in control of everything, and that your particular iteration of God is real, and is any more real than any other iterations of God?  If not, then why should I care one whit about what your church has to say on social matters?  I’ll help you with the tough one: it’s because your church causes harm by promulgating STI epidemics because your church hold STIs are bad but condoms are worse.  Your church endangers the health of women because it rails against any healthcare policy or agency at the slightest talk of contraception.  Your church causes mental health problems for homosexuals by condemning them as disordered, and yet the church admonishes to hate the sin but love the sinner.  That statement is repugnant to me in the same manner as a racist saying they have black friends.  The church puts out all this harmful stuff and then asks me to stomach it because it’s faith.  I’m tired of it, I’m going to say put up some evidence for your God, or else I’m taking away the faith card as your pass in to having a say on social policy.

Thankfully you have no power to remove any organization from having a role in society.  Just like we can’t force you to stop repeating the same tired crap over and over.  These arguments have been had.  Google it.  Frankly I have no time or energy to try and prove God to you, and you will refuse to accept any of it anyway, so why waste my time or effort?  You have already decided to reject God no matter what any of us say.  Our attempts would be like driving a snowplow in the middle of the blizzard.

In the interests of charity, I will recommend CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity.  But I am sure you’ve read it and decided you’re wiser than one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century.

Lewis gives us the time-honored apologetic traditonal argument from ignorance.  He can’t personally fathom why someone’s instinct to help others in risk of their own lives, so he imports this moral law and moral lawgiver.  That is a pitifully lazy argument lacking in intellectual curiousity.  Human behavior is something observable, you can examine it and form testable hypotheses about it as you would any other natural phenomenon.  Lightning, the sun, and disease are all things we used to ascribe to action of a god or gods.  We now have a very full understanding of each.  Why ascribe a nonexplanation for why we act in an altruistic manner overriding our survival instinct (e.g. God) when you can study it (as neurologists, psychologists and sociologists do) and come up with an explanatory mechanism for it?

See?

I’d suggest that steve b takes a look at Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles, in which he approaches the issue of overriding good and sacrifice in the same manner that medieval and Renaissance scientists approached the natural order of things (physical sciences) which the atheists seem to prize above all. The central point of the good theorem is that all overriding actions work toward the greater good as perceived by the individual (which mirrors modern psychological analytics) with the greatest good being God (pure good, though beyond the comprehension of man). This is borne out by the willingness of the individual to make sacrifices for the good of others (increase of the common good) and the sacrifice of one’s life if needed in selfless acts (mercy). To put this in terms the trolls will understand, we are effectively hard-wired to do this, which is reinforced by the teachings of the Church and the models the saints provide—but it stems from God’s love for us and his desire for us to move towards him. It is interesting that so many atheists forget that the methodologies they praise and the underlying mechanics for studying the mind and the world around us stem from Catholic works, including the university system.

Okay, I’ll bite.  But I can only take one bite at a time
—
“Human behavior is something observable” – true; “you can examine it” – true; “and form testable hypotheses about it as you would any other natural phenomenon” – false.  Human behavior is not something that is reproducible, unlike the natural components of our world that we understand with physics, for example.  The difference?  Free will.  This is the “X” factor, and is the component that renders each of us unique (above and beyond our DNA).  You can take people from similar backgrounds (and even the same background) and put them in the same situation and get wildly differing results every time.  Human behavior does not stand up to the scientific method (which, btw, was developed by the religious of the Catholic Church).  And no, neurologists, psychologists, and sociologists have never been able to reproduce (or predict) human behavior; they’ve only been able to observe it and compile data on it.
—
If altruistic behavior is nothing more than self-serving (a statement which, in itself, is “lacking in intellectual curiosity”), then follow this to its logical end.  First, this means that those who don’t engage in altruism are not self-serving.  Of course, we know this can’t be true: it’s totally illogical.  But more concretely than that, we instinctively know that anyone who never does something that benefits another person is completely self-absorbed and is, by definition, self-serving.  Second, this means that those who do engage in altruism can never be motivated purely for the sake of another.  This requires a pretty remarkable leap of faith, for it is something that can never be proven.  Therefore, when one says that “altruism is self-serving,” what he is really stating is his own personal belief that human behavior cannot actively seek the good of another for their own sake.  And if this is your belief, then you are truly one to be pitied for it must then be assumed that you have never experienced love which is self-sacrificing – which actively seeks that which is best for you without seeking its own end – and that is a truly sad way to live.  Perhaps you don’t believe that such a love can exist.  Perhaps you are afraid of finding such a love.  Either way, the denial of such a love doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist; rather, it proves you haven’t experienced it.  But there are literally millions of people, throughout all the ages, who have experienced such a love – and that is something that cannot be denied.

For most believers, it makes more sense to believe that everything came from something rather than everything coming from nothing.  We don’t claim to fully understand that mystery of mysteries, but it makes more sense than nothing exploding into everything.  And, I believe in the Big Bang theory.  There just had to be something big to create that biggest of bangs. And, no, atheists, nothing doesn’t equal just a little bit of something.  Nothing equals nothing and nothing can’t create anything. 

At worst, I would say we are in the same boat…Dawkins, Hawking, et al have proved less than nothing…you gotta have faith one way or the other.  And probably way more faith than I could ever have to believe that everything came from nothing.

Please show me your evidence and license for claiming that everything came from nothing.

We have ourselves a ballgame.

RMMT: Actually, we kinda can predict test and repeat human behavior.  It’s how we develop and test antipsychotic and antidepressant medications.  Or would you say, if I could put the logic-following back on you, the entire enterprise of psychology is bunk because of free will?  Maybe that’s ok for you, but I prefer to try to help my buddies with PTSD, having suicidal thoughts etc.

Altruism by definition is unselfish, or not self-serving.  It also happens to be helpful for groups of populations to survive, not just humans mind you but other apes.  It’s a great thing, and I’m glad we have it, but I don’t attribute it to a gift from God.  You do (and you think it’s the God of the Bible), and that’s up to you to demonstrate.  I trust my own valuing of my noumenous experiences without needing an imported supernatural non-explanation for it. 

Andy S: If you’d like to give your God credit for the huge number of collapsing stars and failed solar systems in order to produce this one planet, which can only support life some of the time on some of its surface, in this one solar system, the rest of the planets in which are entirely too hot or too cold, that’s on you to demonstrate.  That’s some design work isn’t it?

Posted by steve b on Monday, Jul 9, 2012 9:34 PM (EST):

“Lewis gives us the time-honored apologetic traditonal argument from ignorance. “
***********************
Wow.From “ignorance”?
Did C.S.Lewis perfect that ignorance at Oxford or at Cambridge?

Mr. steve b,

for your objective consideration, may I present an article of Mr. William Lane Craig:

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God
William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

This lengthly article of Mr. Craig not only cogently puts forth solid arguments for the Existence of God, he directly addresses and refutes positions of atheist Richard Dawkins, author of  The God Delusion. Sloppy Synopsis:

1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe

Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties

A number of ethicists such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended various moral arguments for God.15 In order to understand the version of the moral argument which I’ve defended in my own work, it’s necessary that we grasp a couple of important distinctions.

First, we should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

Second, there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

With those distinctions in mind, here’s a simple moral argument for God’s existence:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
Here, then, is a simple formulation of a teleological argument based on fine-tuning:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality

The last argument I wish to discuss is the famous ontological argument, originally discovered by St. Anselm. This argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others.44 I’ll present the version of the argument as stated by Plantinga, one of its most respected contemporary proponents.

Plantinga’s version is formulated in terms of possible worlds semantics. For those who are unfamiliar with the semantics of possible worlds, let me explain that by “a possible world” I do not mean a planet or even a universe, but rather a complete description of reality, or a way reality might be. Perhaps the best way to think of a possible world is as a huge conjunction p & q & r & s . . . , whose individual conjuncts are the propositions p, q, r, s, . . . . A possible world is a conjunction that comprises every proposition or its contradictory, so that it yields a complete description of reality—nothing is left out of such a description. By negating different conjuncts in a complete description we arrive at different possible worlds:

W1: p & q & r & s . . .
W2: p & not-q & r & not-s . . .
W3: not-p & not-q & r & s . . .
W4: p & q & not-r & s . . .

Now in his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being that is “maximally excellent” in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls “maximal greatness.” Now Plantinga argues,

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

God Love you.

I love Pontifex. His CD “Ordained” is so good. I can’t stop listening to it. Find it at Phatmass.com

“Actually, we kinda can predict test and repeat human behavior.  It’s how we develop and test antipsychotic and antidepressant medications.  Or would you say, if I could put the logic-following back on you, the entire enterprise of psychology is bunk because of free will?”
—
Wrong.  In the cases of some types of psychosis (not all), such as schizophrenia, there is an organic pathology related to dopamine.  When appropriate meds are given, some of the manifestations of the pathology are reduced.  But you can’t medicate someone’s choice to either take or not take their meds: I’ve treated those who do well and stay on their meds, and I’ve treated those who do not.  The severity of the disease is not the deciding factor; free will is.  In this way, we demonstrate that *behavior*—specifically, the choice between whether or not to take one’s meds—cannot be predicted.  Only the outcomes based on that choice can *sometimes* be predicted. For those who suffer from mental illness, I would posit (as would the Church) that their capacity for free will is diminished due to their disease.  But it isn’t absent.
—
As to the entire enterprise of psychology, my opinion is that much of it *is* bunk because the field has largely been hijacked by those with an agenda—by those who wish to explain behavior as something which cannot be controlled and therefore should simply be accepted rather than actually dealing with the root of any number of problems (e.g., maybe, just maybe, our choices have something to do with our outcomes).  The study of psychology derailed when the elite in the field left any objective moral framework behind.
—
Please do not misunderstand: I absolutely acknowledge that there is true psychological disease (depression, anxiety, PTSD, psychosis, bipolar, etc.) and I whole-heartedly agree that treatment is necessary.  But I also believe that the many (not all) in the psych community have not done their due diligence in effectively treating those who suffer.
—
A final note: are you aware of the fact that PTSD is extremely rare among WWII vets from Japan?  The studies on this issue concluded that the single biggest factor in explaining this disparity when comparing to American vets was the degree of spirituality practiced by the Japanese.  Regardless of your opinion as to the existence of God, you cannot deny that those who have faith—any faith—in a divine creator do better in a multitude of measures than their non-faithful peers.

To all the secular people on the thread:
.
Catholics believe that there is no conflict between well understood faith and sound reasoning.
.
First, most of you have no clue what the Church really believes. Go read the Catechism (it’s on the Vatican’s website, vatican.va) and do not come back until you are done so that I don’t have to waste my time and make you look foolish in public by having to correct your ignorance.
.
(Oh, and Catholics should head on over there as well. It’s a great place to answer questions about the faith.)
.
Second, I am not asking you to BELIEVE the Catechism. That is a gift of faith. I just want you to know it. Now look what is good and true in the world around us. Study beauty and goodness, and a bit of psychology. Search for truth in all its forms. It should all lead you right back to the Church.
.
Thomas doubted and Jesus answered him. If you honestly seek truth, your doubts will be answered too.
.
The study of psychology showed me the truth of the sacraments which led me back to the Church. Every sacrament fills an important psychological need. We were created for the sacraments. (Note that marriage is slightly different in that is a natural activity that shows the relationship between Christ and the Church. This is why the Church is so protective of married love. This is why priests are married to the Church and women religious married to Jesus.)

As inspiring as Father Burns is in his role as Father Pontifex, he is equally thought-provoking every Sunday in Mass.

Interesting data from an Archdiocese of Washington article I saw:
“Did you know that Atheists have the lowest retention rate of any “religious” group?”

Atheists “retain” only thirty percent of their “flock.” To quote the CARA blog: And if you think it is challenging to be a Catholic parent, try being an Atheist parent! Some 70% of Americans raised to believe God does not exist end up being a member of a religion as an adult (about one in five former Atheists drift off to become an open-minded agnostic or None).

N.B this number reflects only those raised as Atheists. A large number of Atheists in this Country are “made” in the sense that they were raised to believe but now are Atheists. It remains to study how many of them remain atheists and for how long.

RMMT: Actually, again, we kinda have studied when people make decisions and it seems that the chemical process happens compatratively long before a conscious decision is made by the person (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10363348).  And I shouldn’t have to explain the cases of brain injury which cause personality changes after physical damage to the brain.  If there is, as you suggest, some spiritus behind the brain, free will, conscious choice and personality, it seems largely dependent on the functioning of the physical brain.  Why not save a step and just say that our will and consciousness depend on the physical function of the brain?

top: Wow, I had never heard of William Lane Craig.  My eyes are open, I see the light.  Not.  Craig begs the question from the start, as why does the cause need to be God (more importantly the God of the Bible?)  Did God begin to exist?  If so what caused God?

“When you hit a wall, you can just throw up your hands and say God did it.  Physics and chemistry have shown us explanatory mechanisms for many things from the very big, to the very small.“Posted by steve b on Monday, Jul 9, 2012 8:31 AM (EST):

When scientists try their best to find the smallest particles in space, they stated there’s nothing more. Really?  Nothing started nothing? God is the most minuscule and prodigious you will never see. If anything, you have hit the wall. May the Peace and Love be with every one. In Christ, Ed. 

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one’s laughing at God when it’s gotten real late and their kid’s not back from that party yet

No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shake
No one’s laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they’re mistaken
No one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say, “We’ve got some bad new, sir”
No one’s laughing at God when there’s a famine, fire or flood

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they’re about to choke

God can be funny
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious