I second your remarks, this too, was my first reaction upon hearing the news…sometimes these types of experiences provides certain individuals with a new found faith and I hope & pray that on top of his recovery, the same thing occurs for Mr. Hitchens…

My family will be joining in these same prayers.  For God’s plan and God’s glory may His will be done in regard to Mr. Hitchens.

I’ll pray for him, too. I owe him much: his impeccable English helps me improve mine and it’s only fair that I return the favour as best as I can.

So, someone who has been spewing hatred of our Lord now has esophageal cancer.
I think He is clearly at work here. Let us pray ever more strongly that he repents, that he feels the love that He provides for him for the rest of his earthly life, and that he enters into the promised resurrection of the dead. Perhaps he will even intercede for us.

This is an offensive article. Christopher Hitchens is putting his trust in the theory of medicine, not a Bronze Age deity who can apparently heal cancer in atheists through prayer.

How would you like it if you were diagnosed with a terminal disease and someone said they would pray to Satan for you? Or pray to Brahma for you? Or pray to Zeus for you?

I don’t understand why you are praying for Christopher. Does your god not know he has cancer?

He’s been in and will continue to be in the intentions for my daily Divine Mercy chaplet.

Magical Atheist,
  We do not pray to inform Our Lord of the fact of CH’s illness but to ask that it may all turn out for his good.  Any person of good will would wish the best for another, we just have different views of what that is.  Our Lord has, many times, cured cancer, converted atheists, and defied what was thought impossible.  We wish for his healing, that he may have time to repent and put the remainder of his time to good purpose, that he may spend eternal bliss with Our Lord and the saints.  It would have been hateful and offensive if the post had hoped for a long, painful death and an eternity in hell.  If someone says they are praying for you, and you don’t believe in prayer or God, why should it bother you?  They are doing something what won’t hurt you, and not requiring anything of you.  And if someone said they’d pray to Buddah or Zeus for me, I’d say thanks.

Based simply on the name, I think “Magical Atheist” is simply a troll and not an atheist at all. Best to just ignore.

Mike, MagicalAtheist has made some very valid critiques, which instead of addressing, you simply chose to ignore.

The fact is, praying to an imaginary God will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. It is time to realize that by praying, you are wasting your time. It will most definitely be modern medicine that will save Christopher, not bronze-age mythology and superstition.

Anita said - “If someone says they are praying for you, and you don’t believe in prayer or God, why should it bother you?  They are doing something what won’t hurt you, and not requiring anything of you.  And if someone said they’d pray to Buddah or Zeus for me, I’d say thanks.”

Really Anita??? If you had a terminal disease and a Satanist said they will pray to Satan for you you would say thanks??? You wouldn’t find that offensive in any way? All the Satanist would be doing is wishing you the best. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Anita said - “It would have been hateful and offensive if the post had hoped for a long, painful death and an eternity in hell.”

I agree. The belief in hell is hateful and offensive. Why would someone believe in something to disgusting?

Why are atheists always so hateful. You are forgetting that any time a religious person passes away, Christopher drools in happiness and mocks them after they die so stop being a bunch of hypocrites. Also to Atheists. who the hell are you to say there is no God. That is just your belief so stop imposing your beliefs on others. People can pray if they want too. It is a free country. I think the most ridiculous belief is believing in nothing. What the hell does that mean anyway. We came from nothing according to atheists,then prove it. The arrogance is amazing.

To Magical Atheist:

If someone said they would pray that I that I have a safe, speedy recovery, even to a Zeus, Baal, etc. why would I care?

Now, if a worshiper of Moloch or Ashtaroth said to me: “I will sacrifice a dozen infants and pour their blood upon the altars so that you may have a speedy recovery”, then yes, i would have a MAJOR problem with that.

But really, if you think the idea of a Satanist saying “I will pray that you have a speedy and full recovery.” would make me angry, then I think you need to learn a little more about the religion you attack.

“The belief in hell is hateful and offensive.”
Why? Should only Heaven exist? Why would you want for people to believe in such a dominating fascist of a God? I don’t think you understand what Hell actually is. Again, some study on your part is required.

To “Fundamentalist”: I think you missed the point of my post. It was a little too subtle of a tongue in cheek, I’ll admit though. My comment was more of a jab at the person’s choice of user name.

Pete, I never said anything about preventing people from praying, if they wanted to. Nothing of that sort! I just wanted to let you guys know that you’re wasting your time. Prayer accomplishes precisely ZERO.

If you REALLY wanted to help, then you should support the medical research and technology that makes his cancer treatment possible, in the first place.

“If you REALLY wanted to help, then you should support the medical research and technology that makes his cancer treatment possible, in the first place. “
- Your fallacy is that you seem to think that the two have to be mutually exclusive.

Mike agreed.  I’ve seen the fruits of both.  And I’ve seen the power of prayer (aka healing) at work when medical intervention is exhausted and has been ineffective.

bronze age = ad hominem
the Godless have no valid arguments ... ever.

Prayer always works, every time it is tried. It may not secure healing, conversion, or even a speedy recovery for Mr. Hitchens, but it will secure for us who pray a heart disposed to love even those who hate, despise, mock and ridicule us. The postings here already prove that. Peace.

I’ll gladly waste my time by wishing someone well. Why shouldn’t I? :)

“So, someone who has been spewing hatred of our Lord…”  That is a false statement. Hitchens does not hate God. It would be silly to hate something that does not exist.

Here is my deconversion story posted a few weeks ago.
http://new.exchristian.net/2010/06/awaken-from-coma.html

“bronze age = ad hominem
the Godless have no valid arguments ... ever.”

I don’t think that means what you think it means.

“Prayer always works, every time it is tried.”

Why won’t God heal amputees?
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com

$2.4 million dollar study find that Prayers do absolutely no good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

“Also to Atheists. who the hell are you to say there is no God.”

That is not quite accurate. Most a-theists say that there is very little, if any, evidence for a diety.  All that we have in our universe can be explained without a celestial dictator who can convict you of thought crime.

When our specious was young and had no idea of how/why things worked such as earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, lightening, droughts, floods, sickness, etc.  These unintellegent humans imagined that some invisible entity was doing it.

Yet, as science has advanced - and will continue forever - each of these can now be explained. We don’t need any god to explain things anymore.

“bronze age = ad hominem”  The people who wrote down ancient myths (and who very rarely bathed) were from the Bronze Age. So where is the ad hominem?

“the Godless have no valid arguments ... ever.”  LOL!

To the theists in here… If you would like to gain a better understanding of how someone who lived many years as an evangelical born-again Christian, then to become an a-theist, this is the best explanation I have ever heard:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3

His videos are well done. He is well spoken. And the most important is that he does not talk down to Christians. He is very respectful of Christianity. Check it out here

“Your fallacy is that you seem to think that the two have to be mutually exclusive.”

Please point out to me where in that statement where I made that assumption. Obviously, there are other factors involved as well. There is no logical reason to believe that there are any supernatural factors involved with the Hitchens’s healing process.

I’d probably be insulted, too. So pray for Hitchens and keep it to yourself.  He will know the difference when he converts.

“I’d probably be insulted, too. So pray for Hitchens and keep it to yourself.  He will know the difference when he converts.”


Sorry, but that will never happen. I know that I would never go back to being a slave to an imaginary god. I was truly “delusional”.  I am not using that word to put down people… just that it is true of religions. I view them as a mind-virus.

I’m confused about a comment above…are we to stop believing the Christian doctrine of Hell because the Hell it proposes is “disgusting”?  I thought the only reason to not believe in something was because it’s false. 

This comment also reflects the cartoon version of Hell that so many people, including many Christians, have in mind.  A God who IS Love would never will one of His creations to forever hopelessly sit in a fire and be poked by a sinister-looking, red-tinted guy wielding a pitchfork.  But if that creation makes a free choice to cut God out of his life, then, out of respect for the gift of freedom He gave us, what more can He do but let us go?  And this reveals a truer description of Hell: being eternally alone.  Cutting off our communion with God could logically lead to nothing else. 

So if you want to argue that Hell doesn’t exist, you should start by attacking the axioms that lead to a belief in Hell, namely that God is a community and that we are free.  Disbelieving in Hell because it doesn’t sound like a likable “place” seems dishonest.

@Joe, et. al.,


I am a recent deconvert (about six months now).  I used to believe the bible was inerrant. Something that helped me wake up is to read the many errors in the bible. 


Here is one place that lists the scriptures in question; if you’re interested.
http://bit.ly/JUnb7

To theists,


Question to ask yourself: If there was indeed no god would you want to find out?  And, Pascal’s Wager is not a genuine answer.


If you want to learn more about the arguments against a belief in a god I recommend a new book called The Christian Delusion.  It’s only $15 on Amazon.  http://amzn.to/ayvj7B

Tip: if you want to insert blank lines into your comments (to make them easier to read) then put two spaces on two blank lines between paragraphs.

To “Fundamentalist”

Per your original comment: “I just wanted to let you guys know that you’re wasting your time. Prayer accomplishes precisely ZERO. If you REALLY wanted to help, then you should support the medical research and technology that makes his cancer treatment possible, in the first place.”

It sounded to me as though you were saying that INSTEAD of praying you should support medical research. There is no reason for us not to do BOTH!

Perhaps taking the idea of prayer out of our exchange would help you see what I’m talking about. Let’s say that I said that I was going to send him a ‘get well’ card. Then someone would say “That card will do NOTHING to cure his cancer! You would be better off supporting medical research!” Why not do both?

This is a very imperfect analogy, but perhaps you can start to see what I mean.

@KC, MO,
 
 
Your analogy is good.  Yet, evidence does not support prayer.  I put a link a few comments up to a study on this.

To Dude,

Is the book you recommend any different from the other 5 (well, 5 and a half as I’m still reading through Mythology’s Last God when I have time) anti christian/theism books I’ve read? It seems like all they do is repeat the same stuff over and over.

Yes, I’ve actually read books atheists push. I think you should try reading Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man” and C. S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”.

I can’t view the bible contradictions link you posted right now (at work and the proxy filter cut me off) but did it consist of these?: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

To Dude:

Regarding the famed ‘study’ that disproves prayer - Your fallacy here is that you (and not just you, but even some Christians have this mistaken view) see prayer as a kind of technology. It is not.

Now if I had claimed that I was going to try some ‘magic spell’ to help him or some such, you would be more correct to suggest that studies show it doesn’t really do anything.

@KC, MO,
 

That’s great!  You’re learning; that’s the important thing.  I have read some CS Lewis a long time ago. It may have been Mere Christianity.
 
The new book is a little different in that there are several authors that are experts in their particular fields. I don’t know all the book you’ve read, so I don’t know if there will be much new material for you.
 
If Christians were to only read one book on a-theism I would recommend this one.  If they were to view only one deconversion story I would recommend the YouTube above to Evid3nc3’s page. 
 
I have read a lot of info on bible errors including some from apologetic sites.  One of the things throughout my 25 years as a Christian that I [had to] experience to make all this make sense is the mental gymnastics.  And as the sciences are explaining more and more of what used to be only explained by a supernatural force, those gymnastics kept getting more difficult to keep up with.  That is what I have concluded from apologetic answers.

@KC, MO,
 
I heard one definition of a “miracle” put this way: A miracle is the suspension of the natural order of our universe.
 
If God created everything with natural laws to govern everything then it stands to reason that he would have to suspend those laws to “heal” someone.
 
Yet, the big question is why doesn’t he heal amputees?  If he would he just one human and regrow their lost limb 1 billion people around the world would instantly become Christians (instead of be tortured by god for billions of years).
 
If all 2 billion Christians on this planet prayed and fasted for weeks for the same amputee do you really think God would heal him?  We all know the answer.  No.

Well, to be honest Dude, I’m not really learning. Well, I’d say I’ve learned some things from the first two I read, but like I’ve said, just about every single book of theirs that I’ve read is pretty much the same points the rehashed in a new format. By far the WORST that I’ve read so far is “Mythology’s Last God”, as not only is it rehashing everything again, but the author constantly make rather spectacular errors regarding historical events, doesn’t list his sources and reuses arguments that even men like Dawkins have said have no real weight.

It’s not just atheism, though. I’m also trying to read through the Koran (although I’m sure many Muslims will tell me that unless it is in the original language, it can’t be called ‘the Koran) etc.

Would love to continue our conversation, but that would push this whole thread off topic. If you would like, feel free to email me: iowa_cheese(AT)hotmail.com.

MODERATORS!! - Please don’t delete this post. This is one of several accounts I have and I don’t care if it gets picked up by spam bots.

@KC, MO,
 
Thank you for the kind offer.  I will give that some thought.

“It sounded to me as though you were saying that INSTEAD of praying you should support medical research. There is no reason for us not to do BOTH!

Perhaps taking the idea of prayer out of our exchange would help you see what I’m talking about. Let’s say that I said that I was going to send him a ‘get well’ card. Then someone would say “That card will do NOTHING to cure his cancer! You would be better off supporting medical research!” Why not do both?

This is a very imperfect analogy, but perhaps you can start to see what I mean.”
—-

You pretty much defeated your own argument. “That card will do NOTHING to cure his cancer!”. Replace ‘card’ with ‘prayer’, which is the original analogical source, and you have my response.

To “Fundamentalist”:

No, you missed the point. I never said that prayer is the same as a card. It isn’t. I said it was not a good analogy to begin with, but since I’m at work I only had a second to write a way of getting you to understand that the original point of contention was a Both/And and not an Either/Or.

“No, you missed the point. I never said that prayer is the same as a card. It isn’t. I said it was not a good analogy to begin with, but since I’m at work I only had a second to write a way of getting you to understand that the original point of contention was a Both/And and not an Either/Or.”

No, while prayer (otherwise known as talking to yourself) can be seen as essentially useless for any kind of moral encouragement or support (Hitchens wouldn’t be able to hear you that way), a get-well card conceivably could. Thus prayer is even more useless than a get-well card.

Your entire argument (as well as your entire world-view) rests upon the assertion that there exists a personal God who is concerned with human affairs and answers prayers. Your argument CANNOT be advanced without sufficient demonstrable evidence in favor for the existence of said being.

As assumptions that can be made without proof can also be rejected without proof, there is no logical reason to assume any kind of supernatural intervention in the case of medical recovery. Good day to you, sir. -Jacko

Matt & Pat are right. Hitchens is not the enemy. Satan and his demons are.

Eph 6:12 For it is not against human enemies that we have to struggle, but against the principalities and the ruling forces who are masters of the darkness in this world, the spirits of evil in the heavens.

“No, while prayer (otherwise known as talking to yourself) can be seen as essentially useless for any kind of moral encouragement or support (Hitchens wouldn’t be able to hear you that way), a get-well card conceivably could. Thus prayer is even more useless than a get-well card.”
- The real purpose of prayer NOT moral encouragement. Nice strawman, though.

“Your entire argument (as well as your entire world-view) rests upon the assertion that there exists a personal God who is concerned with human affairs and answers prayers.”
- Mostly, yes. However, you are still falling into the trap of seeing prayer as some kind of technology. Prayer doesn’t, can’t force God to do anything. If it did, then God wouldn’t be God, would He? Like I said in another comment, you seem to equate religion with magic.

“there is no logical reason to assume any kind of supernatural intervention in the case of medical recovery.”
- I wouldn’t just assume it. But I don’t automatically reject the possibility of it either.

If prayer was nothing more than a ‘if I push this button, God gives me a cookie,’ then some of your points would be valid. As it is, you’re attacking a ‘prayer straw man’ that no one is defending.

You haven’t got a prayer! :-)

The Almighty God who made Chris Hitchens is now and has been since Chris was conceived using all His power and love to have Chris back with Him-to paraphrase Augustine’s “Nos fecisti ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te”-He made CHris for Himself and Chris’s heart is restless until it rests in Him.” I will pray for Chris and hope that others pray for me, a sinner.  There is hope - April 8 this year “ex-atheist” Anthony Flew went to his rest with Him.

Yesterday I was listening to a song that said something like ‘No one laughs at God in a Hospital…’  I WILL pray for C. Hitchens, our brother.

P.D. Who brought the trolls?

I am praying for Christopher and I am asking Mother Teresa to pray for him.  To glorify God, may he be healed and converted.

To Dude,

“... A miracle is the suspension of the natural order of our universe.
If God created everything with natural laws to govern everything then it stands to reason that he would have to suspend those laws to “heal” someone.”
 
True and he does at times do so.

“Yet, the big question is why doesn’t he heal amputees? “
 
Why indeed? I sincerely hope you keep exploring this question.

” ...If he would heal just one human and regrow their lost limb 1 billion people around the world would instantly become Christians”

Really? Do you really believe so?
Greater things than that have happened…
http://holysouls.com/sar/rosarymiracle.htm
 
keep exploring

I prayed for Christopher Hitchens and will continue to do so for as long as is necessary.

To respond to the back and forth about “bronze age = ad hominem,” the context seems to indicate that the argument is that God is an invention of “bronze age” man.  That being the case, the argument takes on the character of weak ad hominem attack as it is directed at “bronze age” men.

A friend once said he feared the Catholic Church because it was always in control mode.  I agreed.  I said that what I dislike most about my Church is that it forces me to love my enemies, and to be tolerant, kind and charitable to people I can stand.  My friend was uncertain if I was referring to him.

“Christ-bearer” Hitchens often has reminded me of another brilliant mocker, Voltaire, who has never been canonized.  May mocking Mr. Hitchens, perhaps with assistance from Mother Teresa, who, like Mr. Hitchens, possessed God’s gift of humor (and, depending upon where he is now, Peter Jennings, who, with Mr. Hitchens, covered derisively the funeral of Mother Teresa for ABC News), yet live to live up to his name.  “St. Christopher” would be, at last, a documented hero and, considering his divine gift of wittiness, a paragon of happy holiness for boys and girls everywhere, even London and Calcutta.  Thank you, Mr. Archbold, for the splendid idea.  “Hail, Mary, full of grace….”

M.A. Christopher Hitchens is a good man and an articulate speaker and advocate for his causes.  My prayers are for his full recovery.  He is a decent man who will make the right decision when presented with all the facts.  He hasn’t gotten all the facts, yet, concerning the existance of God.  He’s about to.  But one thing I am certain that I will not do is “offend” him by letting him know that I am praying for his full recovery.

If we only pray for those we love or approve of, we’re not much of a Christian ourselves. Indeed, it is at least as important to pray for your enemies.

Dude-freed:
Don’t you ever wonder why the Bible compilers didn’t fix all those danged discrepancies?  Why leave all that stuff in there that is contradictory??  If they really meant to be deceptive, wouldn’t they have cleaned up all that messiness so that Dudes-like-you wouldn’t be able to point it out to believers-like-me in order to free me?  [Actually, it is kinda funny that I’m happily de-slaved from secularism and agnosticism.  I’ve never been free-er and more happy.]

Dude: “If all 2 billion Christians on this planet prayed and fasted for weeks for the same amputee do you really think God would heal him?  We all know the answer.  No.”

You are making an assumption of what the answered prayer would look like….and ONLY that one answer would be good enough for you.  However, the lack of that particular outcome (re-growth) really has no bearing on the question of whether that prayer has been answered or not.

“He hasn’t gotten all the facts, yet, concerning the existance of God. “

“Hitch” knows all about the existence of God. He lost badly to Dr. William Lane Craig in a recent debate on the existence of God. Thus far he has chosen to deny God. Hopefully, he will reconsider his beliefs. My prayers are with him.

Well, this post is just beautiful. I didn’t know he had cancer, and will pray for him too. Thank you.

The dude got beat up by Lebanese Nazis. . . . What’s not to love? I will always pray for you and wish the best for you, Mr. Hitchens.

So if Christopher dies will all you who are praying renounce your faith?  I didn’t think so.  I wish him the best which is all your prayers amount to and nothing more.

ded - Thomas walked the earth with Jesus and saw His works, yet he didn’t have all the facts until…. 

That may still be the case in CH’s story.  As I understand Catholic teaching - unbelievers will be giving one last chance - “face” to “face.”

I will definitely be praying for him! I know God will be with him during these difficult moments.

Someone here asked “why are atheists often so hateful”, I’m an atheist myself and I often wonder that. The vicious sanctimony and arrogance of exhibitionist atheists really turns me off and they seem so dogmatically resistant to recognizing all the good that good religion, as opposed to bad religion, does. And there IS a big difference. You’d have to be willfully blind not to see that atheist societies decline and fail (USSR, socialist democrat Europe etc) and they are VASTLY more prone to political violence and oppression than sensibly religious ones like the US.

Hitchens never understood, or refused to understand, that INDIVIDUALS can do without god (I do), but societies can’t.

He’s in my prayers.

Prayers are not only for healing. They are also for strength and peace.  Hitchens’ fierce spirit and quest for truth always makes me think of Saul of Tarsus.

What’s with all this reference to Bronze Age deities? MY deity is from the Iron Age!

Think I’ll just send good vibes his way.  We don’t always agree, but we’re on the same side, and I’m happy he’s on OUR team.  Be well.

Yes, he would have made, and maybe could make, a wonderful Christian.  I hope he recovers and, in the process, has a conversion.

“When our specious was young and had no idea of how/why things worked such as earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, lightening, droughts, floods, sickness, etc.  These unintellegent humans imagined that some invisible entity was doing it.

Yet, as science has advanced - and will continue forever - each of these can now be explained. We don’t need any god to explain things anymore. “

Actually, they haven’t been explained. They have only been partly explained. For example, we can understand the non equilibrium dynamics that explain how energy flows through a tornado as it is converted from one form to another. However, we cannot explain where a tornado will strike. Weather is believed to be chaotic in the sense that small differences in the state of the atmosphere grow into large differences in the future state, such that no matter how accurately the state of the atmosphere is measured, it cannot be forecast far into the future. And below a certain scale we have a quantum superposition of states which results in an unpredictable future even in principle.

This same unpredictability in principal applies to every one of your examples.

Let’s pray for him AND Paypal him $5 to help his medical costs. That way we will have skin in the game and prayer may have more sincerity. As it is, the implication is that our prayer will not avail Mr Hitchens, and that is supposed to be a joke on him.

Read Suzanne Sommers book KNOCKOUT before going under chemo.  Many alternative possibilities out there to retain your dignity and build your immune system, not break your body down.  Praying for you and your awakening to God’s love for you. Very powerful, if you will let it in.

I’ll be praying.  Wouldn’t if be wonderful if he experienced God and converted?  Yet, we know that most atheists would attack him as weak and getting scared at the end.  The anti-God people don’t accept any other possibilities. 

Atheists like the amputee example—they demand proof.  But there is so much proof everywhere we look, including miracles that don’t include replacing limbs. The Godless have defined the rules of play for determining proof of God, failing to realize that it is not they that make the rules.

May God bless Christopher and open his heart.

Mike wrote:
“So, someone who has been spewing hatred of our Lord now has esophageal cancer.
I think He is clearly at work here. “

Ewwwwww.

I’m so sorry for you, Mike.

Praying for Christopher Hitchens to recover is certainly well-meant, and I doubt anyone will mind much.  It’s equally certainly completely pointless; prayer doesn’t actually work for that sort of thing.

The rest of it, though, is simply intellectually insulting.  Hitchens reached his position through careful consideration of the evidence; you are irrationally wishing for him to become irrational as well.  Fortunately, that won’t work either.

Oh, and Rosemary?  Suzanne Sommers is an idiot and her medical advice is not merely worthless but actively dangerous.

“The state was grateful for so brave a deed: a statue of Cocles was set up in the comitium, and he was given as much land as he could plough around in one day. Private citizens showed their gratitude in a striking fashion, in the midst of his official honours, for notwithstanding their great distress everybody made him some gift proportionate to his means, though he robbed himself of his own ration.” (Livy, I, translated by B. O. Foster).

God bless a brave man, and give him sight in his other eye, so that he may see the truth.

I am reminded of the scene from Cyrano de Bergerac”
ROXANE
  The Sister would convert you?

SISTER MARTHA
  Nay, not I!

CYRANO
  Hold! but it’s true! You preach to me no more, You, once so glib with holy words! I am Astonished!. . .
[(With burlesque fury)]
  Stay, I will surprise you too! Hark! I permit you. . .
[(He pretends to be seeking for something to tease her with, and to have found it)]
  . . .It is something new!—To—pray for me, to-night, at chapel-time!

ROXANE
  Oh! oh!

CYRANO
[(laughing)]
  Good Sister Martha is struck dumb!

SISTER MARTHA
[(gently)]
  I did not wait your leave to pray for you.

Pray this Chaplet faithfully and sincerely during the 3:00 Blessed Hour of Our Lord and Christopher will be approached by Our Lord. Unite anything of our trails with His Passion, and if in accordance with His Will, He will answer. Trust, Trust, Trust in Him. Noone is a lost cause for Heaven if sincere love comes from our hearts in the form of prayer. If we only recognize and believe in the power each of us have.

Our Lord appraches all of us before the end of our lives, even if there seconds to repent. Always searching for the lost sheep, that He and all of Heaven might rejoice at their late salvation. His grace is sufficient, even if he gives Chris small graces to consider changing His heart as this horrible disease takes hold of him.  Our Lord’s Passion and love spills over on every soul, from almost 2000 years ago. It’s only too late when we pass from this world after rejecting it.

God Bless You Chris.

http://www.chapletofdivinemercy.net/

I am an atheist, but I know my mother prays for me all the time. Not for my conversion—at least not that she tells me—but for things such as my health and success in my career. I take it as a show of concern.
I think the power of prayer is absolute rubbish, but I appreciate the thought. I also don’t believe in ‘luck,’ at least not in a superstitious sense, but I appreciate when someone wishes me “good luck.”
I’m sure Mr Hitchens would appreciate your sincere wishes for his recovery. However, I also have absolutely no doubt that he would have a well-crafted and delightfully acerbic response about your prayers for his conversion.

I see a lot of very silly and uninformed comments here by various people who imagine they are atheists. I think Hitch would dispose of the bulk of their tedious little arguments with a few of his pithily acerbic remarks.

And I will pray for him ... G-d has a plan for you Chris Hitchens ...

Hitchens is a one-off, free thinking iconoclast. The world would be notably poorer without him.I like a guy who says what he thinks, even if he knows he will be ostracized for it.
As someone noted, anyone who gets beat up by Lebanese Nazis (because he tore down their swaztika-ish flag) has to be cool.
dennymack

This article along with some of the “holier-than-thou” comments smack of opportunism.  Didn’t Jesus say not to pray in public (Matthew 6:5-6)?

I wish you a speedy recovery Christopher!

“Didn’t Jesus say not to pray in public (Matthew 6:5-6)?”

No, He said not to pray in order to impress people.

As for the supposed atheists who insist that prayer is useless, you have to chuckle at their belief that they are sufficiently omniscient to know how the Universe works.

By all means, pray for Mr. Hitchens.  It’ll be better for you than it will be for Hitchens.  It’ll make you feel good about yourself, and that’s not a bad thing, is it?

hitch get well.

this article is hysterical.

To paraphrase Dawkins term- God Delusion- Hitchens himself labored under another delusion-that smoking cigarettes would be without consequence. What do you think causes esophagal cancer? And as he suffers unto to death Hitchens will have to come to accept the fact that he himself believed in a god-a much smaller and falser one-cigarettes.

“So, someone who has been spewing hatred of our Lord now has esophageal cancer. I think He is clearly at work here.”

No it wasn’t the years of excessive smoking and drinking that gave him esophageal cancer, it was a bearded sky fairy.  Afterall, Hitchens did say that he often drank enough in one sitting to stun or kill a mule.

Also, you’d think that he would get cancer of the Larynx or Voice Box for making comments against God, not esophageal cancer.

Nice try, though.

This is a man tried who to tear down the catholic church and yet we still pray for him, we pray for all our enemies. What is wrong with some of you people. You have no respect. How did you even find an article on a catholic website? I pray for you too.

I didn’t mean to call him an enemy by the way, I meant people who see themselves as enemies to the church.

God Bless

Get well soon.

Peace and love for you.

Well, through prayer, perhaps there will be good news that will expunge or mitigate the sad news of Mr. Hutchins’ battle against cancer.

I notice (with no surprise but with disappointment) the tone and attitude in some of the comments that follow the article. Religious faith (or, in some significant cases, lack of it), sad to say, sometimes, somehow compels (or allows) people to say some insensitive things. Perhaps some of those offering unpleasant comments ought to take a moment and reflect upon the “golden rule.”

Or even better, perhaps some of those offering unpleasant comments (either about Mr. Hutchins or in response to others offering comments) ought to remember this adage (which I paraphrase): It is better to remain silent and be thought a(n insensitive) fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

I will pray for Mr. Hitchens. The power of prayer is great, as modern-day miracles are occurring. The greater ones are not those of the body, but of the heart and emotions.

“As for the supposed atheists who insist that prayer is useless, you have to chuckle at their belief that they are sufficiently omniscient to know how the Universe works.”

I agree, its not like you can test these sorts of things.  Who even knows for sure if gravity works?  LOL people think they know how the universe works.

Actually praying has been tested and shown to have zero affect on a patients recovery.  Several times.

“Who even knows for sure if gravity works?”

See, you might have shown some real wisdom if you had asked, “Who even knows for sure HOW gravity works?” Then you might at least have gained the humility of Einstein.

“its not like you can test these sorts of things.” & “praying has been tested and shown to have zero affect”

This is the confusion and/or ambivalence that people occasionally manifest when they realize that maybe they don’t know everything there is to know. Humility is your friend.

“Actually praying has been tested and shown to have zero affect on a patients recovery.  Several times.”

Actually, no, it hasn’t. Because it cannot BE proven. It’s beyond the realm of scientific proof, by definition. Science deals with the physical world, the natural realm, and measurable, quantifiable hypotheses and results. You cannot, however, measure anything intangible through normal scientific channels; hence you cannot “prove” anything “does or doesn’t work” through scientific studies when you cannot measure it or analyze it through the scientific method in the first place.

When by definition, supernatural elements are outside the realm of what can be discovered, analyzed, and quantified by science, then…how do you assume to tell ANYBODY whether or not it “works”? How do you even define what “working” would LOOK like in the case of prayer? Is the only way prayer “works” being that someone is “healed”? How do you measure “healing”? By reversal of disease or deformity? How is that a valid measurement or proof for something that by nature CANNOT be measured or proven by science?

Does love exist? Of course it does. So measure it for me. Prove it to me. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Does hatred exist? Of course it does. So measure it and “prove” its qualities. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Does good exist? Of course it does. So measure it, paint me a picture of it, and get back to me on it. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Does evil exist? How do you know this? Because you see it? How do you know what you see is evil? Has science measured it for you?

Of course, it hasn’t. And you can’t, either. Yet an atheist, in infinite arrogance and illogic, has the nerve to tell a theist/Christian that what he/she believes in “doesn’t exist” merely because he/she can’t measure it and “prove” it…or because someone spoon-fed you a bad version of who God is, and you rejected it…or because someone “convinced” you through totally skewed illogic, that “certain things” exist—even though you cannot see them any more than you can “see” love, hatred, or even gravity—yet other things don’t exist “because they can’t be proven.”

If it weren’t so sad, it’d be funny to watch these convolutions.

You cannot SHOW me gravity, any more than you can SHOW me the wind. You can show me the effects of gravity. Or you could step out of a ten-story window and test it for yourself, if you insist on only believing in what you can see and “prove.”

I wouldn’t advise that.

As for these other things…

You can show me the effects of love.
You can show me the effects of hatred.
You cannot, however, SHOW me those intangibles…because they ARE intangible. They are outside the realm of scientific “proof.”

Ergo, there is no such thing as a valid “study” proving that “prayer has no effect” whatsoever…because there is NO WAY to measure this. Hence, there is no way to “prove” or “disprove” effects of prayer. It simply is beyond and above scientific proof.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to themselves, first, and to you, second. We theists merely don’t choose to believe lies based on the illogical house of cards necessary to support all this atheistic vitriol, ridicule, and sarcasm. Overall, by sheer logic…I’d say we theists are not only having a much better time, but…in the end…our world actually makes sense. Yours, my atheistic friend, does not.

JB

“Thy will be done”....

First:  I know <strike> he doesn’t </strike> you don’t want me to and I know <strike> he thinks </strike> you think it is useless but, Christopher Hitchens, I am praying for you.  (FTFY.)  Poor use of pronouns or not,  this is probably the most sanctimonious piece of writing I’ve ever seen.  I’m praying to the one, true Flying Spaghetti Monster that Pat Archbold will become a convert to FSMism.

To Astro:  why bothering being on this website?  your comment is disgusting…

“Actually, no, it hasn’t. Because it cannot BE proven. It’s beyond the realm of scientific proof, by definition. Science deals with the physical world, the natural realm, and measurable, quantifiable hypotheses and results. You cannot, however, measure anything intangible through normal scientific channels; hence you cannot “prove” anything “does or doesn’t work” through scientific studies when you cannot measure it or analyze it through the scientific method in the first place.
“When by definition, supernatural elements are outside the realm of what can be discovered, analyzed, and quantified by science, then…how do you assume to tell ANYBODY whether or not it “works”? How do you even define what “working” would LOOK like in the case of prayer? Is the only way prayer “works” being that someone is “healed”? How do you measure “healing”? By reversal of disease or deformity? How is that a valid measurement or proof for something that by nature CANNOT be measured or proven by science?”

Yes and no.  You are correct that science cannot observe the supernatural, but the mistake you’ve made is that you have overlooked that science can measure the recoveries of the patients getting prayed for.  The studies I referred too, which number in the dozens, record and observe the recovery rated of patients who are being prayed for and patients who are not being prayed for.  In these studies, there have been no difference in recoveries between these two groups of patients.

For example, one study looked at patients with heart problems going through heart surgery.  It observed over 1800 people, half prayed for and half not, and saw no difference in recovery rates, or lack of (or presence of) complications.  Both groups of patients faired the same.  You asked what does healing look like but you should know.  Look at your Bible and the healing miracles written about.  Read what the Bible has to say about the power of prayer, especially for healing.  You don’t see anything of the sort in these studies.

So you are correct, science cannot measure the supernatural.  Thankfully science is studying the supposed effects a supernatural item has on the physical realm (sick patients) – something it’s completely capable of doing.  This also brings up the always interesting question of “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?”

“Does love exist? Of course it does. So measure it for me. Prove it to me. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Does hatred exist? Of course it does. So measure it and “prove” its qualities. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Does good exist? Of course it does. So measure it, paint me a picture of it, and get back to me on it. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Does evil exist? How do you know this? Because you see it? How do you know what you see is evil? Has science measured it for you?”

If you’re trying to make a parallel here you’ve failed.  Love and hate are emotions with a physical source.  Science is certainly adept in observing these, and other, feelings.  You cannot compare these items to the mechanics of prayer, because the mechanics of prayer are supernatural, unlike love and hate.  Good and evil, depending how you define them, are conceptual ideas – and are not supernatural.

I do not have to prove, disprove, measure, or do anything else to these ideas until you show their relevance to our conversation of whether or not science can measure the effectiveness of prayer.

“Of course, it hasn’t. And you can’t, either.”

Actually when it comes to human emotions, such as love and hate as you listed, it can and already did.  Pick up just about any recent neurology book and you will see this.

“Yet an atheist, in infinite arrogance and illogic, has the nerve to tell a theist/Christian that what he/she believes in “doesn’t exist” merely because he/she can’t measure it and “prove” it…or because someone spoon-fed you a bad version of who God is, and you rejected it…or because someone “convinced” you through totally skewed illogic, that “certain things” exist—even though you cannot see them any more than you can “see” love, hatred, or even gravity—yet other things don’t exist “because they can’t be proven.”

Atheism has many strong arguments for its lack of belief and can even go the extra mile and dismantle your arguments for God.  If you’d like, we can go deeper into that subject so that I may back up what I’ve claimed, but I’d rather stay on topic and discuss prayer.  I’d also rather cut out the assertions, saying that atheism is this or that and not backing it up does nothing for your case.  Put something behind your claims or they’ll remain empty words which do nothing but waste my time.

“You cannot SHOW me gravity, any more than you can SHOW me the wind. You can show me the effects of gravity. Or you could step out of a ten-story window and test it for yourself, if you insist on only believing in what you can see and “prove.”
I wouldn’t advise that.”
As for these other things…
You can show me the effects of love.
You can show me the effects of hatred.
You cannot, however, SHOW me those intangibles…because they ARE intangible. They are outside the realm of scientific “proof.”
Ergo, there is no such thing as a valid “study” proving that “prayer has no effect” whatsoever…because there is NO WAY to measure this. Hence, there is no way to “prove” or “disprove” effects of prayer. It simply is beyond and above scientific proof.”

You misunderstand the discussion at hand.  Science isn’t actually measuring the supposed supernatural effects of prayer, its measuring its effect on the natural world – or at least the claim that it does have an effect on the natural world.  It’s still measuring the natural, and its saying that praying or not praying has the same effect.  Ergo, prayer has no effect on the natural world.

You’re essentially telling me that when Jesus spit in the dirt and rubbed that into a blind person’s eye and gave him his sight back that we cannot know for sure whether or not he was healed (dispite having his sight back) or not because Jesus gave the spit and dirt supernatural power (for lack of a better word).  Sure science cannot test the supernatural aspect of it, but it can see that the man was healed (the natrual aspect of it).

“Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to themselves, first, and to you, second. We theists merely don’t choose to believe lies based on the illogical house of cards necessary to support all this atheistic vitriol, ridicule, and sarcasm. Overall, by sheer logic…I’d say we theists are not only having a much better time, but…in the end…our world actually makes sense. Yours, my atheistic friend, does not.”

Baseless assertions and rude banter, the standard angry theistic response.

“Thy will be done….”

How does that make you feel when you apply that comment to the millions of innocent children who starve to death each year?

“See, you might have shown some real wisdom if you had asked, “Who even knows for sure HOW gravity works?” Then you might at least have gained the humility of Einstein.

“its not like you can test these sorts of things.” & “praying has been tested and shown to have zero affect”

This is the confusion and/or ambivalence that people occasionally manifest when they realize that maybe they don’t know everything there is to know. Humility is your friend.”

No, you do not need to add “HOW” into my sentence.  It makes sense, and makes a point, when read exactly how I worded it.

One does not need to be “sufficiently omniscient” in order to understand the existence of gravity and its workings.  And, despite your claim otherwise, one does not need to be “sufficiently omniscient” in order to see that prayer doesn’t work.

Oh and by the way, the “its not like you can test these sorts of things.” was a sarcastic comment.  It’s not your fault, sarcasm in text is harder to pick up.  You can test these things.  Both gravity and prayer have been tested, one idea works and the other does not.  I’ll let you decide which is which, and no you don’t need to be “sufficiently omniscient” in order to figure this one out.

Also, what is “sufficiently omniscient”?  That implies the existence of insufficiently omniscient, which further implies that there are levels of omniscient – which is contrary to logic.  You either are, or are not, omniscient, there are no levels to it.  You are either married or not, there is no in-between.  Are you just using words as they come to mind?

It is a horrible and painful situation as all suffering is especially the innocent.  Our Lord created all of us with a specific reason and our mission is not usually known to us in this life.  What we do as Catholics is offer up our suffering and pray for those however they are hurting.  And by the way, as I mentioned before, why do you go to a website or read a Catholic paper if you are a vehement non-believer?  Is it to aggitate, appease your guilt or perhaps find answers as you search for the Truth?

@Dr. Mom,
 
1 billion new Christians may have been an exaggeration.  Would you accept 100 million?
 
The point is that if an amputee was healed by the Christian god - publicly - it would truly change the world. If God allegedly raises people from the dead (and restore their dead and decaying cells, organs and brain) then healing an amputee should be no problem.
 
There has never been a ‘miracle’ in the supernatural sense.  A ‘miracle’ is something we humans label when we don’t currently have a natural explanation. Just as germs were not known until the recent past.  When someone became ill the tribes attributed it to a god or a spirit.

“the mistake you’ve made is that you have overlooked that science can measure the recoveries of the patients getting prayed for.”
The mistake you’ve made is to assume that prayer is like some medical treatment that is directly proportionate to the amount applied.
——-
“How does that make you feel when you apply that comment to the millions of innocent children who starve to death each year?”
Please. As if no one has addressed this question before in the whole of Christendom. If you are serious about it, you might start with the City of God by Augustine, back in the 5th century.

“Also, what is ‘sufficiently omniscient’?  That implies the existence of insufficiently omniscient,”

As you say, sarcasm is sometimes difficult to pick up. I meant that people who claim to know if something like prayer works or not, many times cannot even frame the proper questions. See my post above.

@YouKnowWho,
 
“Actually, they haven’t been explained. They have only been partly explained.”
 
That’s not the point.  We do know that a tornado is a naturally occurring weather pattern.  We may not *yet* know the exact path of a tornado but that doesn’t mean it is supernatural.  Just because we don’t someone fully doesn’t mean our present knowledge is worthless.

We now know that earthquakes are not caused by invisible spirits but are caused by plate tectonics.  When the late Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on gays and abortion (I was still a Christian then) I was sickened by his words. That is so nutty it’s absurd.  Likewise with Pat Robertson stating that the Haiti earthquake was caused by a previous generation making a pact with the devil.

“There has never been a ‘miracle’ in the supernatural sense.”
-
This is an example of that “omniscience” (and arrogance) I was talking about. This person claims to know what has happened in the whole of the Universe, from time immemorial. Pretty good for a mere mortal!!

Sickness helps humility.  The humility may help Mr. Hitchens hear God.

I find it amusing that the author praises Hitchens’s “defense of western civilization” against Islam when Hitchens himself would point out that that defense is rooted in his atheism. Indeed, if you actually READ his book God Is Not Great, you will find that he attacks Islam quite frequently alongside Christianity

Christopher Hitchens is an atheist. He DOES NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD (because there’s no such thing, but that’s a whole other topic…) Don’t you think praying for him is a little arrogant? If he has gained fame for rejecting something, is it really fair to jam it down his throat when he’s sick and for the most part unable to respond? NO. Of course not. Don’t pray for him, just let him be.

“The mistake you’ve made is to assume that prayer is like some medical treatment that is directly proportionate to the amount applied.”

Funny, I never made that assumption.  Straw-man much?

Faith the size of a mustard seed can move a mountain, if its that powerful not much is needed for prayer healing.  Since that is so, why don’t we see it?

Jennifer-Mr. Hitchens would probably be all for it.  I’ve seen him respond in a debate that he’d love for there to be a God, but that he just can’t see how one could exist.  He wouldn’t be so rude as you to reject a gift, whatever that gift may be.  If the bearer of the gift thinks there is merit to the gift, who are you to stomp on it?!?! 
Chris-As far as miraculous healing, there is documentation of it happening.  You, however, are expecting it to look a particular way.  Again, just because what you are looking for does not happen DOES NOT indicate the prayer has not been answered.  Another thought: maybe you overestimate the faith you talk about.  Maybe it is not close to being the size of a mustard seed…do we really understand the quality of faith we are to have?  Maybe we all fall short. Maybe asking for a certain response and only that response shows how little faith indeed we have.

“It is a horrible and painful situation as all suffering is especially the innocent.  Our Lord created all of us with a specific reason and our mission is not usually known to us in this life.”

How uplifting, I wonder how those children would feel if you were to tell them that their reason for existance is so that they can suffer and die a horrible and senseless death.  Maybe that isn’t hard to swallow, but it does bring up a larger question.

If thats their mission in life, to starve, then is feeding them going against God’s wishes for them?  Might want to think twice before interfearing with God’s plan.

“What we do as Catholics is offer up our suffering and pray for those however they are hurting.”

Well just incase that doesn’t work, I’ll be making donations and doing charitable deeds as a back up plan.

“And by the way, as I mentioned before, why do you go to a website or read a Catholic paper if you are a vehement non-believer?  Is it to aggitate, appease your guilt or perhaps find answers as you search for the Truth?”

None of the above, its probably very close to Christian’s being evangelical.  I feel that my views are more correct than yours.  I feel that the world could be a better place if more people shared my view.  I felt the same when I was a Christian, so I don’t see a need to quit doing that just because I switched onto the other side of the fence.

“Chris-As far as miraculous healing, there is documentation of it happening.”

Can these instances stand up to intense skepticism, I don’t think they can.  You’re not the only team that claims their prayers can hit home runs,  Muslims claim that the have evidence of their prayers working too.  I wonder if you would apply equal skepticism to your claims as you, at least odds are, would apply to theirs.

“You, however, are expecting it to look a particular way.  Again, just because what you are looking for does not happen DOES NOT indicate the prayer has not been answered.”

It is and it isn’t what *I* am looking for.  It is what I am looking for because it is what the Bible has claimed.  It’s not like this is my own idea that I created, its what the Bible says.  So yea I am looking for it, but its only because I’m looking to see if someone elses claim is correct.

The Bible says that prayers are answered if the people who are making these prayers have faith.  The Bible goes on to make a special connection between prayers and healing - even Jesus and his disciples did this.  This isn’t my claim, its the Bible’s claim.  Based on what I’ve read, you would expect prayer to physically make someone better.

“Another thought: maybe you overestimate the faith you talk about.  Maybe it is not close to being the size of a mustard seed…do we really understand the quality of faith we are to have?  Maybe we all fall short. Maybe asking for a certain response and only that response shows how little faith indeed we have.”

Perhaps, but I do not think this view is held within the Bible.

“This is an example of that “omniscience” (and arrogance) I was talking about. This person claims to know what has happened in the whole of the Universe, from time immemorial. Pretty good for a mere mortal!!”

Ah, I see exactly what you mean now.  Well, at least you’ll never see someone on your side of the fence making claims like that.  I’ve certainly never heard any Christian make claims of fact about the Universe, or its workings.

Jennifer, we shall pray for Mr. Hitchens, and we do it in good will.

You rightly point out that being AGAINST a belief in God is what made him famous, and one might point out that this is part of the professional atheist’s line of life- having to fight sickness/death while the Christians pray for him.

It’s part of his chosen walk of life. If it brought him fame and fortune then to duel with the believers, I doubt it’ll harm him now.

Also, St. Teresa of Avila said that one miserable life on this Earth is like a night spent in a bad hotel considering the eternity of Heaven.

It’s a good thing that Catholics are more concerened (generally) about souls rather than lives.

I am incredulous that so many people have taken offense at the suggestion of praying for Mr. Hitchens!  Apparently these people need to be added to the general prayer list.  I also wonder why an atheist is bothered by the idea of someone believing in God and praying to Him - that seems to negate the point of atheism.

@liseux I’m more concerned about life than soul because I have proof that life exists, whereas I have no such assurance about a soul.

On the issue of miraculous healing, it is worth considering what Carl Sagan had to say about the healings at Lourdes: “Something like a hundred million people have come to Lourdes since then in hope of being cured, many with illnesses that the medicine of the time was helpless to defeat. The Roman Catholic Church rejected the authenticity of large numbers of claimed miraculous cures, accepting only 65 in nearly a century and a half…The odds of a miraculous cure at Lourdes, then, are about one in a million.”

Therese:

It bothers them because there is the implication that their life isn’t theirs alone to do with it what they wish—the notion that there might be consequences to their actions is the bogeyman that lurks in the back of every atheist’s skeleton-filled closet.

What’s most amusing is the arguments put forth by the village atheists: every argument proffered on this thread has been dispatched countless times and usually centuries ago, yet village atheists keep rehashing them because they think they still carry philosophical weight—they do not.

(And no, atheists, I am not going to waste my time going through each of them and, no, this does not mean you are correct.)

(Also, I say the above as a non-Christian, small ‘d’, deist.)

@ECM Maybe we keep using the same arguments because you keep believing in the non-existent gods.

“It bothers them because there is the implication that their life isn’t theirs alone to do with it what they wish—the notion that there might be consequences to their actions is the bogeyman that lurks in the back of every atheist’s skeleton-filled closet.”

Just like my wife, I’m thankful there are so many people who can tell me how I’m feeling.

“What’s most amusing is the arguments put forth by the village atheists: every argument proffered on this thread has been dispatched countless times and usually centuries ago, yet village atheists keep rehashing them because they think they still carry philosophical weight—they do not.

(And no, atheists, I am not going to waste my time going through each of them and, no, this does not mean you are correct.)”

Must be nice to jump in a conversation, pretend to be a mind reader, tell people how they really feel, make assertions, refuse to back them up, then tuck tail and run pretending that you cannot be proven wrong.

“(Also, I say the above as a non-Christian, small ‘d’, deist.)”

Interesting, small ‘d’ deists use the same arguments against classical theism as atheists do.  Furthermore, they don’t believe in a personal God, so the prayer thing really doesn’t do much for them.  Nor does the threats of hell for being bad or heaven for being good.  Not sure why you’re so upset at atheists, you have no reason to be.  We’d agree more than disagree, and when we’d disagree it wouldn’t be a big deal.

You’re either confused at what a diest is, or a christian posing as something else.  I don’t really care which it is, neither are good.

Posted by TheExpatriate700 on Friday, Jul 2, 2010 5:22 PM (EST):@liseux I’m more concerned about life than soul because I have proof that life exists, whereas I have no such assurance about a soul

So, you are putting your faith in there being no soul.

A soul is immaterial, so empirical proof is impossible.  Just because we are limited by the constricts of science (only empirical, only natural world,...), why should we think nothing more exists?  How could we even begin to PROVE that the empirical/natural is all that exists?  That itself has to be taken on faith.

“So, you are putting your faith in there being no soul.

A soul is immaterial, so empirical proof is impossible.  Just because we are limited by the constricts of science (only empirical, only natural world,...), why should we think nothing more exists?  How could we even begin to PROVE that the empirical/natural is all that exists?  That itself has to be taken on faith. “

You’ve got 2 jars, one jar has a soul in it, the other has nothing.  How can you tell which jar has the soul in it?

Odd, supernatural/immaterial is indistinguishable from nothing.

Also, it isn’t faith.  Faith is believing in things you cannot see (Hebrews 11:1).  The fact that he doesn’t believe in something he cannot see is the opposite of faith.

I did not know that Chris Hitchens was sick, but I will pray for him. Jesus said in Matthew 5:44, ” But I say unto you, LOVE your enemies, BLESS them that curse you, DO GOOD to them that hate you,and PRAY for them which despitefully use you, and PERSECUTE you”. Christians have no choice in this matter. Dear Lord, Please heal Mr. Hitchens and let him know the real joy of being a Born-Again Christian. Amen

@dude

“That’s not the point.  We do know that a tornado is a naturally occurring weather pattern.  We may not *yet* know the exact path of a tornado but that doesn’t mean it is supernatural.  Just because we don’t someone fully doesn’t mean our present knowledge is worthless.
We now know that earthquakes are not caused by invisible spirits but are caused by plate tectonics.  When the late Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on gays and abortion (I was still a Christian then) I was sickened by his words. That is so nutty it’s absurd.  Likewise with Pat Robertson stating that the Haiti earthquake was caused by a previous generation making a pact with the devil.”

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, in there pronunciations about 9/11 and Haiti are committing the sin of judgement. Were these disasters God’s retribution, the retribution would have been deserved. In declaring that thhe disasters were retribution, Falwell and Robertson must hold that they were deserved retribution. They have judged, but Christ said, “judge not”. It is Christian doctrine that we are all sinners, so I cannot see how that Falwell and Robertson disobey Christ’s commands in some way reflects negatively on Christianity. They are behaving as humans when they say disgusting things like that these disasters are God’s retribution. Note well that one does not have to be a Christian to say disgusting things.

Re tornados etc., that their paths etc. cannot be predicted, even in principle is indeed the point. You named a list of things which you claimed were once thought to be supernatural and every single thing on that list has something about it that according to science today is beyond nature, nature being what science can investigate. Had your list included “a rock thrown truly hits its target” as something our elders thought was supernatural but today science understands, you would have named something that is not beyond nature according to today’s science. But you named a list of things, all of which contain an element of unpredictibility, in principle.

Ancient man did not understand Newton’s laws, either, which explains the path of a truly thrown rock, or of a well aimed arrow, but he did not see the supernatural at work here. He saw the supernatural at work in phenomena in which today, still, you can see the supernatural at work.

Understanding the laws of nature has nothing to do with it.

“Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, in there pronunciations about 9/11 and Haiti are committing the sin of judgement. Were these disasters God’s retribution, the retribution would have been deserved. In declaring that thhe disasters were retribution, Falwell and Robertson must hold that they were deserved retribution. They have judged, but Christ said, “judge not”. It is Christian doctrine that we are all sinners, so I cannot see how that Falwell and Robertson disobey Christ’s commands in some way reflects negatively on Christianity. They are behaving as humans when they say disgusting things like that these disasters are God’s retribution. Note well that one does not have to be a Christian to say disgusting things.”

I don’t think naming the cause of a disaster is judgement.  It would be like saying that if you explain why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, you’d be judging people and thats a sin.

“Re tornados etc., that their paths etc. cannot be predicted, even in principle is indeed the point.”

In principle they can be predicted to an accuracy of 100%, and as technology gets better and better so will the accuray of the predictions.  Tornados are a bit trickier, they are very small and don’t last too long (for the most part).  Their paths are hard to nail down because we cannot get the instruments

“You named a list of things which you claimed were once thought to be supernatural and every single thing on that list has something about it that according to science today is beyond nature, nature being what science can investigate.”

“According to science today”?  Could you please cite a few sources which specialize in natural disasters and claim as you do above?

“Understanding the laws of nature have nothing to do with it.”

Actually, they have everything to do with it.  When looking at why does nature act the way it does, understanding the laws that govern it explains exactly why it acts the way it does.  The more laws we understand, the more laws we discover, the more we understand how nature acts and why.

It’s not a coincidence that bronze age tribes with their lack of understanding and knowledge of nature didn’t build a plane.  We do it now with ease, we build planes that can not only fly, but fly at thousands of miles an hour.  If understanding the laws of nature have nothing to do with it, why has technology flurished?

You don’t see planes just fall out of the sky for some supernatural reason.  You look at the black box and you can see why it crashed.  Bridges just don’t fall into the water for no reason, there had to have been a structural problem.  When a car breaks down, its not because something lifted the laws of nature from applying to it.  There is something wrong with one of the parts.

It’s all nature.  You never see its laws suspended, and in most every day cases you don’t even think that it would (unless somehow religion is tossed in, your religion specifically).

Chris: “Odd, supernatural/immaterial is indistinguishable from nothing.”  Only by the empirical means available to us.  What is the proof that the material is all there is?  Your example is simply proof that a soul is immaterial, which was already assumed.  Your assumption - that the material world is all there is - is simply an assumption.  Something you take on faith.  Faith is simply believing in something you don’t have the proof for.  As such, you have FAITH that the material world is all there is.
Chris: “The fact that he doesn’t believe in something he cannot see is the opposite of faith.”  No, that would be Materialism.

Woke up this morning, just like any other Saturday morning. Looked at the clock, 7:32. Another Saturday, yet another opportunity to do something nice for others, and only God would know. The urging to go to church, if not for myself, a chance to offer a mass for the poor souls in purgatory. Would like to do this 1000 times for them. I’m only on number 2.

Offer the mass and me being there solely for them. But wait, how about for others who need it like I do - perhaps for Chris and others who don’t believe in God, Many on this site, well versed intelligent people, much more so than me. Only difference is that that don’t know God - but if they did they, I’m sure they would be a much better Christian than I ever could. What to do, people don’t listen, you can write one response after another and they still get angry at you for even considering to pray for them.

Ah, forget it, what’s the use, I’d rather sleep in. Too lazy, always seems to get the best of me to exchange best intentions from yesterday for a couple more hours of sleep. But, this time, I did manage to drag myself up and head to mass.

Walked in with a few minutes to spare, to hear the reciting of the last mystery of the Rosary. Glorius Mysteries. Then Mass started.

I did my best to pay attention, on behalf of souls and people I don’t even know. Wasn’t doing my best, my mind was wondering. Then, the Gospel is read. The Gospel of Doubting Thomas, the Apostle. Today is his feast day.

You know the story - Thomas refused to believe unless he could see Jesus and place his finger in Our Lord’s wounds. Jesus eventually appeared to him a week later and told him to put his hands in his wounds, as Thomas had insisted. “No longer persist in your disbelief, but believe”. Blest are those who have not seen me, yet still believe”, said Jesus.

How appropriate of a response for all of us, and for this discussion. We all have a little doubting Thomas in us. I’ll let it rest there on Jesus’ words. Nothing else to say.

God Bless everyone on this site.

Chris: “It’s all nature.  You never see its laws suspended, and in most every day cases you don’t even think that it would (unless somehow religion is tossed in, your religion specifically).”

Gee. Even Carl Sagan admits to miracles happening.  The fact that they happen “once in a million” is way more than “never.”

Also, ‘Who has seen the wind…....or, ‘dark matter, or ‘dark enrgy’...will you not believe until you can see??

“Also, ‘Who has seen the wind…....or, ‘dark matter, or ‘dark enrgy’...will you not believe until you can see??”

I can feel the wind as it brushes past my body. Scientific instruments can detect dark matter. No one has seen Jesus of Nazareth in the past 2000 years. Or Muhammad. Or Joseph Smith. Or Vishnu.

The fundamental dogma of the Religion Of Science chanted at the laboratory altar is the VERIFIABILITY CRITERION OF MEANING “Propositions are statements that have conditions under which they can be verified. By the verification principle, meaningful statements have conditions under which their validity can be affirmed or denied.Statements that are not meaningful cannot be expressed as propositions. Every verifiable proposition is meaningful, although it may be either true or false. Every proposition asserts or denies something, and thus is either true or false.”

Note well - this dogma itself is NOT verifiable as a meaningful statement. This is merely accepted on scientific faith.

TheExpatriate700 - You will have to excuse my style, as I started off with the poem but never intended to question you about the wind :-)  However, regarding ‘dark matter’: “As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive.”  Is Wikipedia in need of update???
I’m not understanding why it is important that no one has seen Jesus since Ascension.  Goodness, we haven’t seen Alexander the Great or, even,  Aristotle for quite awhile, either.

“Only by the empirical means available to us.  What is the proof that the material is all there is?  Your example is simply proof that a soul is immaterial, which was already assumed.  Your assumption - that the material world is all there is - is simply an assumption.”

If only you saw the game you’re playing…  I guess the idea that there is only one sun in which our world revolves around is also an assumption, because there could be a supernatural sun there as well but we just cannot detect it.

Whether or not you can shoulder it, the burden of proof is on you.  Your side of the fence claims that there is this realm beyond ours, therefore it’s your responsibility to show that it exists.  On purpose or not, theists have described this realm as not being made up of what our natural universe is.  There is a problem with that, though.  When asked what exactly “supernatural” is, skeptics are always told what it is not.  That’s not a definition.  A definition tells you what something is, not what it is not.  You can derive what it is not from the definition, sure; but a definition tells you what something is.  So before you even try and shoulder the burden of proof you need to come up with a definition of what supernatural *IS*.

“Something you take on faith.  Faith is simply believing in something you don’t have the proof for.  As such, you have FAITH that the material world is all there is.”

Again, you’re saying that I’m taking the idea that there is only one sun which the earth revolves around on faith.  If you want to skew reality like that and pretend that I am adhering to faith, I cannot stop you.  But intelligent people will see what you’re doing.

” Gee. Even Carl Sagan admits to miracles happening.  The fact that they happen “once in a million” is way more than “never.”

First, I’d like to see something showing that Carl Sagan believed that supernatural events have taken place here in the universe.

Second, I’m not Carl Sagan.

” Also, ‘Who has seen the wind…....or, ‘dark matter, or ‘dark enrgy’...will you not believe until you can see??

Not sure why wind usually gets brought up in conversations of faith and believing in things we cannot see, educated people aren’t amazed at wind.  Wind is air moving from high pressures to low pressures.  Again, its air moving.  You should probably check out the periodic table, then check out what percentages of what element are found in the air.  Then come back to me and tell me that we cannot see “wind” and are taking its existence on faith.  And because I have a feeling you probably will come back with a rebuttal, powerful instruments be it microscopes or telescopes or anything similar counts as us seeing the existence of something.  These powerful instruments are no different from our eyes, they work in the same fashion and obey the same laws.  If that doesn’t count as us “seeing”, then our eyes don’t cut it either.

@St. Charley. No one is trying to sell me on the idea that Alexander the Great and Aristotle are still alive and controlling the universe. Also keep in mind that if you’re going to cite a source as scientific authority, it shouldn’t be wikipedia.

On the Carl Sagan issue, I have read Sagan’s book The Demon Haunted World, published shortly before he died, which debunked miracles and other supernatural phenomenon.

DOES ANYONE ELSE FIND IT INTERESTING HOW OFTEN THOSE DISINCLINED TO BELIEVE SIMPLY POST A WEBSITE, AS IF THAT ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS AND DECISIVELY DEALT WITH ALL DOUBTS?  WHO IS REALLY MORE CREDULOUS IN THIS DEBATE???

@Chris

“I don’t think naming the cause of a disaster is judgement.”

It is if you say God caused the disaster as retribution for the sins of those who suffered the disaster.

“In principle they [tornados] can be predicted to an accuracy of 100%, and as technology gets better and better so will the accuray of the predictions.”

In principal they cannot. At microscopic levels there is a superposition of states. This is a principal of quantum mechanics. It means that the weather that we observe later could evolve from any of these superposed states. Since in chaotic systems small differences grow into large differences (and measurement changes the state) the future weather ranges over a wide range of indeterminate possibilities.

All the other examples you listed are large scale events that grow from microscopic events which are indeterminate by the laws of quantum mechanics.

When we learned about quantum mechanics, we learned that nature is in principle unpredictable.

“DOES ANYONE ELSE FIND IT INTERESTING HOW OFTEN THOSE DISINCLINED TO BELIEVE SIMPLY POST A WEBSITE, AS IF THAT ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS AND DECISIVELY DEALT WITH ALL DOUBTS?  WHO IS REALLY MORE CREDULOUS IN THIS DEBATE???”

I AGREE, ITS ALMOST AS BAD AS THOSE WHO ARE INCLINED TO BELIEVE WHO QUOTE SCRIPTURE FROM THEIR HOLY BOOK, AS IF THAT ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS AND DECISIVELY DEALT WITH ALL DOUBTS.

Chris> My reference to Carl Sagan regarded the following which had been posted earlier.  Carl Sagan gave odds re: miracles. Funny, they don’t equal zero.

TheExpatriate700 on Friday, Jul 2, 2010 5:27 PM (EST):On the issue of miraculous healing, it is worth considering what Carl Sagan had to say about the healings at Lourdes: “Something like a hundred million people have come to Lourdes since then in hope of being cured, many with illnesses that the medicine of the time was helpless to defeat. The Roman Catholic Church rejected the authenticity of large numbers of claimed miraculous cures, accepting only 65 in nearly a century and a half…The odds of a miraculous cure at Lourdes, then, are about one in a million.”

“It is if you say God caused the disaster as retribution for the sins of those who suffered the disaster.”

So did God scorch Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality and other sins?

“In principal they cannot. At microscopic levels there is a superposition of states. This is a principal of quantum mechanics. It means that the weather that we observe later could evolve from any of these superposed states. Since in chaotic systems small differences grow into large differences (and measurement changes the state) the future weather ranges over a wide range of indeterminate possibilities.

All the other examples you listed are large scale events that grow from microscopic events which are indeterminate by the laws of quantum mechanics.

When we learned about quantum mechanics, we learned that nature is in principle unpredictable.”

You are mistaken.  Quantum mechanics is not random at all, even if some scientists think about it that way.  The Schrodinger equation is completely deterministic.  Quantum mechanics appears random, in that all experimental results that have not been uncovered can be predicted and understood in the framework of quantum mechanics measurements being fundamentally random.  But it’s not fundamental randomness at all, rather its “emergent” randomness resulting from underlying hidden variables which deterministically cause measurement results to happen that specific way each time a test is run.

I will give you the deterministic aspect of quantum mechanics is still being debated, but it’s in no way a view few scientists hold.

The best way to describe it is to imagine a float moving around in a rough sea.  When observing the float it may seem as if the sea’s behavior is random, but you know that the sea’s waves are actually not random.  This is a bit like quantum mechanics, the results appear random, but they aren’t really random.  This appearance of randomness is the result of underlying variables which we haven’t grasped well enough yet.

“My reference to Carl Sagan regarded the following which had been posted earlier.  Carl Sagan gave odds re: miracles. Funny, they don’t equal zero.”

It is funny, I believe Carl Sagan was poking fun at that particular catholic belief.

If you would have actually read Carl Sagan’s works, you’d understand that him believing that miracles were possible would be like the Pope claiming that homosexuality isn’t a sin, that Jesus was gay, didn’t rise from the dead, and wasn’t the son of God.

This is an excellent example of how few theists actually understand atheits.

Chris: “If only you saw the game you’re playing…  I guess the idea that there is only one sun in which our world revolves around is also an assumption, because there could be a supernatural sun there as well but we just cannot detect it.”

First of all, I’m not talking about ‘whatever someone can imagine.’  I’m talking about things people have experienced, or have logically proved, but that can’t be touched empirically.  Like free-will, consciousness, conceptual thought, the self, and the rationality of the universe.  Like miraculous healing.  Like God.

And, second – roughly 4% of the universe is considered to consist of matter as we know it.  The rest is thought to consist of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy.’  A century ago they would never have thought a thing possible.  And, you belittle me that there may be some part of the universe (including the supernatural) that will not be detectable by empirical methods?  That time is now.

Last but not least, it is time to celebrate the birth of America!!  I’m outa here.

Chris, science is about prediction. If you have a theory which does not allow you to predict something which can be observed, then it is not a scientific theory.

Well, there is no theory whatsoever that gets around quantum indeterminacy. That is, there are no theories whatsoever that would allow a prediction to be made about what state will be observed when there is a quantum superposition before the observation.

I am talking about a theory which would allow an experimental demonstration of predictability concerning the measurement of superposed states.

There’s lots of metaphysical arm waving, but when it comes to falsifiable theory, there’s nothing. Period. Nor are there loads of scientists who think there ever will be.

The evolution of the Schrodinger wave function is mathematically deterministic except that it isn’t because we observe it to change discontinuously, and that discontinuous change is not part of the mathematics.

Unobservable hidden variables are, of course, metaphysical, not scientific. They are no more a part of science than God is.

Are you asking me about Sodom and Gomorrah? I make no assertion about Sodom and Gomorrah whatsoever.

“First of all, I’m not talking about ‘whatever someone can imagine.’ “

No, this is the door you open when you call my idea that there is no supernatural realm beyond our material universe an assumption.  The idea that our world revolves just one sun is an assumption, because there could be a supernatural sun which we cannot observe.

“I’m talking about things people have experienced, or have logically proved, but that can’t be touched empirically.  Like free-will, consciousness, conceptual thought, the self, and the rationality of the universe.  Like miraculous healing.  Like God.”

Free-will hasn’t been logically proved - not from a Christian standpoint, and regrettably not from an atheist’s standpoint either.

Consciousness has certainly been studied empirically, we know which areas of the brain contain conscious thought and which areas contain unconscious thought.  We can look at a normal person and compare them with someone in a coma and see the differences.  Not just “oh look there is come color here and no color there on this particular scan”.  Neurology has gotten so far in the past 5 years.

Conceptual thought would be tied in with consciousness.  Conceptual means of the mind, if a mind is conscious and thinking, then those thoughts would be conceptual.

The self is a bit ambiguous, the only thing I can pull from that is the existence of yourself.  I don’t see how you can claim there is no empirical evidence for one’s own self.

The rationality of the universe, can you dive further into this?

You are correct that there is no empirical evidence for miraculous healing and God, neither have been logically proven and personal experience doesn’t cut it for these items - especially for God.

“And, second – roughly 4% of the universe is considered to consist of matter as we know it.  The rest is thought to consist of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy.’  A century ago they would never have thought a thing possible.  And, you belittle me that there may be some part of the universe (including the supernatural) that will not be detectable by empirical methods?  That time is now.”

And you belittle me when I discuss the 2nd supernatural sun which our earth revolves around.  There is nothing wrong with having then mindset of “If there is no evidence for this specific item’s existence, I’ll hold off on believing it”.  The supernatural is just like that.  And again, as I said earlier, we need a working definition of what supernatural is - we still don’t have that.  Can you define the supernatural, can you tell me what it is?  All I have is your belief claims “prayer healing, God, etc.”  Those ideas are all I have to ponder, and those ideas don’t make sense when applied to what we observe in the natural world.

“Chris, science is about prediction. If you have a theory which does not allow you to predict something which can be observed, then it is not a scientific theory.
Well, there is no theory whatsoever that gets around quantum indeterminacy. That is, there are no theories whatsoever that would allow a prediction to be made about what state will be observed when there is a quantum superposition before the observation.
I am talking about a theory which would allow an experimental demonstration of predictability concerning the measurement of superposed states.
There’s lots of metaphysical arm waving, but when it comes to falsifiable theory, there’s nothing. Period. Nor are there loads of scientists who think there ever will be.
The evolution of the Schrodinger wave function is mathematically deterministic except that it isn’t because we observe it to change discontinuously, and that discontinuous change is not part of the mathematics.
Unobservable hidden variables are, of course, metaphysical, not scientific. They are no more a part of science than God is.”

For now, in an attempt to stay on topic, how does this affect the “macroworld”?  A single cell is made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms,  a tornado is trillions upon trillions the size of a cell.

NASA can put a probe on mars by relying on the laws of physics and knowing all the important variables involved in getting a probe from here to mars.  Why don’t you think that knowing many of the variables of a tornado won’t give us any indication of what it will do?

Have you ever heard of adequate determinism?

Excellent article, Pat. Thanks for reminding us of something we are expected to do as followers of Christ. It’s much too easy to put this aside these days, when prayer is required and needed more than ever.

@Chris

“For now, in an attempt to stay on topic, how does this affect the
“macroworld”? A single cell is made up of trillions upon trillions of
atoms, a tornado is trillions upon trillions the size of a cell.”

Chris, this is what I was talking about in my first post. Quantum indeterminacy at the microscopic level means that there is not a single state which evolves into a potentially arbitrarily accurate forecast. If two different states exist at the same time, because the attractor is chaotic, the weather that can potentially evolve from these two states will have increasingly large differences the further into the future you carry this prediction, and this is true no matter how accurately you can describe these two initial states.

Now there are not just two states superposed at the microscopic level. There is a virtual continuity of states - a very, very large number of them - all superposed and each one one of which will evolve into a different weather.

What this means is that weather is actually indeterminate.

Now, Chris, you speak of NASA putting a probe accurately on Mars. This is exactly what I was talking about when I talked about a thrown rock or a fired bullet. Here, the laws of science seem to allow no room for indeterminacy. In fact, there is indeterminacy in these things as well, but it takes a much longer time for it to grow into something as chaotic as weather. In fact, in both of these cases, regular inaccuracy due to measurement error will be much larger than chaotically amplified quantum indeterminism for the whole future flight of a mission to mars or a bullet to its target, so quantum indeterminacy in these cases has negligible effect. Ballistic interplanetary orbits, for example, take many billions of years for chaotic effects to show up.

Quantum indeterminacy also plays a huge role in the mutation of DNA, which is the process that drives evolution. Because high energy electromagnet radiation of the type which cause mutation is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, it is in principle not possible to predict which nucleotide will undergo a mutation in an electromagnetic environment sufficient to cause mutation.

That’s right. Biological mutation is indeterminate - random - in the sense that we cannot find an order in nature which would allow a pattern to be found relating mutation to input boundary conditions. Most scientists believe that this randomness is fundamental in nature.

“Chris, this is what I was talking about in my first post. Quantum indeterminacy at the microscopic level means that there is not a single state which evolves into a potentially arbitrarily accurate forecast.  If two different states exist at the same time, because the attractor is chaotic, the weather that can potentially evolve from these two states will have increasingly large differences the further into the future you carry this prediction, and this is true no matter how accurately you can describe these two initial states.”

Assuming that individual phenomena occur that cannot be predicted, such as the order in which subatomic particles decay (half-lives), I’m not seeing how these phenomena can accumulate into something large enough to have any noticeable effects on the “macroworld”.  Perhaps the individual phenomena is ultimately indeterministic, but large aggregations of these phenomena would be highly predictable.  It actually seems as if the opposite of what you’re saying would be true; the more you have of a substance the less of an effect quantum indeterminacy will have.  So when we are looking at a probe from earth to mars, or even a tornado, they are on a large enough scale that these individual phenomena average out into a very smooth and arguably deterministic universe (adequate determinism, as I stated earlier).

Even though I am reluctant to agree, the farthest I can see myself going with what I know now is accepting that the universe, at the quantum level, is truly random and chaotic.  But at the macro scale, this randomness averages out and the universe becomes deterministic.  The macro universe has general relativity and the micro universe has quantum mechanics.  Neither theory works or can be applied to the other’s scale.  To me the micro universe bit seems counter-intuitive, it would seem that there would be something behind quantum mechanics which would bring determinism back into the picture.  But on the macro universe scale, I’m going to have to have some ideas overturned and some new information introduced in order to drop the deterministic view on that.

“Re tornados etc., that their paths etc. cannot be predicted, even in principle is indeed the point. You named a list of things which you claimed were once thought to be supernatural and every single thing on that list has something about it that according to science today is beyond nature, nature being what science can investigate. Had your list included “a rock thrown truly hits its target” as something our elders thought was supernatural but today science understands, you would have named something that is not beyond nature according to today’s science. But you named a list of things, all of which contain an element of unpredictibility, in principle.

Ancient man did not understand Newton’s laws, either, which explains the path of a truly thrown rock, or of a well aimed arrow, but he did not see the supernatural at work here. He saw the supernatural at work in phenomena in which today, still, you can see the supernatural at work.”

Although you didn’t come out and say it you seem to imply that anything that is beyond nature, and you are saying that nature is anything science can investigate, that its supernatrual.

I agree with that until you make the connection between that and quantum indeterminism, pretending that science will always be in the dark on this matter.  I could do the same, and pretend that anything in that science cannot currently investigate must be wholely supernatural - which would include perfectly natural phenomenon.  Hell, this would actually imply that over the course of human history science has literally turned supernatural items into natural items simply because what we once thought was unreachable we can now test and investigate.

Sorry, it doesn’t work like that, you cannot shoehorn supernatural into existance like that.

The “I agree with that” in the second paragraph above should read “I kinda agree with that”.  Sorry.  I wish you could edit your posts.

We may become angry with people like Hitchens who throw slush on the Church, priests, and even Christ. But God has a purpose allowing him to go his way. Let us pray for wisdom to him to understand Jesus and to reveal to us the purpose of his power to throw stones at Christ and his Church.

Although I have been angered and offended by some of the things Mr. Hitchens has said, I’ve always liked him, and I’m sorry to hear about his cancer. I’ll be praying for him, too.

@Chris

“I agree with that until you make the connection between that and quantum indeterminism, pretending that science will always be in the dark on this matter.  I could do the same, and pretend that anything in that science cannot currently investigate must be wholely supernatural - which would include perfectly natural phenomenon.  Hell, this would actually imply that over the course of human history science has literally turned supernatural items into natural items simply because what we once thought was unreachable we can now test and investigate.”

I will respond to this and some of your other posts here. Before I do that, I will present you with a model to help you think about some of your own assertions. I hope that this is worth the time - not in the sense that I think communicating with you is a waste of time (I don’t think that) - but in the sense that I find that this form of communication becomes unweildy.

First, for the model. The model is something that many atheists have no trouble with. Many people believe that the human mind functions in a way that a programmable computer could completely duplicate. They believe that their own minds could be ‘uploaded’ onto a computer and that they could experience reality in this form, with sensory input provided as inputs to the computer, and action provided by the computer’s output through servomechanisms, etc.

The next step in this model is that the rest of reality is also modeled on the computer. We already have versions of this artificial reality in computer games and simulations. Now we imagine that the mind, modeled on the computer is also fed its reality, not through sensors informing it of the external world, but through the returns from subroutines which feed the subroutine modeling the mind. Output, also, is no longer the action of servomechanisms, but is input to the artificial reality subroutine.

In other words, this mind’s existence is entirely artificial, operating as software running on a computer substrate. It would be easy enough to add other subroutines which represent other people who could interact with each other, and with the original mind.

This is the stuff of the ‘singularity’, promoted by Kurzweil et al. I know a lot of atheists who scoff at the idea of the supernatural who believe in the ‘singularity’ and who are actively preparing for it.

Note that if these minds, uploaded into this cybernetic world, had no memory of existence prior to the uploading or of the uploading itself, then they would have no way of learning through observation in their cybernetic world that they were actually software running on a computer in the external world. Since the program receives no input from the external world, it cannot be detected, hence experiments cannot be run which would allow a theory of the external reality to be constructed.

The final step in the construction of this model for you, Chris, is to realize that if minds could be ‘uploaded’ this way, they could also be programmed de novo as subroutines which did not model minds in the external reality but which had as their sole form of existence an existence as a software subroutine interacting with other software routines functioning as other ‘people’ and as the world they live and act in.

Now Chris, you have said that you do not think that quantum indeterminacy has any significant effect in the macroscopic world. That is not correct, and I think I can persuade you of that with some real examples which I will give you later if I have the energy, but for now, we will proceed on the assumption that you are correct. If you are, you should have no difficulty accepting the possibility of the model I have outlined above. After, if the mind’s thinking states are in no way dependent on quantum effects, then there is nothing (that I can think of) that would prevent these states from being computable - i.e. there is nothing in principle that would prevent the mind from being modeled on a Turing machine, which is to say, there is nothing to prevent it from being modeled on a Von Neuman computer or regular computer as we know them today.

Well!

We have constructed, not only a model of existence as software which is quite conceivable by all those who believe that the mind’s states are computable, but as a side effect, a model of the supernatural falls out of the construction. (Note that, since I believe that quantum indeterminacy does play a role both in the functioning of the macroscopic world and in the functioning of mind, this is not what I think the supernatural is, it is just a model of the supernatural because it would function in our constructed model pretty much the way that the supernatural is held to function in our world by those who believe in it). To cut to the chase, God is the computer programmer. He created the software and all the subroutines. He is beyond their detection since he is not part of the software. Through his interrupt line, he can interrupt the software and change the state of the CPU and of computer memory at will. He can, by playing with the subroutine and dedicated memory of a ‘prophet’ being in this software world, communicate with the software beings of his existence (this is the analogy of revealed knowledge or revelation). He could prepare and promise a ‘paradise’, which would be an existence on a different computer with more wonderful rules of existence to which he would transfer the subroutine beings whom he judged worthy after their ‘deaths’.

I see nothing in this model which would make it unsuitable as a model for the supernatural which people believers believe in, except that it leaves out quantum mechanics.

Note again that many hard bitten atheists actually believe in the possibility of this kind of created cybernetic world, that they are actually preparing to play the God role themselves, and in this, it is a bit ridiculous to scoff at the idea that there could not be a supernatural God external to this world in which they do their scoffing.

Note well that I do not claim that this is in any sense a proof of the supernatural. It is just but a counter example to all the ‘proofs’ that there is no supernatural since the beings in this world I have modeled for you could give the same ‘proofs’ and scoffings about the supernatural that we see from atheists in this world that you and I live in, and yet, their ‘proofs’ would be false, and their scoffings would be foolish.

Perhaps, then, it would be smart to be not too sure that the supernatural is nonsense. It is intellectually superior to see that it is not nonsense, that there really could be something supernatural about this world.

Enough of that.

Now, you asked in a different post for a definition of ‘supernatural’. I cannot actually define ‘supernatural’. If there is something supernatural, akin to the programmer in the model above, I cannot tell you much about it since I cannot study it. However, I can give you an essential characteristic of ‘supernatural’. What is supernatural can only appear to us as something which is random. The reason for that is that whatever is not random, we can study through science, and we will call it part of nature.

If a ‘ghost’ appeared before us (I am not here proposing that we believe in hauntings, just illustrating my meaning with an example), an apparition convincingly resembling someone we knew and whom we know to be deceased, and then it passed through a wall and we never saw it again, we could say that we had seen something supernatural. Yet many aspects of it would not be random, so how could that fit with my requirement that the supernatural could only appear to be random (in effect, unrecognizable)? Well, a ghost that you recognized would not be supernatural in form. Its form would be the form of someone whom you had known, and that form is the form of a human being, deceased, which was anything but supernatural. If the ghost appeared every day, reliably, soon people would be studying it experimentally, and they would call it a natural phenomenon. Of course, if no other person had ever appeared reliably as a ghost, the selection of the person whom you had known, would be the random part of the phenomenon, and so it would still have a supernatural aspect to it. Only if all people appeared as ghosts after death on a regular and reliable basis (with room for exceptions, of course), would people feel that there was nothing supernatural about it.

So what would be the supernatural part of the ghost would be its unexpected, completely indeterminable place, time, and identity of appearance.

Any other recognizable aspect of the supernatural has to be something without pattern - something that could only be recognized at all when mated with something that does have pattern and which is, therefore, natural. So the path of a tornado, unpredictable in principal (accept this as a premise for the time being - I recognize that you are sceptical of indeterminacy in nature). Consider the tornado. It does indeed have a natural pattern about it, which can be studied and understood by science. The unpredictable path is the random part. Ancient men did not see the hand of God in the regular path of a thrown rock, even though they had no understanding of Newton’s laws. They did see the hand of God in the path of a tornado, and we still have no explanation for that path. The supernatural appeared mated with the natural, understandable phenomenon - the only way that the supernatural can be recognized (since something that is completely random can’t be recognized).

They weren’t so stupid after all, to pick out these phenomena which have not yet been scientifically understood in some aspect, and which, if you believe that quantum indeterminacy is really a fundamental aspect of our world and that weather follows a chaotic attractor which amplifies microscopic indeterminate (superposed) differences into large scale differences in macroscopic weather - both of which are believed by many scientists.

Now you say in the words I have quoted above that you could ‘pick out anything’ not understood and claim that it was supernatural. You could, but that you could is not an argument against the existence of things which have no scientific explanation. You say that the progress of science has ‘literally turned supernatural items into natural items’. Well no, what is beyond science - the truly random, if it exists - is not changed by the progress of science. There may be some change in what we _understand_ as being explainable by science, but what we understand is not the same thing as what is.

It is perfectly acceptable for you to believe that quantum indeterminacy will some day be scientifically explained through experimentally verifiable theory. Just as I said that the model above shows that it is a bit ridiculous to scoff at the idea of the supernatural, so it is also a bit ridiculous to scoff at the idea that there is no supernatural. I certainly cannot prove that there is any such thing. Lots of people think that indeterminacy in nature will turn out to have been a mere gap in our scientific knowledge which will be filled in later. But ...

1. The indeterminacy of nature has been part of our scientific world view for nearly 85 years now. Lots of wishful thinking and thinking over all those decades hasn’t changed it. Supposedly deterministic models, like Bohm’s, which you mentioned, are merely metaphysical ideas beyond scientific investigation.

2. Probably the majority of scientists believe that quantum indeterminacy is a fundamental part of nature, that it will never be explained away. We have seen many revolutions in science in that period (quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, the standard model). Not one whit of quantum indeterminacy has been whittled away in all that time.

3. What _fundamental_ reason is there for the assumption that nature cannot have a random aspect - for the effective assumption that there is no such thing as randomness? The fact is, we modeled the universe deterministically beginning with Newton’s laws, and got used to the idea that there is a deterministic universe. As it turns out, the precision of Newton’s laws are mere approximations of the indeterministic quantum laws, so we could say that we were fooled all those years from Newton to Heisenberg. That the universe has no random aspect is as much a matter of faith as the belief in God.

Now, I said I would give you some examples to convince you that quantum indeterminacy has macroscopic effects, that what you said, that ‘at the macro scale, this randomness averages out and the universe becomes deterministic’ is not true. There are many ways in which microscopic quantum events are amplified into effects that are macroscopic in effect.

Note first, that if this were not true, we would have no way to know about the quantum laws of nature, since by definition, what is microscopic is below the threshold of our ability to detect. We can only have detected quantum phenomena through the fact that they can have effects that we can detect. So, the decay of radioactive material, which is quantum tunneling through an energy barrier, an effect of quantum superposition can have a macroscopic effect which is the click of a Geiger counter. The Geiger counter could be rigged up to an electronic device which flashed a red or green light depending on whether or not a decay was detected in some regularly occurring interval. This could be strung up so people in the street could observe it, or it could be set up to trigger a nuclear bomb, which is certainly a macroscopic thing, depending on the sequence. This huge macroscopic effect would be completely dependent upon the microscopic quantum decay events. It would be as indeterministic. No known law of science could predict whether or not the nuclear bomb would go off. By the principles of our best science, principles long believed to be fundamental by most of our best scientists, nothing in science, no matter how accurate our knowledge, could predict whether or not the hydrogen bomb would go off.

Let’s call this electronic amplification.

The laser depends on the quantum properties of photons, which are a type of particle called a _boson_. Fermions have a quantum property that forbids any two fermions from having exactly the same quantum state. Bosons, in contradistinction, have a strong amplitude for being in the same state. It is this that makes the laser a phenomenon in which the quantum states of individual photons have a high probability of being the same state. Lasers are macroscopic devices in which quantum effects have been amplified through this property.

Let’s call this light amplification (not LASER is an acronym for ‘Light Amplification by Stimulation of Emitted Radiation).

I already described to you how a mutation in germ cell DNA from absorption of an em photon of sufficient energy is an indeterminate quantum event. This is because the precise location of a photon is necessarily indeterminate due to the quantum uncertainty principle. Since the location of the photon is indeterminate, there is no way to know which nucleotide will absorb the photon along with its disruptive energy which causes the mutation. Suppose the mutation, which has happened by pure chance, is one which causes blue eyes. That is certainly a macroscopic effect. We are able to see these blue eyes and the blue eyes of all the descendants because the DNA has been duplicated and reduplicated as the germ cell grows into the mature speciman, as the DNA has been transcribed into many copies of mRNA, as each mRNA molecule has been a template for many of the precursor molecules for blue eyes, and finally, as each speciman with the mutation passes on its genes to multiple descendants.

Call this biological amplification.

Just how deeply important biological amplification of quantum uncertainty is, consider that all the species on Earth have their form and function through mutations that gave rise to them according to the Theory of Evolution.

Superconductivity, which gives us the most powerful magnets which can be made is another quantum effect.

OK, there are many more. Now, what I have described of weather in general, and of tornadoes in particular is what could be called the chaotic amplification of quantum events. The non linear equations describing weather make it a phenomenon in which microscopic differences grow into macroscopic. The superposition of those originating quantum microscopic states is what makes the weather as unpredictable far enough into the future as whether or not the hydrogen bomb will go off as described above.

It is simply not true that the quantum world and the world we see and feel are somehow isolated from each other.

I hope I’ve given you some things to think about. I’m a little tired, so I apologize for any mess I’ve made here, for any incomprehensible sentences that I’ve written, and for anything important that I’ve left out.

I have not attempted to prove anything to you except to demonstrate that believing in the possibility of the supernatural does not make one a fatuous idiot, and that those who think that it does (I do not accuse you of this Chris), are somewhat fatuous themselves.

I

Amen, Pat Archbold!

I pray every day that God may show me the best way to give my few and meagre talents to Him.

Imagine the good that Christopher could do in this world!  I’ll drop a word with my Father tonight regarding my brother, Christopher.

Peace.

“Now, you asked in a different post for a definition of ‘supernatural’. I cannot actually define ‘supernatural’. If there is something supernatural, akin to the programmer in the model above, I cannot tell you much about it since I cannot study it. However, I can give you an essential characteristic of ‘supernatural’. What is supernatural can only appear to us as something which is random. The reason for that is that whatever is not random, we can study through science, and we will call it part of nature.”

YouKnowWho, you brought up some very interesting ideas and possible connections, but if an essential characteristic of ‘supernatural’ is that it can only appear to us as something which is random then you are, either knowingly or unknowingly, defining supernatural (and even the natural) as subjective.  Looking at this from your point of view, these quantum indeteremincy phenomenon you speak of are not random to the computer programmer (God).  So to God, these items are not random, not supernatural.  You go on to say that…

“You say that the progress of science has ‘literally turned supernatural items into natural items’. Well no, what is beyond science - the truly random, if it exists - is not changed by the progress of science. There may be some change in what we _understand_ as being explainable by science, but what we understand is not the same thing as what is.”

Well first, I wasn’t claiming that science has literally turned items from supernatural into natural.  I was saying that what you had typed, the bit I quoted, implied that.  Here you clarified your idea, thanks.  But by clarifying your stance you contradict what you said earlier, here you’re saying that supernatural is objective.

I’m not sure if your comparison of God playing computer programmer with our universe by messing with quantum independency really connects to Kurzweil’s idea of a singularity and its implications.  You even eluded to this when you said ’ I see nothing in this model which would make it unsuitable as a model for the supernatural which people believers believe in, except that it leaves out quantum mechanics.’  If that model leaves out quantum independency then it leaves out true randomness, and without that you do not have your view of the supernatural.  So is there really any hypocrisy here when atheists who adhere to that specific model turn around and scoff at the idea of there being supernatural items?

While I cannot say for sure that all the “scoffing” (I’m not sure what you have read, but most of what I have read isn’t scoffing, just skepticism and criticism.  Of course when you get to the general population you run into that sort of thing, unfortunately) aimed at the supernatural which comes from the atheist’s side of the fence is warranted, I think most of it is.  Here you have a word, an idea, which isn’t well defined, and what parts of it is defined differ among the people who use it.  It’s application to our reality doesn’t seem to make much sense either, yet despite all this people still cling to it - even though different groups of people have different versions of ‘it’.  To its skeptics, it’s truly confusing.  Being open minded about it different from being totally convinced by it.

“1.The indeterminacy of nature has been part of our scientific world view for nearly 85 years now. Lots of wishful thinking and thinking over all those decades hasn’t changed it. Supposedly deterministic models, like Bohm’s, which you mentioned, are merely metaphysical ideas beyond scientific investigation.
2. Probably the majority of scientists believe that quantum indeterminacy is a fundamental part of nature, that it will never be explained away. We have seen many revolutions in science in that period (quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, the standard model). Not one whit of quantum indeterminacy has been whittled away in all that time.
3. What _fundamental_ reason is there for the assumption that nature cannot have a random aspect - for the effective assumption that there is no such thing as randomness? The fact is, we modeled the universe deterministically beginning with Newton’s laws, and got used to the idea that there is a deterministic universe. As it turns out, the precision of Newton’s laws are mere approximations of the indeterministic quantum laws, so we could say that we were fooled all those years from Newton to Heisenberg.”

Quantum Mechanics doesn’t say that the universe indeterministic, it just says that it’s impossible to find out what is going to happen.  There is the many worlds interpretation which says that Quantum Mechanics implies a deterministic universe, and the Copenhagen interpretation which says the opposite (and there are still more interpretations).  I’m not an expert in this field, so I do not know for sure which is or is not correct - and I’m fairly sure the experts don’t know either.  I do think that even our own understanding isn’t very far down the rabbit hole; we still have some distance to go.  Take for example something that has not been around for nearly all of those 85 years you mentioned above - the Large Hadron Collider.  It was only just a few months ago that the LHC was up and fully operational and its already giving us some very surprising results.  There was an article in MIT News which said that the initial results from high-energy proton collisions produced more mesons than predicted.  If you’re interested in this article I’m sure I can dig it up for you.

“That the universe has no random aspect is as much a matter of faith as the belief in God.”

That’s a very strong statement, but before I can agree/disagree I’d have to know your definition of “God”.

” Note first, that if this were not true, we would have no way to know about the quantum laws of nature, since by definition, what is microscopic is below the threshold of our ability to detect. We can only have detected quantum phenomena through the fact that they can have effects that we can detect.”

No, that’s not correct.  What is microscopic is below the threshold of our natural senses, which is something totally different from our ability to detect.  If we hold this conversation’s metaphorical feet to the fire, then for quantum indeterminacy to affect the macroscopic world it would need to effect something we can detect with our natural senses and not our aided senses.  The fact that we can “see” the assumed quantum phenomena doesn’t mean that it influences the macroscopic universe, because what we are using to see these phenomena are so far past our natural sight.

” So, the decay of radioactive material, which is quantum tunneling through an energy barrier, an effect of quantum superposition can have a macroscopic effect which is the click of a Geiger counter. The Geiger counter could be rigged up to an electronic device which flashed a red or green light depending on whether or not a decay was detected in some regularly occurring interval. This could be strung up so people in the street could observe it, or it could be set up to trigger a nuclear bomb, which is certainly a macroscopic thing, depending on the sequence. This huge macroscopic effect would be completely dependent upon the microscopic quantum decay events. It would be as indeterministic. No known law of science could predict whether or not the nuclear bomb would go off. By the principles of our best science, principles long believed to be fundamental by most of our best scientists, nothing in science, no matter how accurate our knowledge, could predict whether or not the hydrogen bomb would go off.”

Quantum indeterminacy does not equal the decay of radioactive material.  The only, let’s assume indeterminant, phenomena with regards to the decay of radioactive material is order in which the particles decay.  The fact that they decay is not an aspect of quantum indeterminacy, it’s the idea that there seems to be no reason as to why one particle will decay before another.  So yes, your example above does have an effect on the macroscopic universe, unfortunately it doesn’t tie in quantum indeterminacy.  The other two examples, although a different subject, lack the same requirements for your argument to be valid.

” OK, there are many more. Now, what I have described of weather in general, and of tornadoes in particular is what could be called the chaotic amplification of quantum events. The non linear equations describing weather make it a phenomenon in which microscopic differences grow into macroscopic. The superposition of those originating quantum microscopic states is what makes the weather as unpredictable far enough into the future as whether or not the hydrogen bomb will go off as described above.”

Just out of curiosity, are there any peer-reviewed journals on ” the chaotic amplification of quantum events” or anything which carries the idea but might have a different name?

“I hope I’ve given you some things to think about. I’m a little tired, so I apologize for any mess I’ve made here, for any incomprehensible sentences that I’ve written, and for anything important that I’ve left out.”

Yea I’m a little tired too.  I do appreciate the time you’ve put into your responses though, most people don’t get too deep into these sorts of discussions.  Thanks :)

I am only going to respond to one detail of what you have put in your last post, Chris, and then I’m going to bed. Tomorrow I will give you the rest.

You said, “Quantum indeterminacy does not equal the decay of radioactive material.”

Quantum indeterminacy is involved in radioactive decay. Here is how it works:

A particle of a decay mode of a nucleus is described, as usual, by a wave equation which has an amplitude for all points of space. For a particle bound inside a nucleus, that amplitude is vanishingly close to zero almost everywhere except in the interior of the nucleus and in regions very close to the nucleus exterior to it. The square of the modulus of the amplitude at any point gives the probability density at that point for the particle’s location. Note that the probability density is non zero over a finite region of non zero volume. It is not non zero just at a single point, which it would have to be if there was no indeterminacy in its position. In fact, it is precisely this indeterminacy in position which allows the particle to escape, which is the decay event. The non zero value of the wave function amplitude outside of the nucleus means that the particle has a finite chance of existing outside the nucleus. Appearing outside the nucleus is a form of ‘tunneling’ and that is how the nucleus decays - by tunneling. You can check out the quantum phenomenon of tunneling in any decent introductory text on quantum mechanics and see that it does indeed depend on the indeterminacy in the position of a quantum particle.

The half life of the decay mode is a function of the amplitude of the wave function outside the nucleus.

So nuclear decay is indeed a manifestation of quantum uncertainty.

“I’m not sure if your comparison of God playing computer programmer with our universe by messing with quantum independency really connects to Kurzweil’s idea of a singularity and its implications.  You even eluded to this when you said ’ I see nothing in this model which would make it unsuitable as a model for the supernatural which people believers believe in, except that it leaves out quantum mechanics.’  If that model leaves out quantum independency then it leaves out true randomness, and without that you do not have your view of the supernatural.  So is there really any hypocrisy here when atheists who adhere to that specific model turn around and scoff at the idea of there being supernatural items?”

“Random” as I am using it means “without discernable order”. In other words, “incomprehensible”. In the model, unless the programmer reveals himself deliberately, there is not enough information in the cyberworld for the programmer to be inferred. The programmer’s effect on the world has two aspects. One is the “natural aspect”. This is in the program which contains the rules of the cyberworld. These rules the cyber beings can discover. They are the natural aspect of the programmer’s intervention or creation. The programmer could also pull an interrupt and intervene every time a certain situation arose in the cyberworld. Although this situation would not really be an expression of the rules encoded in the software, its regularity would make it indistinguishable from the “natural” rules so to the cyber beings it would be a part of nature. The distinction would be moot anyway, as both the encoded rules and the regular interventions would be expressions of the will of the programmer to make a reliable nature for the cyber beings. One might imagine that the programmer “forgot” to encode the situation where there is regular intervention and so is interrupting and making the rule exist through artificial (non encoded) means.

Nothing non Kurzweilian (my spell checker is guessing I meant ‘Brazilian’ there) so far.

The other aspect of the programmer is the supernatural aspect. In the supernatural aspect, the programmer, through interruption, changes the state of the cyberworld in a one off way. Since the intervention is not subject to investigation by the cyber beings through repeatable experimentation, it is beyond their understanding (unless the programmer reveals the truth to a ‘prophet’ as discussed before). There is no pattern to the rule violating aspect of the intervention. If the intervention is to be noticeable at all, however, it has to have a natural aspect as well, as I suggested earlier. Here is an example:

The discontinuous appearance of a cyber being who had not existed before would be a supernatural event in the cyberworld (assuming that this was not a regular occurence). Its natural aspect is the form and behaviour of the new cyberbeing. Its supernatural aspect would be its discontinuos coming into existence. Suppose the new cyberbeing came into existence inside a house. Another being, who had no knowledge of the number of people in the house would see nothing amiss when he saw the new being emerge from the house. Having not observed the supernatural aspect of the new being’s miraculous appearance, he would see only something natural. An observer who witnessed the sudden appearance of the being would see something supernatural, but he could only see that something supernatural had happened because the miraculous event has a natural aspect, which is the natural form and behaviour of the new being.

I do not see how any of this is non Kurzweilian.

I think this is a pretty fair model of a classic theistic world view for anyone who does not see quantum indeterminacy as playing an effective role in the world at a macroscopic level (which is wrong). A Kurzweilian atheist (I am not implying that ‘Kurzweilian’ is a subset of ‘atheist’ here) has to believe that he could actually play the role of the classic God in a cyberworld created by him. He must recognize that there are no clever proofs that the classic God does not exist, because such a proof could be used in his cyberworld, where it would obviously be incorrect.

An honest Kurzeweilian atheist should move immediately to the agnostic column, or at least recognize that his atheism is based on faith.

Chris wrote,

“There is the many worlds interpretation which says that Quantum Mechanics implies a deterministic universe, and the Copenhagen interpretation which says the opposite (and there are still more interpretations).  I’m not an expert in this field, so I do not know for sure which is or is not correct - and I’m fairly sure the experts don’t know either.”

Indeed. But since the two interpretations are scientifically indistinguishable, which one you wish to believe is a matter of faith.

Since I would like to believe that “there exists an I such that it is responsible for my decisions”, I choose the Copenhagen. Really, as you can see from the form “there exists an I ...” I used there, it is fundamentally a matter of believing in my own existence.

“If you’re interested in this article I’m sure I can dig it up for you.”

Only if it’s not too much trouble.

BTW, how are you getting spaces between your paragraphs?

“BTW, how are you getting spaces between your paragraphs?”

Oh, OK, never mind. I got it.

Here is the link from MIT News regarding what I had discussed earlier.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/lhc-results-0205.html

With regards to quantum indeterminacy (if it will remain truly random regardless of the advances of science) and the decay of radioactive material, if I am understanding you correctly you saying that the time in which the particle in question actually decays is “impossible to predict” - along with, of course, the order in which these particles decay.  Is this correct?  And if this is correct, are these the only two impossible to predict items involved in radioactive decay?

” I think this is a pretty fair model of a classic theistic world view for anyone who does not see quantum indeterminacy as playing an effective role in the world at a macroscopic level (which is wrong). A Kurzweilian atheist (I am not implying that ‘Kurzweilian’ is a subset of ‘atheist’ here) has to believe that he could actually play the role of the classic God in a cyberworld created by him. He must recognize that there are no clever proofs that the classic God does not exist, because such a proof could be used in his cyberworld, where it would obviously be incorrect.”

With regards to the model which you put forward, I’m sorry I misunderstood you.  Even without quantum indeterminacy the programmer could himself add in its equivalent inside the world he artificially created on a computer.  You’ll have to excuse me, I’m one of those atheists who has a hard time believing that human brain function can be uploaded to a computer so I’m not at all familiar with operating within that mindset.  Even allowing the creator/operator of this virtual universe to add in his own truly random events doesn’t exactly equate it to the general atheists view on God.  There are a few key similarities, but the underlying assumption you seem to be making is that the only reason most atheists reject the idea of God is they have a hard time swallowing the supernatural aspects associated with his belief.  There are many other problems that a belief in God that has nothing to do with the supernatural.  It all depends on your definition of God, if you define it in certain ways then atheists may object to those particular characteristics you are giving that definition of God (and most have nothing at all to do with the supernatural).  So unless you can connect these other aspects which atheists reject the idea of some definitions of God, you connection between that model and an atheists view on God isn’t at all there.

“An honest Kurzeweilian atheist should move immediately to the agnostic column, or at least recognize that his atheism is based on faith.”

Here you appear to be implying that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive terms, that one cannot be both at the same time.  This is a common misunderstanding that most people have, but it is a misunderstanding nun-the-less.  Atheism in its most basic definition is simply a lack of a belief in any higher power, putting special emphasis on *belief*.  Anything beyond this basic definition which deals with atheism might be consistent with atheism but not required.  Some atheists that lack a belief in God also claim to know for certain that he doesn’t exists.  While these atheists are still atheists, and their claims to knowledge are still consistent with atheism, their knowledge claim is not essential to atheism.  Atheism deals with belief, not knowledge.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge claims, and it’s used to describe someone who is unsure on whether or not a higher power does exist.  One person can be an atheist, simply lack a belief in a higher power, but also be an agnostic and claiming that they cannot claim to know for sure the existence or non existence of a higher power.  In fact, most all agnostics are actually atheists, in that they lack a belief in a higher power.  If you ask an agnostic the question “do you believe in a god” if they answer “no” then they lack a belief in a god and are therefore atheists - regardless of what they claim to know.  There are agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and gnostic theists.  The only mutually exclusive terms here are atheist and theist, and gnostic and agnostic.  Atheism and theism form a dichotomy, as does gnosticism and agnosticism. 

In defense of mainstream atheism (most atheists), they are agnostic atheists.  Most will admit that they cannot know for sure that a higher power doesn’t exist (Richard Dawkins and just about any popular atheist author falls into this group).  If you want to define “God” as analogous to the human operator/programmer tinkering with Kurzweil’s virtual world, then even though most of these atheists wouldn’t believe in such a God, they wouldn’t claim to have certain knowledge that this particular flavor of God.  So the “An honest Kurzeweilian atheist should move immediately to the agnostic column…” bit is already true, *especially* with such a loose definition of “God”.

Chris,

I don’t really agree with your definitions, but I am not going to dispute them at this time.

Chris wrote,

“if I am understanding you correctly you saying that the time in
which the particle in question actually decays is ‘impossible to predict’
- along with, of course, the order in which these particles decay.”

Right.

Chris wrote,

“are these the only two impossible to predict items involved in radioactive decay?”

No. There is the direction of momentum of the decay products, for example. If there is more than one decay mode, there is which particular decay occurs. In decays involving daughter particles with spin, the spin orientation would be indeterminate. I am no expert on radioactive decay, though, so I cannot write you a comprehensive list.

I should add that the tunneling explanation is for decays in which cluster particles like alpha particles or fission products are emitted. I am not sure how the other decays work, but they all decay exponentially with particular half lives and quantum indeterminacy in one form or another is involved. A real expert here would have forgotten much more than I know.

Chris wrote,

“I’m one of those atheists who has a hard time believing that human brain function can be uploaded to a computer”

I’m afraid that I don’t believe it either. In my case, the reason I don’t believe it is that I do believe that quantum indeterminacy plays a role in brain function such that ‘mind states’ are not computable. I would be interested to know why you don’t think a mind could exist on a computer?

Thanks for the link to the LHC article. The only comment I can make about the scientists there being surprised is that I am not surprised. That’s the way it has always been when a new frontier is crossed.

I will Pray that Christopher Hitchens receives the Wisdom to understand that because there is something and not nothing, and because Science has revealed that nothing comes from nothing, there must be a Creator Who is not subject to His creation, Who created the conditions in which Time and Space exist, to begin with. As to how God exists, that is The Great Mystery.

God is Perfect Love. Love exists in relationship. The Blessed Trinity is an ordered, complementary, relationship of Perfect Love for Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive. We were given the Gift of free-will so that we can freely choose authentic Love. From The Beginning, we were made in the Image of God and called into a communion of Love.

YouKnowWho, I asked you this a bit earlier but I’m guessing you missed it.  Do you have any peer reviewed materials on “the chaotic amplification of quantum events” or something similiar?  I feel this gets to the root of our disucssion about the nature of tornados. (and any other mascroscopic event)

“As to how God exists, that is The Great Mystery.”

Nancy D., so religion can cop-out with an “I don’t know” answer, but skeptics cannot?  There seems to be a double standard.

There seems to be a double standard at play here*

Chris-
back on July 4th you said: “Consciousness has certainly been studied empirically, we know which areas of the brain contain conscious thought and which areas contain unconscious thought.  We can look at a normal person and compare them with someone in a coma and see the differences.  Not just “oh look there is come color here and no color there on this particular scan”.  Neurology has gotten so far in the past 5 years.
Conceptual thought would be tied in with consciousness.  Conceptual means of the mind, if a mind is conscious and thinking, then those thoughts would be conceptual.”

Yes, empirical evidence can show us parts of the brain “working.”  However, what explains that a particular part is “working” at thinking about a ‘banana’ versus an ‘avocado,’ or whether that part is altogether just trying NOT to think of food at all???  The empirical brain scans are only ONE PART of an explanation of conscience.

Chris, I have no peer reviewed literature on going from quantum level to macroscopic to cite for you, although I am certain that such literature exists. For example, it has long been known even at the popular level, as reported in popular works authored by experts, that cosmologists believe that the current arrangement of the galaxies originated in quantum variation at the time of the big bang. If that aint going from the quantum to the macroscopic, nothing is.

You can take it from that uncontroversial idea that chaotic amplification of quantum uncertainty to the macroscopic scale is respectable.

Now Lorentz wrote the first paper on chaotic amplification 47 years ago. Many, many thousands of papers have followed in many fields of research, from cardiology to economics.

If you wish to avoid the idea that weather is fundamentally indeterminate because I have not supplied you with a specific paper, to be fair you must ask yourself if you can conclude that weather is _not_ indeterminate in the absence of peer reviewed literature supporting the view that quantum indeterminacy would _not_ be amplified. Why?

Well, ask yourself which would be the best guess (most of the decisions we make on a daily basis are made in the absence of known support from peer reviewed literature). Would it be more reasonable to assume that amplification of quantum indeterminacy happens in weather, or that it does not?

Chaotic amplification in weather is not controversial - since Lorentz. It means that small error in measurement leads to much larger error in prediction. Quantum indeterminacy, OTOH, implies that dynamical quantities at the quantum level come with built in error bars. Why would it not be amplified? Is there some kind of barrier to this amplification at the microscopic/macroscopic boundary? What is it? Is there even a well definable boundary? Just because there is a barrier to our sense perceptions, why should that imply a barrier to kinetic phenomena?

These questions would have to be answered in research (peer reviewed) if it is to believed that quantum uncertainty does not mean that weather in principle is unpredictable.

Why would it not be unpredictable?

Given that chaotic amplification occurs, the prima facie expectation would be that the uncertainty at the quantum level _would_ be amplified. It would not be a surprise. OTOH, the assertion that the built in errors in quantum states would not be amplified would immediately raise the question, “why not?”.

If I asserted that you cannot turn yourself into a fox by blinking your eyes, you would not be led to seriously ask, “Why not?”. In the case of chaotic amplification of the quantum level uncertainties in the dynamical quantities underlying weather (position and momentum), the question “why not” would require an answer in the face of the surprising assertion that it does not occur. What would prevent it?

I would expect it. Wouldn’t you?

“Yes, empirical evidence can show us parts of the brain “working.”  However, what explains that a particular part is “working” at thinking about a ‘banana’ versus an ‘avocado,’ or whether that part is altogether just trying NOT to think of food at all???  The empirical brain scans are only ONE PART of an explanation of conscience.”

You seem to be trying to change the conversation, you claimed this:

“I’m talking about things people have experienced, or have logically proved, but that can’t be touched empirically.  Like free-will, consciousness, conceptual thought, the self, and the rationality of the universe.  Like miraculous healing.  Like God.”

The part you quoted was me responding to the claim that consciousness cannot even be touched empirically.  The subject wasn’t banana vs. avocado, it was can we empirically study consciousness – and that’s exactly what I had addressed.  Despite your claim otherwise, we can certainly study consciousness empirically.  Again, neurology is booming, and each year we are probing deeper and deeper into more and more specific lines of thought and emotion.

And sure, empirical brain scans are only one part of the equation, there is a chemistry aspect to it as well.  As far as some immaterial soul being attached to our consciousness, its certainly possible but we don’t have any evidence and the mind-brain dependence seems to actually be evidence against any sort of immaterial soul.

YouKnowWho, I asked because after searching for it I’ve come up empty handed.  I’m actually getting a lot of physics debating whether or not quantum indeterminacy has made that jump from the quantum level to the macroscopic level.  This is certainly much more complicated then I originally thought, but I’m not seeing any sort of generally accepted stance that most all physics agree on.  I’ve actually stumbled upon a few polls regarding quantum physics and which interpretation has the most weight behind it, and even though the Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular interpretation by about a 1.5 : 1 to the second most popular interpretation (Many Worlds), even more people place themselves in the “We don’t know as of now” group – which was 48% I believe.

This topic is very interesting and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.  I’ve heard it discussed many times before but no one has described it in the detail you have.

“If you wish to avoid the idea that weather is fundamentally indeterminate because I have not supplied you with a specific paper, to be fair you must ask yourself if you can conclude that weather is _not_ indeterminate in the absence of peer reviewed literature supporting the view that quantum indeterminacy would _not_ be amplified. Why?”

I’m not totally dismissing your claim simply because you cannot find any papers dealing with the subject at hand, but I’m sure you can understand why I am asking for said materials.  Again, I do plan on looking into this more.  As for your question, its my understanding of, at least on a macroscopic scale, physics.  Planes don’t suddenly succumb to this sort of chaotic amplification and fall out of the sky.  When a plane crashes, we check its black box.  When a car won’t start or its transmission won’t shift, we pinpoint whats going wrong mechanically.  If a bridge collapses, it’s because of a structure flaw or because of a natural disaster.  NASA can put an unmanned probe on Mars because the physical laws are so reliable (again, at least on a macroscopic level). 

“If I asserted that you cannot turn yourself into a fox by blinking your eyes, you would not be led to seriously ask, “Why not?”. In the case of chaotic amplification of the quantum level uncertainties in the dynamical quantities underlying weather (position and momentum), the question “why not” would require an answer in the face of the surprising assertion that it does not occur. What would prevent it?”

The idea that I somehow bear the burden of proof to show how quantum level uncertainties don’t amplify into much larger uncertainties and manifest themselves in the macroscopic world doesn’t seem intellectually honest.

Clearly, we reply on the laws of physics to remain constant in virtually every aspect of our lives.  Our underlying assumption that these laws aren’t broken are tested, each day, by everyone, dozens and dozens of times.  You are the one claiming that quantum level uncertainties reach out macroscopic world, and it’s not my job to prove you wrong.

Specifically you asked what would prevent it, although I didn’t type up a few long paragraphs on it its my understanding that all these uncertainties average out and turn into, on a macroscopic level, a smooth and deterministic universe.

Chris,

I haven’t got time to answer everything now. Tomorrow I have to go on a day-trip too so I’ll answer what I can of your post now, but I may not get to all of it for a couple of days.

You said, “its my understanding that all these uncertainties average out and turn into, on a macroscopic level, a smooth and deterministic universe.”

This is an old idea. It’s what I was taught when I studied quantum mechanics, but it’s incorrect, although I don’t know what I’m doing wrong getting you to see it. That’s why I cited the standard idea from cosmology that the distribution of the galaxies today originated in quantum uncertainty at the time of the big bang. _If_ the downtime result acted as though regression to the mean wiped out any large scale result from quantum variation, the universe today would still be a uniform, structureless fog of whatever it started out as at the time of the big bang. The structure of today’s universe was unpredictable from initial conditions, because it is amplified quantum uncertainty. That’s the standard answer. I’m sure that you can find literature on this if you want.

If you can accept that, it kills the idea that variations must be “averaged out”.

You said, “Planes don’t suddenly succumb to this sort of chaotic amplification and fall out of the sky. When a plane crashes, we check its black box. When a car won’t start or its transmission won’t shift, we pinpoint whats going wrong mechanically. If a bridge collapses, it’s because of a structure flaw or because of a natural disaster. NASA can put an unmanned probe on Mars because the physical laws are so reliable (again, at least on a macroscopic level).”

Hmmm. I’d say that chaos plays a part in all of those except the last one, and that’s because on the trip to Mars (we discussed this earlier) there’s no mechanism for chaos to amplify the uncertainty fast enough for it to make a difference on the trip to Mars. It would take billions of years (or a long time anyway, I’m not sure of the magnitude here). In this case, the only way quantum fluctuation to make a difference fast enough would be for an extremely improbable sequence of quantum fluctuations to all add up in the same way. In other words, over the length of time for a trip to Mars, “averaging out” would indeed be expected to work out.

Airplane crashes often have a chaotic element involved (I used to fly, so understanding airplane crashes has long been an interest of mine). Planes often crash, for example, because of wind shear when they are just off the ground near the end of a runway. This is a weather phenomenon, which is chaotic. Structural failure also has a chaotic element in it. A crack propagates through structural metal following an irregular route because the crack is propagating from a microscopic tip in which the exact breakdown of the metal is indeterminate. A crack could run up against a reinforcing band of metal and stop propagating, or it could skirt the band and continue causing a crash. Even a crack which will certainly eventually cause a crash will not be predictable concerning the exact time of failure. The vibrations of the plane as it flies through the air will depend on the air turbulence it encounters (here weather chaos enters again). The stress on the plane from landing will depend on the pilots skill and weather conditions. The rate of propagation will depend on the temperature of the metal, which will depend on things like air temperature, sunlight, and airspeed. I could go on.

You will find the same element of unpredictability associated with a mechanical failure in a car. Tell me how it could possibly be predicted on the assembly line when a certain piece will fail?

Same goes for a bridge failure. (I’ve built bridges too. I hate the fact that one failed - a forty foot span made out of standard construction lumber. I knew that it needed work, but I had to move. I explained to the people staying behind what to do, but they didn’t do it and it failed under a heavy snow load. While I knew that it would fail if something wasn’t done, I had no way of knowing how long it would take.)

You said, “doesn’t seem intellectually honest.”

Chris, there’s an old saying that goes, “never attribute to malice what you can blame on plain old stupidity”. Do you think I actually don’t believe what I said and am being dishonest? Would it not be sufficient to say that I am just mistaken?

There is nothing inherent in the form “X is” or the form “X is not” which can tell us when we are in a position where we have to assume one or the other without specific proof, which one would be the better choice. In real life, we have to make choices like this all the time. If we decided that one or the other of these forms should every single time, we would make a lot more mistakes than we would make if we used an approach to determine which choice was “most reasonable” for each individual case. Sometimes “X is” would be most reasonable, sometimes it would be “X is not”.

I see this “in the absence of proof, ‘X is not’ is the reasonable position” all the time in the endless debate about Darwin’s theory of evolution. Those who endlessly fight it always come up with “The T of E is not true is the sensible assumption because you have failed to show how this “irreducibly complex” structure arose”. To me, the T of E is so convincing that in the absence of a convincing explanation for some structure, the most reasonable assumption is “the T of E is true” anyway.

Well, we are speculating here. When I do it, I want to make the most reasonable assumptions.

Now I’ve already shown you with the cosmology argument that regression to the mean does not stop quantum uncertainty from growing according to cosmologists, but I’ll add weight to the position that quantum uncertainty grows large in chaotic systems with a different approach. Bear in mind that if I fail to make this second argument convincing, I’ve still got the quantum cosmology argument.

I hinted that there really is no microscopic / macroscopic boundary. The rules of quantum mechanics mean that quantum uncertainty is associated with objects of all sizes. Just as there is irreducible uncertainty in the position momentum product of an electron, there also is irreducible uncertainty in the position momentum product of the Earth. The error bars on a massive objects position and momentum, however, are far, far smaller than they are for an electron, so, even though the electron is difficult to detect and the Earth is easy to detect, quantum effects in the electron are detectable, whereas for Earth sized objects (or even baseball sized objects) we are unable to detect them. According to the theory, though, there is no boundary.

Any scale level that I am to explain why chaos grows through is arbitrary. If I have to explain why it grows through the the 1 Angstrom unit level, why not the 1 micron level or the 1 meter or half kilometer level? Where is this special level I have to explain, and why is it special, bearing in mind that the idea of chaos is uncontroversial?

I’m going to have to quit now, but I hope to finish within the next two days. I haven’t checked this over very thoroughly, so I can only hope it’s not too incoherent.

Amos said:“Someone here asked “why are atheists often so hateful”, I’m an atheist myself and I often wonder that. The vicious sanctimony and arrogance of exhibitionist atheists really turns me off and they seem so dogmatically resistant to recognizing all the good that good religion, as opposed to bad religion, does. And there IS a big difference. You’d have to be willfully blind not to see that atheist societies decline and fail (USSR, socialist democrat Europe etc) and they are VASTLY more prone to political violence and oppression than sensibly religious ones like the US.”

Bless your heart Amos - well said…..Will be praying for you as well - I was once an atheist, more practical than theoretical but this changed when my son became a heroin addict…and though he is not “healed” still I will never give up on him…nor will I give up on you or Mr. Hitchens who truth be told is a good and decent man in most areas of his life…

How fitting

A man who spews so much hatred about God receives cancer which disables his ability to talk….awesome!!!

John: I don’t think its “awesome” that someone suffers from cancer regardless of his feelings toward my faith….that you would think its “awesome” illustrates your lack of understanding of that faith IF you in fact have any….I hope you will reconsider your unkind statement…

Melinda:

Your irenic reply to the repulsive gloating of John reminds me of one of Augustine’s laments:  “So many sheep without!  So many wolves within.”  An atheist who answers that sort of cold Pharisaic pride with gentleness and humility (as you do) may well find that she fares better on That Day then the Pharisee who says, “I thank you O Lord that I am not like Christopher Hitchens—who is suffering from cancer!  Awesome!”  I join you in stating my shock and revulsion at an any disciple of Christ who so betrays his Lord with such sentiment.

Chris,

I’m still planning on finishing my reply, but now I have to go on a 2 day trip, so it won’t be until after that.

Tom

Ah hahahaha.

It is REALLY funny that people who claim that prayer “means nothing” or has “no effect” would go to such lengths to decry it.

This begs the question: Why?

Why attack well-intentioned people who have done no harm (and to your mode of thinking: no-THING) to anyone?

Thank you “Dude…” for demonstrating the evils of sola scriptura so well. ~sigh~

Just a word on behalf of the atheists who have better things to do than troll you…  I just want you to know, whether the people piping up on here trying to rile you all up are atheists or not, they certainly don’t speak for me. I have no problem with anyone’s decision to have religious faith, or with anyone praying for whatever they want. It’s your business.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t have even commented at all, I’m only piping up because I see a lot of comments on here, in response to your supposedly “atheist” (maybe, maybe not) trolls (definitely), saying “Why are atheist always [blah, blah, blah… hateful, etc.]”

So, just so you know, it’s not “atheists”, certainly not all atheists, and not even most atheists. It’s just the ones you notice. Because the rest of us, I’m pretty sure, are fine with whatever you want to believe, and not really interested in arguing just for the sake of argument. So we keep quiet, go about our business and let you go about yours, and you never have reason to hear about us, except in the odd circumstance that one speaks up to let you know, as I am doing, that we don’t like the kind of nitwits who are trolling your forum very much, either.

If we’re each letting each other go about our business, regardless of our individual beliefs, there’s no reason for us not to get along, and I think by and large most atheists agree with that. The individuals you’re discussing have deeper personal issues unrelated to atheism.

PS. And, I do respect your decision to pray for Hitchens regardless of his views as representative of one of the most positive aspects of western religion, the altruism of the “hate the actions, love the person” (aka “hate the sin., love the sinner”) ideal. I don’t know what would drive anyone to complain about that.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church is a great resource for those who question the existence of God and do not recognize the evidence for His existence exists within His Creation.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm

as to why God does not restore lost limbs, that would be magic, not a miracle, for every miracle requires an act of Faith.

Chris and YouKnowWho,

At a local cafe in Milwaukee, there is an open mic night for poets.  The best participants are brief, respectful, provocative, and brief.  If the poet can spark interest within a couple of minutes onstage, then I can often approach them afterward for a much more in-depth discussion of their poetry.

Consider exchanging email addresses in order to discuss the specifics of your ideas… just a suggestion!

BTW, I *did* appreciate the mit.edu link to one of the articles you mentioned.

Chris,

“I’ve actually stumbled upon a few polls regarding quantum physics and which interpretation has the most weight behind it, and even though the Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular interpretation by about a 1.5 : 1 to the second most popular interpretation (Many Worlds), even more people place themselves in the “We don’t know as of now” group – which was 48% I believe.”

Of course, the metaphysical truth is not accessible to science and popularity can’t decide either. I would have to put myself in the “we don’t know camp” even though the Copenhagen interpretation is the one I like to believe is true, for the reason I’ve already stated.

“This topic is very interesting and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.  I’ve heard it discussed many times before but no one has described it in the detail you have.”

I’ve been thinking about it, literally, for decades. I’d like to thank you, as well, for the opportunity to express myself.

d.h.

Are you suggesting that we are not brief enough? At your poet’s speaking session, the poet commands attention, or boredom, for as long as he speaks, which makes the brevity rule quite understandable. Here, you have your own personal version of the hook.

Just move on to the next item.

Chris, YouKnowWho, etc., let me be brief and get right to the point. Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could… ( Julie Andrews, The Sound of Music) so obviously there exists a Creator Who is not subject to His Creation and created the conditions in which The Laws of Physics exist, to begin with.

P.S., One does not have to know much about Physics to understand why the Copenhagen interpretation of Physics is nonsense. Time is constant. You cannot speed it up nor can you slow it down. This moment in time is the same moment in time in every point of Space in The Universe.

Yes, but is it the same time at every point in spacetime?

You have to understand something about physics to understand what the Copenhagen interpretation is. You don’t sound like you know anything about it - at least I can’t see how your comment has anything to do with it.

I am a Christian.

You have to understand something about Time to understand that this moment in Time by any other name, one o’clock, three o’clock, seven o’clock…. is still the same moment in Time in every point of Space in The Universe. You should also know one cannot be at one point in Space while being at another point in Space, simultaneously, unless you are The Creator of Time and Space and thus not subject to Time and Space, to begin with.

Nancy D., I fail to see how this has anything to do with what Chris and I have been talking about.

My point is one does not have to understand The Laws of Physics to be able to understand that God must exist for without The Creator of The Laws of Physics, we would not exist.

Nancy D,

One has to understand the laws of physics in order to explain that they do not restrict God out of existence, in today’s world, which is a world in which people are bombarded day in and day out by claims that the laws of science leave no room for God. These false claims may not have any impact on you, but what about those who _are_ impacted by them? Should they be abandoned, lost in a maze?

FYI Hitchens is being interviewed, live, by Hugh Hewitt a devot Christian.  This is post his cancer operation.  You can find it on the web Hugh Hewitt KRLA radio.  It started at 3pm Pacific time.  Hitch is a fascinating, decent man.  It may end at 4 or possibly he may have him until 5 when his program is over.

I just confirmed - Hitchens will be on for the rest of the show.  Hugh has him on the entire two hours, talking to him about what people are saying to him, but mostly,now, about his book - Hich 22.

What a beautiful perfectly loving Catholic Christian response to the sufferings of a man who has set himself up as an enemy of religion.  Thanks!

Just a note to all the atheists who have chimed in their support for our right to believe as Christians and to pray for Mr Htichens…thanks very very much…your reasoned discussion is VERY much appreciated…there have been a few trolls of both Christian and atheist persuasion as well but for the most part everyone has been courteous and contributed something positive to the discussion….Again kudos to all you good people…

There has been some real silliness posted in the comments section of this wonderful, compassionate commentary. I converted to Catholicism in high school, then wandered as a pagan in the wilderness for about 25 years before coming home to the Church five years ago, so I’ve had my feet in both worlds. Atheists who use these “studies” proving the inefficacy of prayer to bolster their opinions are neck-deep in foolishness, and, really, arrogance by thinking they can judge whether or not the almighty God has answered a prayer. Anyone who has had prayers answered is well acquainted with the fact that God always answers prayer but frequently not in the way in which our limited human minds expect them to be answered. If these “studies” prove anything, it is only what everyone should know: men do not control God; His ways are not our ways.

To the person who wants God to heal an amputee so that he can believe, and claims that such an occurrence would result in a wave of mass conversion: first of all, you don’t want a God, you want a magician who takes requests. Second of all, Jesus performed miracle after miracle, healing the incurable, raising the dead, feeding the multitudes, and people who witnessed these events, who knew the people who were healed, still found reason not to believe. I refer you to John 10:32 and Matthew 11:17.

To the person who says Jesus hasn’t been seen since the Ascension: I was not alone in seeing my Lord, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass just a few days ago.

I offer up prayers for Mr. Hitchen’s healing and, more importantly, for the desire for repentance and conversion of heart. I would also ask all unbelievers to consider reading C. Bernard Ruffin’s book “Padre Pio: The True Story.”

YouKnowWho, The Laws of Physics do not"restrict God out of existence” they prove His existence. The first Law of Physics reveals that although nothing comes from nothing, there is, in fact, something,for the Universe exists!

No Nancy D. the laws of physics do not “restrict God out of existence”. If you read carefully, you will see that nowhere have I said they do. They also do not prove his existence. It is a matter of faith, although there is sufficient evidence of God’s existence that the leap of faith required is not too difficult for we poor humans to make with sincere seeking.

Your argument from first cause does not prove the existence of the Christian God. It convinces some, Albert Einstein for example, of the existence of a deity, but it is a long way from a deity to the God of the Bible. Others might argue that you have not shown that there is not an infinite regress of causes.

I would forget about trying to “prove” that God exists. All I have been doing is trying to convince Chris that there is neither proof nor good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Relax, I’m on your side.

As a person who died in an automobile accident on August 30, 2002, and was allowed to return to the earth, I can assure you that heaven and hell are very real.  I definitely was NOT in my body, when my car went scrunching from the concrete pylon into the eucalyptus tree.  God gave me a second chance, something that doesn’t happen too often.

A couple of people mention that God doesn’t do miraculous healing, they should look a little harder before making a false conclusion.  I have a facsimile of a tomogram of a girl named Mandy who was miraculously healed of a larger brain tumor.  I also am personal friends with a man who was healed of over 100 spots of cancer over his whole body, when the doctors gave him up for dead.  He has a healing ministry today.

I did see a woman’s right hand forefinger grow back when she was prayed for, I was about 8 feet away when this happened.  It got very silent when this miracle occurred.  People are afraid of the supernatural when it actually occurs.

I will be happy to pray for Christopher Hitches, we do see miracles today.

YouKnowWho,

Good point.  Touche (sp.?)!

And Randall,

I would love to hear your story… got any general contact info with which i can look you up?  Are you on facebook or anything?

Randall,

on second thought, i don’t think I ought to hear your story.  I’m working on building my faith.

I think that I may just be interested in your story as it would be a vehicle of hope for me to more firmly believe in my God.  My God has worked enough in my life; I ought not look outside of the wonders he has given to me.  He has laid an abundance upon my table and that is enough for me.

I need no other proofs.  Thank you anyway!

God bless+

Was it not your god who gave him the cancer in the first place?
I think that it’s very rude of you to pray for him out of pity like this. You are smiling at the idea of giving him prayers he doesnt want, in hopes they will haunt him. How christian of you… your no better then the guy who is burning the koran. You think you are higher then him because you have so much faith in a lord who will never answer your prayers. You will not sit beside your so called lord in the afterlife if you are not openminded to others believes. Its all in your mind set. And if you and the rest of the christains were in the minority everyone whould think you were crazy and that they should burn you, bam, salem witch trials alllll over again.

No, IT, it was not our God who gave him cancer, according to our beliefs.

It was the weak human nature which chose to sin and brought evil into this free world that “gave” him cancer.

As for being rude to pray for him, not at all.

Our intentions are good, and those who are praying for him are people of good will.

Blessings,
Liseux

IT - Actually Chris Hitchens knows we are praying for him and was very touched by the gesture even though he is not a believer - apart from his atheism I am a big fan of Chris - he is incredibly intelligent and an erudite speaker - and IT, I am surprised at your shallow understanding of “Christians” - we frequently have associations with all kinds of folks many of whom do not hold our beliefs - that’s the part where Christ called us to love our neighbors… Of course if your only exposure to Christians is the media version you might perceive us very differently - but in real life we are just trying to live a moral life while aspiring to be more like our Lord - with the same challenges that everyone else faces…it’s not always easy to be loving in every situation but most of us give it our best shot even though we fail sometimes - I hope you will learn to see us as regular human beings rather than the fabricated enemy that some have made us out to be…

you will like with low price   online

Lovely lana,  baina izan i inguruan lurking awhile egiteko ez dut lortu, til komentatuz orain inguruan. cheers