NationStates Jolt Archive

Have fun disproving these from Aquinas:


First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.


Ha!

Ha!


what do you mean Ha?

all of these proofs have been discussed to death and really hold no intellectual credibility.

But hey, if the church ever gets to re-establish their system of truth as the prominant, you will be the man!

what do you mean Ha?

all of these proofs have been discussed to death and really hold no intellectual credibility.

But hey, if the church ever gets to re-establish their system of truth as the prominant, you will be the man!

Tsk, tsk, such criticism. My "Ha!" could have thousands of different interpretations.

Tsk, tsk, such criticism. My "Ha!" could have thousands of different interpretations.

ok,

as my prior post asked;

what do you mean Ha?

The first three are products of man's inability to perceive infinity. They prove nothing unless you can prove that things were once perfectly still, etc.

For the forth; the view of perfection differs from person to person, does God therefore differ from person to person? Ones view of beauty will likely (I'm sure a psychiatrist could answer this well) stem from genetics and life experience. It proves nothing.

The fifth is a little absurd. Why must it have been created by an intelligent being, just because it works the way it does? If it had was any other way, we would almost certainly say the same thing. It proves nothing

ok,

as my prior post asked;

what do you mean Ha?

"Ha" as in "There you go, take it"

For the forth; the view of perfection differs from person to person, does God therefore differ from person to person? Ones view of beauty will likely (I'm sure a psychiatrist could answer this well) stem from genetics and life experience. It proves nothing.


How about an all emcompassing perfection that everyone's ideal fits into? A perfection that seems so impossible only because we are too finite to understand it. What if everyone's ideals are pieces of an imperceivably perfect thing that can only be "divine" ?

I don't really need to. Kant already did. And he did it in service of religion, too. He did it to "destroy reason to make way for faith". He still believed in God, after proving that those proofs were invalid. They're invalid because most of them rely on causation which is itself a concept outside our sure knowledge. Causation isn't something we get from the world. You can never actually see one event cause another. You can see that if you push a chair it falls over but all that can ever prove is that every time you've pushed a chair so far it's fallen over. All you really experience is the two events and your mind links them with causation. Causation is a principle for linking human experience. It can have no certain bearing on things outside all possible human experience, such as God, freedom, and the immortality of the soul.

Now, before you think this is an attack on God, Kant does think that we should believe in God. Even though we can't know that we have freedom, the nature of our lives means we have to act as though we do. If we have to assume freedom, we assume the freedom to choose the right or the wrong. If we choose the right, then we choose a moral universe. And, if we choose a moral universe, as everyone knows they should, even if not everyone does, then we choose a universe that only makes sense, according to Kant, with God in it, by faith, not by reason.

All of this is, I'll admit, a sketchy, shorthand version. If you really want me to, I can go into much more detail and lay out the entirety of Kant's argument. As Kant gives it, I think it's airtight. The part I've written is, I know, full of holes that would be filled if I hadn't spotted this thread while half asleep and felt the need to say something immediately. But, if I were you, I'd get the actual book anyway. Good luck continuing your investigations into these matters.

Where did you get these arguments from?

If you could prove or disprove God it would be called science, not religion.

If you could prove or disprove God it would be called science, not religion.

um... okay...

Where did you get these arguments from?

Thomas Aquinas, as stated.

I guess my way to prove God would be to say that there is no real way to disprove Him, so you cannot ever take the possiblity of His existence off the table entirely. One cannot claim "I do not believe in God, therefore He/She does not exist." If one cannot prove He/She does not exist, then one is only choosing not to believe in a God. There is always a choice. I love free will.

Have fun disproving these from Aquinas:


First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.


Ha!


This proves there is an origin, a beginning, a start. To label this origin "God" is acceptable. However, to then combine your new definition of God with the Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Shinto/any of the others is simply contradictory or otherwise foolish. They could easily be two seperate things; an origin, and a higher being who created the Earth. Earth is not the be-all and end-all of all existence; we know that much.

I guess my way to prove God would be to say that there is no real way to disprove Him, so you cannot ever take the possiblity of His existence off the table entirely. One cannot claim "I do not believe in God, therefore He/She does not exist." If one cannot prove He/She does not exist, then one is only choosing not to believe in a God. There is always a choice. I love free will.

Technically, you can't prove or disprove free will either. At least in the ontological sense.

Have fun disproving these from Aquinas:


First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.


Ha!
Meh. Who cares? Those people who believe that God exists don't need it proved, those people who believe that God doesn't exist, can't have it proved to them, as there is no conclusive proof - even the above. Personally, I'm not religious, nor atheist, or agnostic. I just don't care. Does it matter if God exists or not? If he did, and did create the world, universe etc, then well done to him, I know I couldn't. If he doesn't then the whole thing's a bit pointless. But the same is true if he does exist, isn't it?

EDIT: By the way, that last bit is rhetorical.

<sarcasm>
Congratulations, you have proved that there might be a higher power through no thought of your own! But wait, using that you can replace the word "God" with "Zeus" or "Shiva" or maybe even "Lucifer" ( hey he was an egyptian god LONG before Christianity ever began to plague this earth ). And have proven that they are the ultimate power!
</sarcasm>

So....

HA HA!

This proves there is an origin, a beginning, a start. To label this origin "God" is acceptable.

Thank you. That is my definition of God, whatever caused the big bang.

These are all easy:

First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Alright, first, "common observation" has proven to be a terrible judge of existence in the past, and there is no strong reason to believe that Aquinas got it right. Second, even if we accept the precept that "nothing can move itself" we need not attribute the role of "unmoved mover" to God, when it could as easily represent nothing more than that single task. All that we can conclude from the necessity of an unmoved mover is that there is such a mover, not that it is necessary God. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that an unmoved mover is in any way necessary for the variety of movement we percieve. If you take a rock, it will not move, but if break the rock in half, and hit the two parts together they will each exert a force on the other, moving the other, so rather than one moved object and one unmoved mover, we have 2 moved objects which are also movers. We can as easily postulate that the default state of at least some objects was motion and that by inertia they needed something to stop them, rather than something to start them moving. By conservation of momentum we don't need any unmoved movers anywhere as long as we balance the equations with every interaction.

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Again we have the issue to the unXed Xer, which is entirely unecessary. The universe itself, not God, could be the uncaused cause and the rest of the proof would follow logically. Also, conservation of energy seems to suggest that no matter or energy is "caused" by anything, merely that the state of the matter and energy can be caused by something. So with that in mind there need be no first cause for the existence of matter and energy, so long as we consider an eternal (always existed) universe, which is no less reasonable than considering an eternal god to cause the universe.

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.

Well this is basically the same argument as above in different words, which makes my job easier because I can answer it in basically the same way. The differentiation of contingent and necessary beings is dependent on a cosmogony of creation. If we believe that existence is eternal, rather than created, than there need be no distinction between contingent and necessary being since all objects are necessary.

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

This one is a little more difficult than the others because it does not use purely logical propositions. I think the answer comes in an understanding of relativity that Aquinas lacked. If you present two men with five statues and ask them to arrange them from least to most beautiful they are not likely to agree on the proper order of the statues. This suggests that if there is a perfect standard it exists within the perciever (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and not within the object itself. In other words, each person has their own conception of perfect beauty so it follows that a single being cannot represent the multitude of ideals.

The only things upon which people can agree consistently are matters of quantity, not quality. Quality is subjective while quantity is universe. We may not agree about the beauty (quality) of a statue, but we can certainly agree on the number of atoms is contains if we were to count them, or it's weight on a certain scale if we were to weigh it (quantity).

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.

Now intelligent design is a fabulous argument, but not based in any way on logical discourse. Low as the probability may be it is possible that the universe exists in its current balance purely by chance, without any intelligent guiding force. What's more the argument for intelligent design seems to support the "God of the gaps" theory more than it supports the conceptions of God described above, as an active participant in the universe.

In conclusion, nothing that is attributed to God in any of these arguments need necessarily be attributed to a single being, or even a specific being. If we take everything Aquinas said to be true we still have no reason to believe in the Christian conception of God as he did, or in any other specific conception of God. We can attribute things to a being, and call it God, but we cannot expand from those attributations to others based on whims, as has been done in the past. Even if we accept every logical argument about the nature of God as true we are left only with that much, and nothing more, so the arguments are nearly meaningless. To put it one more way, The argument for the necessity of a first cause proves only that there is a first cause, if you choose to call it God and worship it, more power to you, but there is no reason to believe that the first cause is also the embodiment of our ideals, the unmoved mover, or the only necessary object.

There's no way that anyone will ever prove or disprove the existence of a higher diety, so you guys should shut up about it and move on.

As for me, I've got my faith, and that's all the proof I need.

<sarcasm>
Congratulations, you have proved that there might be a higher power through no thought of your own! But wait, using that you can replace the word "God" with "Zeus" or "Shiva" or maybe even "Lucifer" ( hey he was an egyptian god LONG before Christianity ever began to plague this earth ). And have proven that they are the ultimate power!
</sarcasm>

So....

HA HA!

okay...?

Causation isn't something we get from the world. You can never actually see one event cause another. You can see that if you push a chair it falls over but all that can ever prove is that every time you've pushed a chair so far it's fallen over. All you really experience is the two events and your mind links them with causation. Causation is a principle for linking human experience.

To refer to epistemology, you're saying we can only rely on empirical (sense/perceptive) evidence. What about logic? We know if fire is hot, and a stick is on fire, that the stick is hot. That's not relying on our senses or experience.

How about an all emcompassing perfection that everyone's ideal fits into? A perfection that seems so impossible only because we are too finite to understand it. What if everyone's ideals are pieces of an imperceivably perfect thing that can only be "divine" ?
An arguement containing so many "what if"s cannot be considered a proof.

There's no way that anyone will ever prove or disprove the existence of a higher diety, so you guys should shut up about it and move on.

As for me, I've got my faith, and that's all the proof I need.

belligerant cynicism isn't welcome here.

Thank you. That is my definition of God, whatever caused the big bang.
Nobody even knows if there WAS a big bang. I consider myself agnostic, because the only thing I can know for sure about God is that NOBODY ELSE KNOWS. And I don't think anybody ever will know. I always have wondered why there are so many terrible things in the world that happened to good people if God is so just and merciful.

Has anyone here read Dan Brown's Angels and Demons? It's from the same author who wrote the DiVinci code. It makes you ponder the relationship with science and religion and whether they can ever be united.

Theres always the argument that god is all powerful, all good, and all knowing. This cannot be true because god, being all knowing, would have known he created evil, and being how he is all good, he cannot make something that would be evil.

I presented this situation to a number of different catholics and got a number of different answers, some which directly conflicted themselves.

Thank you. That is my definition of God, whatever caused the big bang.
Right, we're getting somewhere now. The problem is that people are automatically assuming you mean the Christian God. While Aquinas' statements are quite clever and relatively logical, they do rely on a number of assumptions (that the universe is finite, and such other incomprehensible concepts). I find them intriguing, if not conclusive.

Theres always the argument that god is all powerful, all good, and all knowing. This cannot be true because god, being all knowing, would have known he created evil, and being how he is all good, he cannot make something that would be evil.

I presented this situation to a number of different catholics and got a number of different answers, some which directly conflicted themselves.

Did God create angels? Because if he did, and in doing so created lucifer, he never "Made" him evil. remember, Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels, but it was he who changed, and became evil, on his own.

I still do not understand what man's obsecion with knowing it all is about. We ahve a finite mind, there are things, such as God, creation, certain parts of neurology, etc,; that we will never get to understand. Yes there are many religions, each shares its own views about creatin and God but we cannot allways doubt what we feel. Do you question yourself why your parents had you, why you like this more than that, where did your words go to, how is it that we can communicate to each other with meer sounds and symbols???

Right, we're getting somewhere now. The problem is that people are automatically assuming you mean the Christian God. While Aquinas' statements are quite clever and relatively logical, they do rely on a number of assumptions (that the universe is finite, and such other incomprehensible concepts). I find them intriguing, if not conclusive.

Thank you for the clarification, hopefully that shuts up the cynical Christian haters who somehow feel superior by berating believers.

Just before I start debunking these, I just have to say using a devout Saint as your evidence is the same as using the bible.

Have fun disproving these from Aquinas:


First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

It's called gravity. If two objects are stopped and there is a gravitational force between them, they will begin moving towards each other. However, if they are magnetically charged, they will also repell, resulting in a rotation.

That doesn't even explain planets. They start because a star turns from gravity, and the planets form from the debris left over in the ring around the star.

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.


Now, this gets kinda philisophical, and I won't even begin to explain my ideas regarding the formation of the universe becase they involve 3 things the human mind can not get around: infinity, absolute nothingness and a lack of any time. *

*If you want me to explain it, I will but just say so.

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.

This is not nessicary if you belive most forms of macroevolution. Which I do. So this one is null and void.


Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

That perfect one does not have to be God. That proves nothing if you don't believe in him.


Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.

1. Aquinas, no offense to him, knew nothing of the physics of the universe.

3. Just because things work well doesn't mean that there is an intelligent designer. It can happen through trial and error, so to speak. Two things don't work together, they die out and it starts again. Or...

2. This could all happen randomly, given infinate universes (see my explanition if wanted).


Ha!

That's a poor way to end this, assuming your right when a 16 year old with only some knowledge of astrophysics, however lots of common sense, can prove it wrong so easily. (This is not flame bait. Don't try it.)

I still do not understand what man's obsecion with knowing it all is about. We ahve a finite mind, there are things, such as God, creation, certain parts of neurology, etc,; that we will never get to understand. Yes there are many religions, each shares its own views about creatin and God but we cannot allways doubt what we feel. Do you question yourself why your parents had you, why you like this more than that, where did your words go to, how is it that we can communicate to each other with meer sounds and symbols???

I am not saying that I believe or that I dont believe in God, i am just saying what Napoleon said, "Whether there is a God or not, man needs religion"

I fail to find your correlation to Napoleon's philosophy in your statements.

Our Earth beat me to it..... Well, still. It was good.

Did God create angels? Because if he did, and in doing so created lucifer, he never "Made" him evil. remember, Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels, but it was he who changed, and became evil, on his own.
The right hand of God, Lucifer Morningstar - Who may as well just be called the Sun, "Light-bringing star of the morning" - was cast down for aspiring to be greater than God. He envied humans for having free will. Wait a moment - Envy is a human emotion, caused by the natural instinct to compare oneself to others. How can you envy free will? Unless you have free will... the argument is cyclical and contradictory, as are many Bible-given arguments.

That's a poor way to end this, assuming your right when a 16 year old with only some knowledge of astrophysics, however lots of common sense, can prove it wrong so easily. (This is not flame bait. Don't try it.)

Sigh, that's not what I mean when I say "Ha!" I never said I was right. Your assuming. And assuming makes an ass out of you. And I'm not 16.

Did God create angels? Because if he did, and in doing so created lucifer, he never "Made" him evil. remember, Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels, but it was he who changed, and became evil, on his own.

Angels unlike man are made all knowing, and they are free to choose good from evil. When God made Lucifer Lucifer made a choice, he chose evil, but what God holds highest is free will. Yes he is omnipotent, all knowing, etc. but he also respects free will to what ever extent. Had Jesus decided not to die, God would have donde nothing ( I mean use some hokus pokus) to change his mind. God created goodness which later turned evil. Its like buying an apple, you know its going to go bad but you still buy it; when you buy it it is still is good then it turns bad.

Sigh, that's not what I mean when I say "Ha!" I never said I was right. Your assuming. And assuming makes an ass out of you. And I'm not 16.

Yea sorry. I shaln't assume again.

Sigh, that's not what I mean when I say "Ha!" I never said I was right. Your assuming. And assuming makes an ass out of you. And I'm not 16.
(I think he was saying that HE is 16, and he still disproved Aquinas)

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

then what created god?

You argue diesim quite beautifully; however your defense of Christianity (I assume, taking this assumption a step further I assume Catholicism) is full heartedly flawed, Aquinas argued for a creator, not a daily interferer.

Angels unlike man are made all knowing, and they are free to choose good from evil. When God made Lucifer Lucifer made a choice, he chose evil, but what God holds highest is free will. Yes he is omnipotent, all knowing, etc. but he also respects free will to what ever extent. Had Jesus decided not to die, God would have done nothing ( I mean use some hokus pokus) to change his mind. God created goodness which later turned evil. Its like buying an apple, you know its going to go bad but you still buy it; when you buy it it is still is good then it turns bad.

That's a different mythos to the one I was taught, and it's quite interesting.

However, I cannot see the relevance of your apple argument.

I could problably disprove evreysingle one of those, citing flawed logic, or by using better logic, but seeing as I believe in God and am not in quite the same mood I was last nite( :gundge: This was me) I will not take the time to argue.

Have fun disproving these from Aquinas:


First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

That's not exactly what Aquinas said, as he relied upon aristotilian physics and those have since been proved false; so it's a moot point.

In any event, I can move myself, does that make me god?


Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Happens all the time. At the sub-microscopic level particles flash in and out of existence. Therefore 2 is wrong. Therfore this whole argument is wrong.


Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.

See above.


Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

Some things are identical. In any event, all these qualties are subjective. My idea of beauty is not someone elses. Which is more perfect? Neither. Therefore there is no absolute standard.


Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.

And if the universe was another way, you'd still make the same argument. There is no evidence whatsoever for an intelligent design.



Ha!

Ha!

I could problably disprove evreysingle one of those, citing flawed logic, or by using better logic, but seeing as I believe in God and am not in quite the same mood I was last nite( :gundge: This was me) I will not take the time to argue.
same here but i still had to get my 2 cents in

You argue diesim quite beautifully; however your defense of Christianity (I assume, taking this assumption a step further I assume Catholicism) is full heartedly flawed, Aquinas argued for a creator, not a daily interferer.
At no point did Aquinas' arguments imply that this unmoved mover was the same as the God worshipped by Catholics/Protestants/other Denominations/Jews/Muslims/etc.

That's a different mythos to the one I was taught, and it's quite interesting.

However, I cannot see the relevance of your apple argument.

You (God) buy (create) an apple (angel), you know it will probably go bad (because you are all knowing) yet you still buy it ( you still creat it)


you can figure out the rest

nicely put dave, I didn't think I would ever agree with you

You (God) buy (create) an apple (angel), you know it will probably go bad (because you are all knowing) yet you still buy it ( you still create it)


you can figure out the rest
lmao, thanks for the clarification. Quite clever, now I think about it.
Now that I think about it, I should think before I post :rolleyes:

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.


Then what created god? You can not say god created itself because that goes aginst point number two in your statment.
And if you say god always existed then I will ask, Why then could the earth not have always existed?

1. E=mc^2
2. Time is not linear
3. Have you ever created an animal?
4. These perfections are developed in the human psyche, which is the reason why people have different tastes in things.
5. Are you even sure you exist? You realize that the only thing which validates your existence is the thought that you exist, and the only reason that you think you exist is because you think that you think that you exist...

lmao, thanks for the clarification. Quite clever, now I think about it.
Now that I think about it, I should think before I post :rolleyes:

no problem, this is quite an interesting argument, i had not been to many of these arguments but i like them :cool:

Sigh...

The inherent flaw of philosophy: there are no answers to ANYTHING.

I don't disagree with the idea of a first cause, so much as with the idea of anthropomorphising it.

If there must be an uncaused cause, something that exists for the sole purpose of causing everything else, then it should be just that - a cause, a momentary event, something with no more substance than it takes to cause the next event in the chain reaction that created the universe. Not an infinite being of power, with intelligence, personality, and will. That's just unnecessary, and rather silly. A system as complex as God can't possibly be uncaused, if one as simple as as a singularity can't.

Occam's razor kills first-cause God outright.

All of these arguments have significant flaws. The first four depend on the reasoning "we have a set of objects, so there must be a first", which just isn't a logical necessity. If you study modern math or logic, you'll find that for infinite sets that sort of reasoning falls apart. There really doesn't have to be a first of something infinite.

Besides that, as people have already pointed out, the existence of an unmoved mover or first cause, doesn't establish that this mover or cause has any of the other characteristics of the Christian God.

As for intelligent design, scientists have managed to come up with pretty good explanations for how things are the way they are without invoking a maker of any sort. It seems odd that there would be so much evidence for evolution if we were made by intelligent design.

I could critique the arguments in more detail, but I don't like reading really long posts, so I try not to write them. :cool:

This is why I stick to measurable science, and stay out of the philosophical debate, especially when on many subjects (like this one) equally valid *philosophical* arguments can be made on either side.

Belief in the existence or non-existence of God is axiomatic. In the end, it can be neither proven nor disproven by scientific means - and philosophy, while interesting, is pretty much just mental masturbation which never proves much of anything.

This is why I stick to measurable science, and stay out of the philosophical debate, especially when on many subjects (like this one) equally valid *philosophical* arguments can be made on either side.

Belief in the existence or non-existence of God is axiomatic. In the end, it can be neither proven nor disproven by scientific means - and philosophy, while interesting, is pretty much just mental masturbation which never proves much of anything.
Now i wanna be a philosopher

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.


Then what created god? You can not say god created itself because that goes aginst point number two in your statment.
And if you say god always existed then I will ask, Why then could the earth not have always existed?

That's the whole point of GOD, he is the Creator. UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD), if God is just dust in the wind why do we pray to him, if God is just poo in the toilet why do we let him lead our lives (either positively or negatively). The whole point of God is that he is God, he is all powerfull. YOu say " god created itself because that goes aginst point number two in your statment." God did not create himself he has always been. It is hard for us, finite minded creatures, to understand eternity (a.Everlasting without beginning or end of existence; unchangeable.--n. An appellation of God) but that is God ETERNAL. We just have to accept it.

That's the whole point of GOD, he is the Creator. UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD), if God is just dust in the wind why do we pray to him, if God is just poo in the toilet why do we let him lead our lives (either positively or negatively). The whole point of God is that he is God, he is all powerfull. YOu say " god created itself because that goes aginst point number two in your statment." God did not create himself he has always been. It is hard for us, finite minded creatures, to understand eternity (a.Everlasting without beginning or end of existence; unchangeable.--n. An appellation of God) but that is God ETERNAL. We just have to accept it.

As fervent and slightly rabid as that was, it doesn't add any more credibility to the idea of God, although it does rather subtract credibility from the idea of religion.

I will state this:

There can never be evidence of a God in a religion that relies upon faith, such as Christianity.

A religion of faith is one in which the individual believes without tangible evidence. That faith relies upon this, means that any evidence to the existence of a God contradicts this form of religion. While evidence against it actually strengthens it.

Thank you Douglas Adams

Did God create angels? Because if he did, and in doing so created lucifer, he never "Made" him evil. remember, Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels, but it was he who changed, and became evil, on his own.

He did, but in his infinate wisdom, he would have known Lucifer would fall.

As fervent and slightly rabid as that was, it doesn't add any more credibility to the idea of God, although it does rather subtract credibility from the idea of religion.

haha, i've never heard an argument described as rabid

As fervent and slightly rabid as that was, it doesn't add any more credibility to the idea of God, although it does rather subtract credibility from the idea of religion.


aghh :rolleyes:

I will state this:

There can never be evidence of a God in a religion that relies upon faith, such as Christianity.

A religion of faith is one in which the individual believes without tangible evidence. That faith relies upon this, means that any evidence to the existence of a God contradicts this form of religion. While evidence against it actually strengthens it.

Thank you Douglas Adams

Douglas Adams was a cool guy and all, but he is far from the authority on religion, or the definition of faith.

It's been interesting reading the arguments here... I agree with some of the earlier posts that any side will never be totally silenced by the ideas presented here, however, I must disagree with those who suggested that just because this is true, people shouldn't present their ideas at all. If there is a God, if there is such a thing as truth (absolute and non-subjective), then isn't it a good thing for people to want to learn more about it? I would post more about my own beliefs and opinions, but I find that I'm already pretty drained of my will to deal will all of the different evidences and arguments that could be brought into play (there's more than one way to argue the existance of God and the fallibility of existance without him, just as there's more than one defence and attack that people who can't believe in God will employ).

- Wredlief

Can we all agree that the universal meaning of god is one who has created all that there is?

The "proofs" presented at the beginning of this thread rely completely upon the finite perceptions of humanity. Basically what you've done, or rather what Aquinas has done, is to find questions to which no one knows the answer and then said, "Well, since you don't know otherwise, God did it". The beauty of this arguement is that it can be restated every time knowledge is expanded, to apply to the next step up the ladder of ineffability. Unfortunately, irrefutable as it might be, it does not constitute a proof. And the constant restatements and qualifications this arguement has been through are starting to wear on the nerves of people such as myself.

Did God create angels? Because if he did, and in doing so created lucifer, he never "Made" him evil. remember, Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels, but it was he who changed, and became evil, on his own.
Ah, but if your god is all knowing, then he would know that his creation would someday become evil, on his own or no, and thus through his inherent goodness be incapable of creating it.
I fail to find your correlation to Napoleon's philosophy in your statements.
He is saying that you need religion, you are psychologically dependent upon it, and that is why you believe in a god, not because of any "logical" proof.
Sigh, that's not what I mean when I say "Ha!" I never said I was right. Your assuming. And assuming makes an ass out of you. And I'm not 16.
Well, if you're going to play devil's advocate you should prepare to be debated as such.

We ahve a finite mind, there are things, such as God, creation, certain parts of neurology, etc,; that we will never get to understand. Yes there are many religions, each shares its own views about creatin and God but we cannot allways doubt what we feel. Do you question yourself why your parents had you, why you like this more than that, where did your words go to, how is it that we can communicate to each other with meer sounds and symbols???

You ask me to proof that God exists its like asking you to proof that your mother loves you, that your wife loves you. It cannot be proven physically.

That is all I have to say.

He did, but in his infinate wisdom, he would have known Lucifer would fall.

He perhaps knew that he would, but that was due to his personality. And besides, that there was a purpose for this inadvertant evil. To have an opposite to what is good. Good cannot exist without bad, so perhaps god created him in order to demonstrate ethics to everyone.

Can we all agree that the universal meaning of god is one who has created all that there is?

That would not be the universal meaning. Many people believe in a pantheon of gods, each with their own individual areas. Not all religions believe in a universal creator.

Now, if you would like to talk about a creator, or even one with specific properties, like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, or omnibenevolence, you can - but you cannot call it the "universal meaning of god."

Well, if you're going to play devil's advocate you should prepare to be debated as such.

Well it is unavoidable, isn't it?

You ask me to proof that God exists its like asking you to proof that your mother loves you, that your wife loves you. It cannot be proven physically.

Actually, it probably can.

Many of you may also realize that Theism and Rationalism coincide. There are only arguments on what way to beleive in him. The Theists follow scriptures and beleive exactly what their version of the bible tells them an follow in different paths branching from there, such as Christianity or Judaism. The Rationalists follow fact and thus prove that there is no other way for creation exept a higher being, God, and he is worthy of our praise. No matter how you put it, evolutionism or creationism. Rationalism is found in such religions as daoism. No matter what way either is bent, they both point to the same thing, there is a God. Atheism on the other hand is on its own with no beleife at all, they just go with the flow, they beleive neither for or against God being existant, they dont beleive either way. Any Religion that beleives that God dosen't exsit have no support and no proof against his existance.

Go ahead and do research on this idea I assure you that I have coverd all of the ways to think of religion. Think about it.

Altogether this is a foolish topic to debate about, its a waste of time trying to justify somethind that everyone already beleives. As such it is as usefull as banging ones head against a wall. :headbang:

Theres always the argument that god is all powerful, all good, and all knowing. This cannot be true because god, being all knowing, would have known he created evil, and being how he is all good, he cannot make something that would be evil.

I presented this situation to a number of different catholics and got a number of different answers, some which directly conflicted themselves.

I posted something like this once (possibly twice).

God would have also known that Adam and Eve would disobey him in the Garden of Eden so why did he get in a huff about it?

God would have also known that the Great Flood would not get rid of the evil in man. So what was the point of flooding the earth?

And so on...

It has been said before (and not just by me) that humans have a curiosity about how it all started and are still looking for that answer today. So it's not surprising that most if not all religions have a 'genesis' of some sort. Also the story of Noah's Flood is thought to have been taken from a real massive flood. From reading the story of Noah's Flood you get a justification for such a disaster and a promise it won't happen again, something a scared populous would need to comfort them in the wake of a great disaster in those ignorant times.

God's 'all-knowing' status is threatened by the very book that says that he is all knowing and perfect. I've always thought the best way to preserve God was to label all of these stories (essentially the Book of Genesis) as parables and completely as works of man as to not lessen God; but this would cause quite a stir in religious circles with topics such as Creationism (but I don't want to turn this into ANOTHER Creationism/Evolution thread).

He did, but in his infinate wisdom, he would have known Lucifer would fall.

He did know, but God respects free will. It is like a government which sets limits for itself. Lets say for an instance that Jesus is trully the son of God and that thru his death we are saved. Now had Jesus decided he did not want to die for us God could have done nothing (no hokus pokus) to convince him ohter wise. God is all knowing to the extent of your decisions. He does not know whether you are going to drink coffee or grape juice, he just knows that you are going to get sick because you drank one of those two.

Actually, it probably can.


how?

I contest the idea of god on a spiritual level, not a scientific 'proof' one

There are many facets to this

But, to sum it up very quickly

Look around you, look at all the suffering - look at the people who are paedophically raped, murdered, abused, beaten, tortured

Then consider God - the all perfect being

Is this really the best he could do?

I mean, if god is perfect, then surely all he creates would be perfect - and yet, the world is not.

Surely it would be impossible for a perfect being to create something imperfect?

Theres always the argument that god is all powerful, all good, and all knowing. This cannot be true because god, being all knowing, would have known he created evil, and being how he is all good, he cannot make something that would be evil.

I presented this situation to a number of different catholics and got a number of different answers, some which directly conflicted themselves.


The best answer I've run into to this problem came from St. Augustine. Basically, he argued that evil doesn't exist at all. Everything that happens is the will of God, and even the things that might seem bad to us serve a greater purpose. Given my understanding of Christianity, this seems like the only reasonable possibility, and I find it strange when Christians talk about evil.

The best answer I've run into to this problem came from St. Augustine. Basically, he argued that evil doesn't exist at all. Everything that happens is the will of God, and even the things that might seem bad to us serve a greater purpose. Given my understanding of Christianity, this seems like the only reasonable possibility, and I find it strange when Christians talk about evil.

Its a funny god who includes paedophilia, rape, murder, torture and so forth as a part of his 'grand plan'...if god willed these things - how could he be perfect? Or are things that we would classify as crimes, ok for a god to do?

I contest the idea of god on a spiritual level, not a scientific 'proof' one

There are many facets to this

But, to sum it up very quickly

Look around you, look at all the suffering - look at the people who are paedophically raped, murdered, abused, beaten, tortured

Then consider God - the all perfect being

Is this really the best he could do?

I mean, if god is perfect, then surely all he creates would be perfect - and yet, the world is not.

Surely it would be impossible for a perfect being to create something imperfect?

God is not a dictator, God is not the one that is causing all this suffering. Our decisions are making us suffer. He created us, he also made us in charge of our world. You are the president of a company, the manager of one of you stores is abusing his employees. Are you directly responsible for the abuse?

The best answer I've run into to this problem came from St. Augustine. Basically, he argued that evil doesn't exist at all. Everything that happens is the will of God, and even the things that might seem bad to us serve a greater purpose. Given my understanding of Christianity, this seems like the only reasonable possibility, and I find it strange when Christians talk about evil.

Augustine *never* argued that evil doesn't exist. He stated that anything moving away from God was evil. Human beings are inherently evil because we have already fallen from God. Even babies are evil sinners because they cry for food. According to Augustine, evil is *not* God's will. However, because of original sin, human beings can only choose evil acts unless God chooses them to bestow grace onto them and then they can choose good.

In other words, Augustine was a load of crap and was arguably the *worst* theologian to ever happen to Christianity.

Its a funny god who includes paedophilia, rape, murder, torture and so forth as a part of his 'grand plan'...if god willed these things - how could he be perfect? Or are things that we would classify as crimes, ok for a god to do?

When a child steals from his neighboor, do we smack the parents around for bringing the child into the world?

The best answer I've run into to this problem came from St. Augustine. Basically, he argued that evil doesn't exist at all. Everything that happens is the will of God, and even the things that might seem bad to us serve a greater purpose. Given my understanding of Christianity, this seems like the only reasonable possibility, and I find it strange when Christians talk about evil.


No evil? 've got to be kidding, do you follow the news?

God is not a dictator, God is not the one that is causing all this suffering. Our decisions are making us suffer. He created us, he also made us in charge of our world. You are the president of a company, the manager of one of you stores is abusing his employees. Are you directly responsible for the abuse?


But surely god created everything? So surely he created the ability for this suffering to occur - how is that 'good'?

In addition, you can't have it both ways - that god wills and knows everything past and future, and that we have free choice...the one contradicts the other

Many of you may also realize that Theism and Rationalism coincide. There are only arguments on what way to beleive in him. The Theists follow scriptures and beleive exactly what their version of the bible tells them an follow in different paths branching from there, such as Christianity or Judaism. The Rationalists follow fact and thus prove that there is no other way for creation exept a higher being, God, and he is worthy of our praise. No matter how you put it, evolutionism or creationism. Rationalism is found in such religions as daoism. No matter what way either is bent, they both point to the same thing, there is a God. Atheism on the other hand is on its own with no beleife at all, they just go with the flow, they beleive neither for or against God being existant, they dont beleive either way. Any Religion that beleives that God dosen't exsit have no support and no proof against his existance.

Go ahead and do research on this idea I assure you that I have coverd all of the ways to think of religion. Think about it.

Altogether this is a foolish topic to debate about, its a waste of time trying to justify somethind that everyone already beleives. As such it is as usefull as banging ones head against a wall. :headbang:


Although every religion has diferent views none of them can cope with the others. This is just at human views always are, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or in this case "Religious theory is in the mind of the practicer"

Yet the debate wages on

Its a funny god who includes paedophilia, rape, murder, torture and so forth as a part of his 'grand plan'...if god willed these things - how could he be perfect? Or are things that we would classify as crimes, ok for a god to do?

God himself made no evil, he creates only good. But what he creates, I would like to remind you, has a mind of its own. It is free to love, kill, make, destroy, laugh, cry, it is free to do WHAT IT WILLS. Yes our world is a very messed up place but God cannot just press the undo button and make it all go away.

When a child steals from his neighboor, do we smack the parents around for bringing the child into the world?

We do if the parents created the world and the crime of stealing that the child committed.

If stealing didn't exist, the child couldn't do it - god created stealing, so the child could. If god was good, he would not have created a bad thing. Surely?

Anyway point is that there is no god or gods under the beliefs of christians, jews, muslims, or any other religion that believes there are supreme beings past our intelligence. The modern theories give how life got on earth, how the earth and solar system was made, and how the universe was born. These theories are the best that humanity can give so far without going into space. They are not fact but one is accepted as fact and the other cannot has not been proven....yet. But these do explain our existence and they do show how far we have gotten as an society to figure these theories out. I think it is time we enter the 21st century and realize nothing is so simple as someone created everything.

=In addition, you can't have it both ways - that god wills and knows everything past and future, and that we have free choice...the one contradicts the other

Yep, and I'd like to see someone try to prove it the other way

Blah...

Atheism on the other hand is on its own with no beleife at all, they just go with the flow, they beleive neither for or against God being existant, they dont beleive either way. Any Religion that beleives that God dosen't exsit have no support and no proof against his existance.

Blah, blah...



I think atheism is the belief of the non-existance of God and AGNOSTICISM is not giving a damn whether or not God exists.

ag·nos·ti·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm)
n.
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

ALSO: To be honest I think that the existance of God has to be proven before people can say it exists. The burden is on the religious to prove that God exists, not for the scientists/philosophers/etc. to prove that it doesn't. Looking from the agnostic POV things should be proven to exist before they can be known to exist. I can't just say Santa Claus exists, I have to have pictures/reindeer hoof-prints/fat-man-in-a-bear-trap/some kind of empirical evidence before I can say that he does.

But surely god created everything? So surely he created the ability for this suffering to occur - how is that 'good'?

In addition, you can't have it both ways - that god wills and knows everything past and future, and that we have free choice...the one contradicts the other

Say you go to a sea food restaurant, God know why you decided to go there yet played no part in your decision and he also knows that when you leave you will be sick but again plays no part in you decision.
You go in and you have to decide between shrimp and crab, God doesnt know what you are going to eat but what eer you choose is going to make you sick. You on you own FREE WILL choose shrimp, the shrim is bad. God did not make you sick, he played no part in your choice. Taht choice is 100% yours.


You see what Im gettin to?

ag·nos·ti·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm)
n.
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.



There you have it! :D

how?

By thoroughly examining their cerebral cortex. I expect it would require more advanced techniques than currently exist, but the information's all there.

We do if the parents created the world and the crime of stealing that the child committed.

If stealing didn't exist, the child couldn't do it - god created stealing, so the child could. If god was good, he would not have created a bad thing. Surely?

God didn't "create" stealing, per se.

But either way, as long as the parents attempt to teach the child *not* to steal, and the child grows up a good stable part of society - we laud the parents.

Humanity is still in its childhood. It will make mistakes which will teach it lessons which move it closer to an adulthood.

Sorry for the typo then... but i did wite in affect to athiesm later on too, just not calling it such

Say you go to a sea food restaurant, God know why you decided to go there yet played no part in your decision and he also knows that when you leave you will be sick but again plays no part in you decision.
You go in and you have to decide between shrimp and crab, God doesnt know what you are going to eat but what eer you choose is going to make you sick. You on you own FREE WILL choose shrimp, the shrim is bad. God did not make you sick, he played no part in your choice. Taht choice is 100% yours.


You see what Im gettin to?


So theres things god can't know and control?
Then by what you've said he's neither all knowing nor all powerful, as the bible says he is.

Say you go to a sea food restaurant, God know why you decided to go there yet played no part in your decision and he also knows that when you leave you will be sick but again plays no part in you decision.
You go in and you have to decide between shrimp and crab, God doesnt know what you are going to eat but what eer you choose is going to make you sick. You on you own FREE WILL choose shrimp, the shrim is bad. God did not make you sick, he played no part in your choice. Taht choice is 100% yours.


You see what Im gettin to?


No, your logic is flawed.

If I am fated to do something - I have no free will.

If god can see what I am going to do, before I do it - then surely I am destined to do it, and nothing I as a person can do, can change that. Hence i have no free will.

In your example - I would have had no choice but to eat the shrimp - as if I had not done so - god would have been wrong - and surely that could not be? No matter what I chose, god would always have known I was going to chose it in advance - hence I was predestined to do it.

Free will and predestination are opposite ends of the scale. No matter how you may try and contort the arguments

So theres things god can't know and control?
Then by what you've said he's neither all knowing nor all powerful, as the bible says he is.

There are things that God *does not* control, which in no way implies *can not*.

I will not go into the 5 arguments of Aquinas. Rather I will present three points that appeal to the reason.

1) Basically everyone knows the 'watch on the beach' explanation, and yet I have never had anyone refute it to me. For those who haven't heard it: If you found a working watch on the beach and picked it up, would you be more inclined to say "the waves and the continual pounding of the ocean and chance happenings that may never occur again simply pounded the base elements of the sand into this object and caused it to work in this intricate way with so many parts inter-related" or "someone made this watch and took the time to make all the parts interlock in such a way that they had the possibility of working and then they made it work". As an intelligent person would have to pick the second choice, how can we say the universe, with all its inter-realated parts and the laws that govern it, just appeared out of nothing?

2) Has anyone covered Fibonaci numbers in math? You know they apply to all things in nature from how the ridges on a pinecone are arranged to the leaves on a tree. This would imply that there is a definite order to the universe and would lead to the inference that there whatever created it must be orderly in itself and cannot be a chaotic happening out of which order simply evolved. It is evidence to an intelligent designer, or God.

3) Finally, Paschall's Wager. It goes something like this. "If there is no God, and yet we choose to believe in him and obey his commandments anyways, we have lost nothing. However, if there is a God and yet we choose not to believe in him and obey his commandments, we have lost everything." I know there might seem to be some obvious flaws in this theorum, such as people thinking about all the fun they'd lose by living by God's laws if there turned out to be no God, but in reality, if you look at what God says not to do, he doesn't say it to ruin your fun or to take away from it. Instead, he commands them so that you may lead a life free from un-necessary hardships. In the long run, when we're all old and rotting and about to die, would we prefer to have the comfort of a loving family that has been free from the turmoil of infidelity, killing, and strife due to stealing, cheating on taxes, etc. or would we find more comfort in recalling how many chicks we got with when we were younger or how many times we woke up with a hangover or even how many things we got away with that we shouldn't have. In reality, God's plan make's sense in the long term. It's too bad our society has conditioned us to live only in the present and the past.

I won't say 'ha!' I personnally find it sad how people feel it necessary to try and disprove God. Why is that, may I ask?

Free will and predestination are opposite ends of the scale. No matter how you may try and contort the arguments

Predestination is not the same as preknowledge.

If I know all of the possible variables that could go into the equation, I would know exactly what you are going to do when you read this email. It doesn't mean that I somehow forced you to do so - it simply means that I knew enough to predict what would happen. THis is preknowledge.

God didn't "create" stealing, per se.




Woohoo, an admission

GOD DID NOT CREATE EVERYTHING!!!1


And there we have it

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much

God is a crazy woman, and Her name is Eris. So there!
And about the watchmaker argument, the universe doesn't look too ordered to me. The stars aren't in neat little rows or anything.

This debate is getting repedative. As I stated before, Every religion holds its own religious theories, you argue about them yet they all end in the same conclution, GOD EXISTS, they are not contradictory and never shall be! :headbang:

There are things that God *does not* control, which in no way implies *can not*.


But do not forget god is all knowing, and therefore knew what you were going to get before you knew. If you had free will, he couldn't know anything about what would happen. If he can not know something, he's not very all knowing, is he?

Predestination is not the same as preknowledge.

If I know all of the possible variables that could go into the equation, I would know exactly what you are going to do when you read this email. It doesn't mean that I somehow forced you to do so - it simply means that I knew enough to predict what would happen. THis is preknowledge.

Prediction is different to preknowledge. Prediction is a calculated guess that may be wrong - and yet god is always right, surely?

Preknowledge indicates predetermination - god may not force me to do it, but at no point do I have another choice as of what to do - its like a script for a play - my lines are all written for me, and I have no choice but to say them, because someone else has already seen the script.

God himself made no evil, he creates only good. But what he creates, I would like to remind you, has a mind of its own. It is free to love, kill, make, destroy, laugh, cry, it is free to do WHAT IT WILLS. Yes our world is a very messed up place but God cannot just press the undo button and make it all go away.

Actually, I'm pretty sure omnipotence means that he could. The point is, some of the things that happen, may seem purely evil, but they're supposed to serve some ultimate good that we are incapable of perceiving. A good Christian should trust the will of God, and not be so arogant as to accuse Him of making a mistake.

In the end, our time on earth is so short by comparison to eternity that whatever horrific things might happen while we're here are of little consequence by comparison to what happens to our imortal souls. So everything that happens is ultimately done in our best interests. Of course, some things just seem impossible to justify, but God is ineffable...

I'm not a Christian myself, but I don't find this inconsistent.

As for Dempublicents comment: we must have been reading very different versions of Augustine. The Confessions are an account of Augustine's conversion from the Manichean heresy, that is the belief in the existence of evil in the world as an opposing force to God, to true Christianity. This could be a translation issue - I could imagine translators using the word evil, where it isn't really appropriate, but I'm certainly not an expert.

listen the reason people dont beleve in god is simply what proof other than cockamamy therories is there in the first place. Would it be so hard to beleve we are a miracle of science and not the act of another being. How do you explain the dinosaurs or the millions upon millions of years of evolution that took place before we came to be. if god wanted us to beleve in him he would show himself to disprove any doubt that he exist. the fact is he's not there. Get Over IT !!!

So theres things god can't know and control?
Then by what you've said he's neither all knowing nor all powerful, as the bible says he is.


no, he is all powerful because he can instantly destroy us all, he can make trees grow upside down, he can kill anyone of us and he is all knowing because he sees all past, present, and future
Again to the example:
-Past-he knows when you were born, what you thought 5 years 6 months 25 days 9 hours and 27 minutes ago. he knows that you decided to go either to a sea food joint or french restaurant
-Present-he knows what you are thinking, he knows what you are seeing, he knows what you are doing, he knows its either shrimp or crab
-Present-he knows you will get sick because of what you eat, he know you will paint your hair, he knows you will pay for the meal he also knows you will live in a ranch 65 years from now

Blah...

I mean, if god is perfect, then surely all he creates would be perfect - and yet, the world is not.

Surely it would be impossible for a perfect being to create something imperfect?

Ah! But what if God INTENDED to create something imperfect. You are assuming quite a lot in regards to what 'perfect' implies.

Does a perfect being have free will? I would hope so. Or is free will a side effect of being imperfect? If God has no free will, then what is controling God. Obviously nothing controls God since that would mean there is something with power over the all-powerful. Impossible. Therefore God has free will and create whatever he pleases.

Next question: Do we have free will? I also hope so. And as the devil pointed out in Eden when we chose to eat some apples, we in fact do have free will. By those examples (not a philosophical or psychological example in the bunch. Whatever.) you don't have to be perfect or imperfect to have free will, all you need is to be aware of your existance.

I won't say 'ha!' I personnally find it sad how people feel it necessary to try and disprove God. Why is that, may I ask?

That is because there is no god. No god would let murder, racism, rape and many other disgusting things happen. If there is any god that would let those things happen should not be worship by anyone at all.

I leave you, I have to do homework now. :rolleyes:

Prediction is different to preknowledge. Prediction is a calculated guess that may be wrong - and yet god is always right, surely?

A calculated guess is wrong because one never knows all of the variables. An omniscient God, by definition, would know *all* the variables and thus could predict perfectly.

-Past-he knows when you were born, what you thought 5 years 6 months 25 days 9 hours and 27 minutes ago. he knows that you decided to go either to a sea food joint or french restaurant


So He knows everything I've ever forgotten? I should ask about that sometime...

Woohoo, an admission

GOD DID NOT CREATE EVERYTHING!!!1


And there we have it

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much

Stealing is neither an object nor a force. It is a concept created by human beings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turduckin
Many of you may also realize that Theism and Rationalism coincide. There are only arguments on what way to beleive in him. The Theists follow scriptures and beleive exactly what their version of the bible tells them an follow in different paths branching from there, such as Christianity or Judaism. The Rationalists follow fact and thus prove that there is no other way for creation exept a higher being, God, and he is worthy of our praise. No matter how you put it, evolutionism or creationism. Rationalism is found in such religions as daoism. No matter what way either is bent, they both point to the same thing, there is a God. Atheism on the other hand is on its own with no beleife at all, they just go with the flow, they beleive neither for or against God being existant, they dont beleive either way. Any Religion that beleives that God dosen't exsit have no support and no proof against his existance.

Go ahead and do research on this idea I assure you that I have coverd all of the ways to think of religion. Think about it.

Altogether this is a foolish topic to debate about, its a waste of time trying to justify somethind that everyone already beleives. As such it is as usefull as banging ones head against a wall.



Although every religion has diferent views none of them can cope with the others. This is just at human views always are, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or in this case "Religious theory is in the mind of the practicer". The Debate is about views that have the same conclution, GOD EXISTS, yet these viws shal never contradict eachother.

Yet the debate wages on

Ah! But what if God INTENDED to create something imperfect. You are assuming quite a lot in regards to what 'perfect' implies.



Christian religion itself tells us that God cannot tolerate imperfection

I would like to point out that you can create something from nothing; two somethings, infact; exact opposites of eachother. This, has been proven.

_Nik

Please find fault in my argument... if any

Christian religion itself tells us that God cannot tolerate imperfection

Some sects of Christianity say this. Others believe that God created everything to work towards perfection.

Not to mention that the particular attributes attached to a particular religion have nothing to do with the debate of whether or not there is a God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turduckin


Go ahead and do research on this idea I assure you that I have coverd all of the ways to think of religion. Think about it...


Yet the debate wages on


Well, now you've researched it, we can all just go home and forget about it!

So He knows everything I've ever forgotten? I should ask about that sometime...


I guess you should :gundge:

no, he is all powerful because he can instantly destroy us all, he can make trees grow upside down, he can kill anyone of us and he is all knowing because he sees all past, present, and future
Again to the example:
-Past-he knows when you were born, what you thought 5 years 6 months 25 days 9 hours and 27 minutes ago. he knows that you decided to go either to a sea food joint or french restaurant
-Present-he knows what you are thinking, he knows what you are seeing, he knows what you are doing, he knows its either shrimp or crab
-Present-he knows you will get sick because of what you eat, he know you will paint your hair, he knows you will pay for the meal he also knows you will live in a ranch 65 years from now


So he watches our every move, no matter where we are? Isn't some of that a sin? So now, god in all his perfection can sin?

Some sects of Christianity say this. Others believe that God created everything to work towards perfection.

Not to mention that the particular attributes attached to a particular religion have nothing to do with the debate of whether or not there is a God.


Ah yes, we are in agreement here. I do not rule out the possibility of gods - indeed, how we are created is a mystery to me - I do rule out the idea of a perfect god - and this is where I end up.

I find the idea of Roman style gods more probable - we are just pawns in a higher game - that explains the attrocities and crimes we are allowed to commit - they don't care! :P

So he watches our every move, no matter where we are? Isn't some of that a sin? So now, god in all his perfection can sin?

a sin!?!?!?!?!?!? whoa thats a new one, lay of the crack pipe

Say you go to a sea food restaurant, God know why you decided to go there yet played no part in your decision and he also knows that when you leave you will be sick but again plays no part in you decision.
You go in and you have to decide between shrimp and crab, God doesnt know what you are going to eat but what eer you choose is going to make you sick. You on you own FREE WILL choose shrimp, the shrim is bad. God did not make you sick, he played no part in your choice. Taht choice is 100% yours.


You see what Im gettin to?

Yes you say everything is pre-ordained by God. FATE.

Yes you say everything is pre-ordained by God. FATE.


I dont see what made you say that??? :confused:

a sin!?!?!?!?!?!? whoa thats a new one, lay of the crack pipe


Last I checked watching people do certain activites that should not be talked about on a public board was a sin.

I would like to point out that you can create something from nothing; two somethings, infact; exact opposites of eachother. This, has been proven.

_Nik

True. :-)

Though when you start getting into the equations, it turns out 'nothing' is a constantly frothing infinitely deep reservoir of negative energy. At least by one interpretation.

The idea of fate is contradictory to the truth of free will, Watch the southpark furure self episode and by the end you shall understand, or go see "Time machine"

Imagine you, yes you, created a world - its about as big as an apple

On that world, you put a race of small tiny people

You gave free will to those people - they could do whatever they wanted

However, if they worshipped you - you would grant them eternal paradise

If they did not worship you - they would rot in Hell for eternity


Wouldn't that be egotistical of you? So, surely it is too for God.

People! People! People! give it up already, those that believe in god will continue to believe, those that don't will continue not caring. Now, any proof for god is actually denying that he exists and vice a versa. So what is the point of trying to prove it does or doesn't exist?

Last I checked watching people do certain activites that should not be talked about on a public board was a sin.

Whats more of a sin doing those things or watching people do it. Besides watching anything in a pure maner is not wrong. If you mean pornography then the posers are sinners and if you watch it with not so clean intentions then thats a sin

So theres things god can't know and control?
Then by what you've said he's neither all knowing nor all powerful, as the bible says he is.

Ah yes...but the question is "Does he give a shit about us anymore?" :D

Imagine you, yes you, created a world - its about as big as an apple

On that world, you put a race of small tiny people

You gave free will to those people - they could do whatever they wanted

However, if they worshipped you - you would grant them eternal paradise

If they did not worship you - they would rot in Hell for eternity


Wouldn't that be egotistical of you? So, surely it is too for God.
:p I asked my teacher that too and she started stuttering and trying to make up an answer

In giving us free will, God allowed the possibility of opposites, those things of which are opposed to the good things he created. Those opposites are not actual things per se as they are the absence of things. Evil is the absence of good, death is the absence of life, hatred is the absense of love, etc. I have heard the theorum about the Problem of Evil. It is definitely a real problem, but it, in and of itself, does not do away with God. Rather, if you do away with God, you do away with any possibility of overcoming the problem of evil.

I think many people try to get rid of God because it gives them a false sense of relief and security when practising their favourite vices.

Ah yes...but the question is "Does he give a shit about us anymore?" :D


Aparently not

Imagine you, yes you, created a world - its about as big as an apple

On that world, you put a race of small tiny people

You gave free will to those people - they could do whatever they wanted

However, if they worshipped you - you would grant them eternal paradise

If they did not worship you - they would rot in Hell for eternity


Wouldn't that be egotistical of you? So, surely it is too for God.

So now your saying GOD is an egotist when we dont even know the manner in which he exists? Maby the Rationalists were right in saying that he is the great mechanich and we in life live in a great clock that he has just left to run its own course. with this in mind, wont the clock someday run out and die, or is it to perfected by GOD

If you could prove or disprove God it would be called science, not religion.

Not very open minded are you? You know, just because Christianity is scared of science doesn't mean anyone who beleives in God should be.

Most faiths see science as PROOF of God's existance. We can never perceive infinity OR perfection, but through using man's intellect and other "GOD GIVEN" abilities, man can at least come to appreciate the infinate, even if it can't be known.

Beisdes, since when does science disprove God? There are plenty of times where science has proven that "miracles" in the religious texts could have happened! Both science and reilgion are needed for mankind. Religion to set goals, and science to reach them.

I think Einstein put it best:

"Science with out religion is blind, religion without science is lame."

People! People! People! give it up already, those that believe in god will continue to believe, those that don't will continue not caring. Now, any proof for god is actually denying that he exists and vice a versa. So what is the point of trying to prove it does or doesn't exist?


Yes, but I enjoy arguing with theists - mostly they all end up falling back on the lines:

"not his fault, its ours, he gave us free choice"
"God has his own plan, we can't understand it"

The first of which I find difficult to align with the idea that god is all knowing, all powerful, etc etc, because preknowledge/predestination/fate does not work with free will (they are opposite ends of the spectrum)

The second of which is a cop out.

I mean, I could say I have a grand plan, but your all too stupid to understand it, and it would be as convincing surely?

People! People! People! give it up already, those that believe in god will continue to believe, those that don't will continue not caring.

"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S. Truman

Aparently not
Right on, Perfect example of a Daoist beleife as i described prior with the great clock.

Whats more of a sin doing those things or watching people do it. Besides watching anything in a pure maner is not wrong. If you mean pornography then the posers are sinners and if you watch it with not so clean intentions then thats a sin


So actively being homosexual, as long as its in a pure manner, is A-OK with god?

[QUOTE=ExCathedra]1) Basically everyone knows the 'watch on the beach' explanation, and yet I have never had anyone refute it to me. For those who haven't heard it: If you found a working watch on the beach and picked it up, would you be more inclined to say "the waves and the continual pounding of the ocean and chance happenings that may never occur again simply pounded the base elements of the sand into this object and caused it to work in this intricate way with so many parts inter-related" or "someone made this watch and took the time to make all the parts interlock in such a way that they had the possibility of working and then they made it work". As an intelligent person would have to pick the second choice, how can we say the universe, with all its inter-realated parts and the laws that govern it, just appeared out of nothing?

A person would pick the second choice, because they know what a watch is, and that it is made by people. If it was an object they didn't recognise, that didn't have any of the hallmarks of human design, then they wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion.

It isn't a very good analogy for the creation of the universe, in my opinion. Just because it seems impossible for a watch to form on a beach (and I say seems because it may actually be possible for all I know), does not mean that complex systems cannot evolve simply as a result of natural processes.

Woohoo, an admission

GOD DID NOT CREATE EVERYTHING!!!1


And there we have it

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much

I think it is possible for humans to create things too and that all things are not dependant on God's hand.

Yes, but I enjoy arguing with theists - mostly they all end up falling back on the lines:

"not his fault, its ours, he gave us free choice"
"God has his own plan, we can't understand it"

The first of which I find difficult to align with the idea that god is all knowing, all powerful, etc etc, because preknowledge/predestination/fate does not work with free will (they are opposite ends of the spectrum)

The second of which is a cop out.

I mean, I could say I have a grand plan, but your all too stupid to understand it, and it would be as convincing surely?
I like your style and I also enjoy trying to disprove theists, but at a certain point I don't care. And i've hit that point

People! People! People! give it up already, those that believe in god will continue to believe, those that don't will continue not caring. Now, any proof for god is actually denying that he exists and vice a versa. So what is the point of trying to prove it does or doesn't exist?

Yes isnt it proof enough that in argument we all agnowlege the fact of the name GOD?

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.
This one is a ridiculous logical fallacy I'm surprised no one has picked up on. This fallacy falls under Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). Review the link before you continue.

Anyway, here is the process of the fallacy in this case:

1. The universe is organized.
2. There is a god.
3. Nothing can create itself.
4.A god created an organized universe.

You see how that works? You reach a viable conclusion without actually proving the original statement!

Did you consider the possibility that a god didn't create the universe? or that a god created a universe that happened to be organized?

In giving us free will, God allowed the possibility of opposites, those things of which are opposed to the good things he created. Those opposites are not actual things per se as they are the absence of things. Evil is the absence of good, death is the absence of life, hatred is the absense of love, etc. I have heard the theorum about the Problem of Evil. It is definitely a real problem, but it, in and of itself, does not do away with God. Rather, if you do away with God, you do away with any possibility of overcoming the problem of evil.

I think many people try to get rid of God because it gives them a false sense of relief and security when practising their favourite vices.


A) The absence of good is not evil. Let me give you an example

Being in a loving relationship = good
Being single = absence of good
Being paedophically raped = Bad

By saying the absence of good is bad you are saying everything is by default bad, unless god touches it. Therefore, before god created the universe, all that was there was bad - no, all that was there was nothingness. Surely?

B) I think many people believe in god because it gives them a sense of relief and takes a load off of their mind knowing that when they die they will go to heaven - instead of just fading away into nothingness.

I appreciate my example above is flawed, it still illustrates my point though

Yes isnt it proof enough that in argument we all agnowlege the fact of the name GOD?


We all refer to Santa Claus as as Santa Claus, but he's not real, is he?
Names are no kind of proof of existance

cya later. this is getting boring. i have only once recived acknowlagement and many of the ides i have stated could have helped in the persuite of all the answers pretaining to this thread. :mad: :headbang:

So actively being homosexual, as long as its in a pure manner, is A-OK with god?

That's an interesting question actually. I imagine it could be conceivable for it not to be a sin if you didn't feel any lust, and you didn't know what you were doing or know that it was a sin... It's hard to imagine a real life situation where that would happen though.

I can't be sure.

We all refer to Santa Claus as as Santa Claus, but he's not real, is he?
Names are no kind of proof of existance

Look in to the civil war, find out why Linkolin never agnowleged the confederacy as it had broken off but only that it was a separate part of the union then you shal understand the statement

That's an interesting question actually. I imagine it could be conceivable for it not to be a sin if you didn't feel any lust, and you didn't know what you were doing or know that it was a sin... It's hard to imagine a real life situation where that would happen though.

I can't be sure.


So if homosexuals were allowed to marry and lead normal lives, it would make it just as legit in gods eyes as heterosexuals who have married?

cya later. this is getting boring. i have only once recived acknowlagement and many of the ides i have stated could have helped in the persuite of all the answers pretaining to this thread. :mad: :headbang:


There is no suitable response to "I am right, I know it all, stop arguing because I say there is a god, and so, because I am so intelligent and knowledgeable, I must be right".

Christian religion itself tells us that God cannot tolerate imperfection

And yet he created a whole bunch of imperfect things. No argument there. Look at us. We suck! :p

Maybe it was the imperfection in imperfect beings he detested (kind of like how people would be appalled at a woman who sleeps around too much and has a dozen kids all by different fathers and she can't even take care of the first 3 very well). If he chose to make imperfect things it would not be te imperfection within himself that created the imperfect things, but a perfect being choosing to make imperfect things.

That would explain the Great Flood and why he thought it was necessary. I think God eventually realized that he must accept his children, genital warts and all.

I like your style and I also enjoy trying to disprove theists, but at a certain point I don't care. And i've hit that point

Haha, yes, I also get to that point eventually - it just takes me a long time.


I remember having a 2 hour argument with a girl from Liberty University about God once - my girlfriend, who was sitting there getting bored, was not happy!

[QUOTE=Upitatanium]And yet he created a whole bunch of imperfect things. No argument there. Look at us. We suck! :p

QUOTE]


I think thats where we hit a crossroads

I think that the fact we are imperfect says he couldn't have created us. You say its proof that perfection can create imperfection and be ok with that.

Not much else can be done - we draw different conclusions from the same point.

So if homosexuals were allowed to marry and lead normal lives, it would make it just as legit in gods eyes as heterosexuals who have married?

I don't think so. Being actively homosexual is a sin in any reasonable situation. The only way I can think of where it could be pure is if you really didn't have any desire to do it, and were unaware that it was a sin. Your average homosexual has urges to have sex with members of the same sex, that don't qualify as 'pure' (or he wouldn't be a homosexual, right?).

Don't know why I'm answering this, though, since I'm not even Christian. :rolleyes:

I don't think so. Being actively homosexual is a sin in any reasonable situation. The only way I can think of where it could be pure is if you really didn't have any desire to do it, and were unaware that it was a sin. Your average homosexual has urges to have sex with members of the same sex, that don't qualify as 'pure' (or he wouldn't be a homosexual, right?).

Don't know why I'm answering this, though, since I'm not even Christian. :rolleyes:


So if wanting to have something(lust) is a sin, then wouldn't that also make heterosexual couples guilty. Even if they want kids and are only doing it for that reason.

I don't think so. Being actively homosexual is a sin in any reasonable situation.

And look, Quorm has decided to give an active demonstration of him/herself as an example of an extremely imperfect human

Thanks Quorm, if God exists and likes imperfections - he would be very proud of you

i beilive in infinity, the universe is encased in a quantam membrane , acting as a cell, much like a human body, who lives is a larger universe that is but a cell in a even larger unverse. understand, rogue_magi2000@yahoo.com

[QUOTE=StormGriffin]i beilive in infinity, QUOTE]


Infinity has already been created by humans surely? It's called spam mail

Ok, I'm finally bored of this too

Peace out

If you have proof, why do you need faith? Religion as a whole is null if this proof is so. Notice that God has thus far seen no reason to provide proof of his own existance, because faith is a requirement, if there is proof then God would destroy himself. I think it would be better explained by this quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

"The Babel fish," said the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quiety, "is small yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not from the carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconcious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of the carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the concious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by the Babel fish.
"Now it is bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof for the nonexistance of God.
"The arguement goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist', says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
" 'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved purely by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't. QED.'
" 'Oh Dear', says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Of course the Babel fish doesn't exist, but I'm sure you get the idea. And thusly, providing proof for you God's existance would ultimately destroy him, so tread lightly.

And look, Quorm has decided to give an active demonstration of him/herself as an example of an extremely imperfect human

Thanks Quorm, if God exists and likes imperfections - he would be very proud of you

Hey! I'm just arguing a position here! As I understand it, Christianity treats active homosexuality as a sin. I'm not a Christian, and I have no objections to homosexuality (I have several gay friends). I'm personally in favor of gay marriage (though I actually like the idea of civil unions more since government could step out of the marriage issue entirely, which would annoy a number of rabid christians I've run into).

And I resent the implication that I may be imperfect! :D

Regaurdless of how you argue these truths, there's one simple answere that we have already, long discovered.

Devide 1 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 (don't stop until you reach 0.000)

This is impossible. Why? Infinity.

Add 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 (don't stop until you run out of numbers)

This is impossible. Why? Inifinity.

Ask yourselves this question. 'what created life on earth?'. Common answeres suggesiton random occurance, or a god, or superbeing, created us by perposfull means. IF life was created by a random occurance, what started the occurance? We have believed and tought eachother for thousands of years that everything has a begining, and everything has an end. This applies to [anything that exists, must be created, and must eventually, stop existing over time]. Something had to create this occurance.

If we date back far enough, some theorists go on to explain that the known universe, was created over octillions of mellenia, starting out from an accidental, or random EXPLOSION (BIG BANG). These same theorists go onto explain that this explosion was created by a chemical reaction between 2 or more distinctive GASES or SUBSTANCES. However, what created these GASES or SUBSTANCES? Our own teachings tell us that THEY cannot just EXIST, or have created themselves (the reason usually is because the main argument to why God doesn't exist is because NOTHING can just EXIST, something has to create it).

As mathematics teach us, we cannot go on to an end, and we can not go back to a beggining, as everything always is, and always was.

Does this rule out free choice? What our appearent TRUE GOD has instilled upon to us? NO! why? Linier existance, is a way that we can appreciate, a small part of, HIM.

Does anyone realize where I'm going with this? Probably not, as the nature of the subject is incomprehendable to a normal human being. Anyone who has connected to the Mycelial Network, with an open mind, and has not shut it sence, could grasp this.

We cannot SEE god as we are not worthy. We are to impure.
We are to IMPURE because we are close minded.
We are CLOSE MINDED because of our exposure to evil.
Our EXPOSER TO EVIL has been corrupted into us by the teachings of our forfathers.

As it is written "The lord is all around us" as it is written "The lorn knows everything" as it is written "Through life we are given the choice, to follow God, or Satan, His/her Evil counter part" "Through HIM are we allowed to make this choice"

Still confused?

God exists because we exist.
I think therefore I am.
I think because I was given free choice.

This is not to say that, without our faith in god, he would not exist.

Look outside. Do you see nature? Look to the sea. Do you see water? Look at the ground. Do you see earth? Look in the sky. Do you see fire? This... This is all god as he created this.

There is a simple solution to the problem I have presented your exhausted brains. Can you guess it?

TO SEE GOD IS TO SEE --- --------!

If you see it. It must be there. Therefore solid proof, It exists.

I have just proved the existance of god. Thank you, Have a great day!

If you have proof, why do you need faith? Religion as a whole is null if this proof is so. .... And thusly, providing proof for you God's existance would ultimately destroy him, so tread lightly.


So that whole Jesus thing was just a hoax, and really had nothing to do with god at all? Along with all the miracles he's supposedly performed since?

So if homosexuals were allowed to marry and lead normal lives, it would make it just as legit in gods eyes as heterosexuals who have married?

DOGMATIC LAW :D

If only the church said it would be okay then it would be okay in God's eyes.

Regaurdless of how you argue these truths, there's one simple answere that we have already, long discovered.....Look outside. Do you see nature? Look to the sea. Do you see water? Look at the ground. Do you see earth? Look in the sky. Do you see fire? This... This is all god as he created this.

There is a simple solution to the problem I have presented your exhausted brains. Can you guess it?

TO SEE GOD IS TO SEE --- --------!

If you see it. It must be there. Therefore solid proof, It exists.

I have just proved the existance of god. Thank you, Have a great day!


Wow, thank you for this! You just claimed that because there is some stuff here, god had to have made it therefore proving he does exist. This is poor logic, I'm sure you could understand if you thought long and hard about it. This could also go along the lines of "I have eyes, so I see, so I am god"

So that whole Jesus thing was just a hoax, and really had nothing to do with god at all? Along with all the miracles he's supposedly performed since?
The key word is 'supposedly.'

So if wanting to have something(lust) is a sin, then wouldn't that also make heterosexual couples guilty. Even if they want kids and are only doing it for that reason.

Personally, I do think that's the most natural conclusion. In some more austere forms, Christianity does call for celibacy, and anyone really serious about getting into heaven ought to become celibate and become a priest or monk. Allowances are made for heterosexual unions, since God did make people to be fruitful and multiply, but sex for a purpose other than procreation is no good :-P. Anyway, I should really stop arguing this here since someone who actually believes this stuff might do a better job of defending it.

EDIT: I wonder if I can still say I've been playing Devil's Advocate given what I've been arguing...

DOGMATIC LAW :D

If only the church said it would be okay then it would be okay in God's eyes.


My mistake, I forgot the church can just decide what is right and what is not on a whim like that. I should have never questioned what the holy priests that are in direct contact with god at all times say, even if it does make no sense. It especialy loses credibility when you look at what some of the priests do in their spare time.

So that whole Jesus thing was just a hoax, and really had nothing to do with god at all? Along with all the miracles he's supposedly performed since?

I don't deny Jesus existed, merey that he was who he said he was. Those miracles were on par with what Penn & Teller do on any regular stage show. Keep in mind that at the time the common man wasn't nearly as educated as the common man of today, much moreso easily impressed.

So that whole Jesus thing was just a hoax, and really had nothing to do with god at all? Along with all the miracles he's supposedly performed since?

Bingo!

I don't deny Jesus existed, merey that he was who he said he was. Those miracles were on par with what Penn & Teller do on any regular stage show. Keep in mind that at the time the common man wasn't nearly as educated as the common man of today, much moreso easily impressed.


But that would make the bible, the cornerstone of christianity and the existance of god, completely wrong. I agree, Jesus was just a traveling witchdoctor who died as a criminal, if he even did exist.

But that would make the bible, the cornerstone of christianity and the exixtance of god, completely wrong. I agree, Jesus was just a traveling witchdoctor who died as a criminal, if he even did exist.

He may have died as a criminal but all 'evidence' says he was a nice guy and I like to believe that part. About the only thing I believe in the Bible are some of the nice Jesus quotes.

But that would make the bible, the cornerstone of christianity and the existance of god, completely wrong. I agree, Jesus was just a traveling witchdoctor who died as a criminal, if he even did exist.

....Yes. But the very basic message from the Bible is don't fuck with people, if you can do this, you're golden. The message is essentially good, where people are essentially bad.

....Yes. But the very basic message from the Bible is don't fuck with people, if you can do this, you're golden. The message is essentially good, where people are essentially bad.


I would like to know why you can call everyone bad. Did you meet everyone, and get to know how everyone is bad? Wouldn't that make you bad, also?

<stuff>

If we date back far enough, some theorists go on to explain that the known universe, was created over octillions of mellenia, starting out from an accidental, or random EXPLOSION (BIG BANG). These same theorists go onto explain that this explosion was created by a chemical reaction between 2 or more distinctive GASES or SUBSTANCES. However, what created these GASES or SUBSTANCES? Our own teachings tell us that THEY cannot just EXIST, or have created themselves (the reason usually is because the main argument to why God doesn't exist is because NOTHING can just EXIST, something has to create it).

<more stuff>

If any theorist explains to you that the big bang was the result of a chemical reaction, you can congratulate them for:
a) coming up with an entirely new theory; and
b) being extremely silly.

I would like to know why you can call everyone bad. Did you meet everyone, and get to know how everyone is bad? Wouldn't that make you bad, also?

OMG PLZ!!@!!@!21 Could you possibly be this naive? Would you go out of your way to do the right thing? Or the choice that is clearly in your own better interst? And of course I'm bad, I'm human.

Our own teachings tell us that THEY cannot just EXIST, or have created themselves (the reason usually is because the main argument to why God doesn't exist is because NOTHING can just EXIST, something has to create it).


Where'd god come from, may I ask? If you're going to use logic against science, make sure it doesn't disprove god first.

OMG PLZ!!@!!@!21 Could you possibly be this naive? Would you go out of your way to do the right thing? Or the choice that is clearly in your own better interst? And of course I'm bad, I'm human.


Yeah, I would. In fact, I do whenever I can. I might not be good, but I'm certainly not bad. I'm sorry to hear about your problem, and I hope I never meet you.

This topic moves far too fast for me to know whether this has already been put forth or not, so please bear with me. What if there are three eternal beings, or rather one divided into two but still maintaining its own identity? I refer to all three as "he" for simplicity, but "it" would work just as well. The first being I call the Creator - it is he who placed the original matter in the middle of nothing, literally, and it is he who provided the force to cause it to expand as it is doing today. Maybe the universe will eventually reach a point past which it cannot go, and will then reverse and become a tiny ball of matter once again, or maybe not; what we know is that it does exist, somehow, and that the laws of physics state that nothing can be created from nothing, and therefore that there must be something which does not have to follow the laws of physics. Something not physical, in other words. This being, the Creator, exists in what I call the fifth dimension, and created and contains the three we know so well.

One who mistakenly thinks of a divine being as a superhuman, like Zeus, would then describe the Creator as bipolar, if he is the also God and Satan at the same time. I suppose the human mind finds such comparisons necessary, so I will refrain from picking it apart, but it is a crude description of the God/Satan divide. The Creator is neutral, a blank slate; as far as I know, he exists only for the purpose of allowing everything else to exist. God and Satan are two aspects, two parts of this fifth dimension; one is infinitely good, the other infinitely evil. Both have the purpose of bringing the entire universe into their fold, thereby encompassing all of existance and becoming, in effect the Creator himself. God's victory would result in eternal bliss; Satan's would result in eternal torment. God would purify all that is corrupt; Satan would corrupt all that is pure. Which will triumph, I cannot say - being an optimist by nature, I personally believe in the success of the former. Both work with what is created by the Creator. God, to advance his goal of purity, modified the creation of the universe to form first this world, then the beginnings of organic life, and then, through divinely guided evolution, humanity. Satan, of course, corrupted God's "creations", which led to the battle which is still being waged today. There cannot be eternal bliss for some and eternal damnation for others; in the end, all will experience either one or the other. Temporary bliss and damnation simultaneously are possible, I suppose; the concept of time (the fourth dimension) is difficult to relate to all of this. All is hard to comprehend, really; what I am saying, in effect, is that everything, physical or otherwise, is a part of this all-powerful, all-knowing, neutral being, the Creator, and that all is torn between two opposing and opposite forces. This is my own belief; those of you with enough intelligence to understand it, which I belief is most of you, may take it or leave it. I welcome comments - the idea is constantly forming and changing inside my own mind, and I would like as much input as possible. I do not believe in perfection in the physical world, with the possible exception of Jesus Christ, although he did die in the end; but I would like to come as close to knowing the perfect Truth as possible, and only knowing everything and seeing everything from every possible viewpoint can allow that.

To refer to epistemology, you're saying we can only rely on empirical (sense/perceptive) evidence. What about logic? We know if fire is hot, and a stick is on fire, that the stick is hot. That's not relying on our senses or experience.

I was just quoting the least empiricist thinker ever. Of course, your example is purely empirical. We only know that heat transfers from one object to another because it always has before. There's no logic about it. Take an actual logic class sometime. Once you know that heat transfers and that fire is hot, only then can we make the logical inference that the stick will be hot. But that's not the point. I did not, at any point, say or imply that we only knew things through pure experience or deny the importance of reason, whose primary significance was the whole point of the argument. Stop knocking down straw men.

About the only think anyone knows is that they don't really know much. You can think theres a god, but if you claim to know theres a god, you're wrong. Even if you've seen god and talked to him, it might not have been god, you never know.

Please try to prove this wrong.

Personally, without God, I would think of this whole thing we call life as boring, futile and meaningless. If we don't have an ultimate goal to aspire to and we're all going to fade away eventually so why not end it now and save yourself all the hardships that are doomed to come your way? There are more downs than ups in life - anyone can attest to that. I believe there have been times when we've all thought about why we are here if not for some greater purpose. If there is no greater purpose and there is no point ot our existence, then why bother putting up with all the shit the world throws at you? Most people have thought about this at some point in their lives and have even been so depressed as to contimplate suicide. Why they don't do it is because of their fear of the unknown - what comes next. No one can prove this issue either way, but when it comes time for each of us to face the end (or beginning, depending on how you look at it) those with some hope of salvation will have lead happier lives, not constantly dreading this point in time.

First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

umm... well, when you bring gravity into the picture... this goes out the window.
also, when you consider that in the radiation era, the photons were travelling on their own (that's what high energy photons do afterall) and their momentum is tranferred to the particles they become, you've got particles in motion already, no unmovable mover needed.
furthermore, slight density changes cause a force on the particles which causes them to move to a certain area (this is where gravity comes in)

also, aristotle was wrong about motion. he thought that the ideal state was rest. he was in fact wrong. newton was right when he said that an object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. if everything starts in motion, then this becomes stupid.

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

premise #3 doesn't seem necessarily true.

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
why can't contingent being cause each other? i.e. another problem witj permise #3.

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
but the standards of beauty differ in every culture. how is it that the same god can cause different standards to exist if we're judging everything based on one set of standards?

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.
that seems to be an unnecessary assumption.

God is based on faith and faith alone. We can never claim straight out he exists, because to know he exists we wouldn't have any faith in him. Therefore he wouldn't exist. God is kind of like the toy at the bottom of the cereal box, you have to finish through the cereal to get to it and see what it is. In life's case, you have to wait to the end to see if he exists or not.

Personally, without God, I would think of this whole thing we call life as boring, futile and meaningless. If we don't have an ultimate goal to aspire to and we're all going to fade away eventually so why not end it now and save yourself all the hardships that are doomed to come your way? There are more downs than ups in life - anyone can attest to that. I believe there have been times when we've all thought about why we are here if not for some greater purpose. If there is no greater purpose and there is no point ot our existence, then why bother putting up with all the shit the world throws at you? Most people have thought about this at some point in their lives and have even been so depressed as to contimplate suicide. Why they don't do it is because of their fear of the unknown - what comes next. No one can prove this issue either way, but when it comes time for each of us to face the end (or beginning, depending on how you look at it) those with some hope of salvation will have lead happier lives, not constantly dreading this point in time.


I don't know about you, but I'd rather be able to make my own choices, whether they be sins or not, without having to go to church and waste time worshiping a god. I really dont care if theres a god or not, so I'm just going to have what fun I can while I know I can and not worry about what happens to me when I die, because I'll be dead. You dont see too many dead people worrying about their lives, do you?

what do you mean Ha?

all of these proofs have been discussed to death and really hold no intellectual credibility.

But hey, if the church ever gets to re-establish their system of truth as the prominant, you will be the man!

OH OWNED!

Personally, without God, I would think of this whole thing we call life as boring, futile and meaningless. If we don't have an ultimate goal to aspire to and we're all going to fade away eventually so why not end it now and save yourself all the hardships that are doomed to come your way?
well, without god, i find this whole life to be exciting, exhillerating and interesting.

i don't have an ultimate goal, i have immediate goals. i want to enjoy my life, i want to live, to experience all i can.

why would i want to end it here? life is a great adventure, i might as well enjoy it while i still have it. furthermore, the ahrships are what make the good times seem better, and if you end it on a down note, then there's no chance that things will get better.

There are more downs than ups in life - anyone can attest to that.
no.

I believe there have been times when we've all thought about why we are here if not for some greater purpose. If there is no greater purpose and there is no point ot our existence, then why bother putting up with all the shit the world throws at you? Most people have thought about this at some point in their lives and have even been so depressed as to contimplate suicide.
not true. i've debated the meaning of my existence and i've yet to ever have a suidical thought. the closest i've come to thinking about it is random questions as to how i'd do it. personally, i think sleeping pills would be a nice peaceful way.

Why they don't do it is because of their fear of the unknown - what comes next.
not true. you haven't spoken to many people who have attempted suicide or seriously thought of it if you think this is the general case. usually people who don't end up doing it don't because they don't really want to.

No one can prove this issue either way, but when it comes time for each of us to face the end (or beginning, depending on how you look at it) those with some hope of salvation will have lead happier lives, not constantly dreading this point in time.
not true. i'm a happier agnostic than i ever was as a christian. and i don't really dread anything. if anything, death may suck... at this point, i would rather see what life has to offer. if i die though, i die. i hope my family and friends can move on with their lives and be happy, as that's all i want of them. all i ask is to be creamated and have my ashes distributed among my loved ones and scattered when each of them is ready to let me go.

Personally, without God, I would think of this whole thing we call life as boring, futile and meaningless. If we don't have an ultimate goal to aspire to and we're all going to fade away eventually so why not end it now and save yourself all the hardships that are doomed to come your way? There are more downs than ups in life - anyone can attest to that. I believe there have been times when we've all thought about why we are here if not for some greater purpose. If there is no greater purpose and there is no point ot our existence, then why bother putting up with all the shit the world throws at you? Most people have thought about this at some point in their lives and have even been so depressed as to contimplate suicide. Why they don't do it is because of their fear of the unknown - what comes next. No one can prove this issue either way, but when it comes time for each of us to face the end (or beginning, depending on how you look at it) those with some hope of salvation will have lead happier lives, not constantly dreading this point in time.

This is a bit pessimistic I would say. I've always thought life is a wonderful thing (and I'm an Athiest). You're right about the not dreading death being important though. Fearing death only makes life less enjoyable, and there's really no reason to fear death (unless you're religious and not in good standing with your maker :D). Really, the unknown isn't what we should fear, it's the known evils that cause us most of the trouble.

Let me put it this way...
(This is all personal belief.)

I could never dispute the existence of the sun. The sun is there. I cannot choose whether I want to believe in the sun or not. Passionate, true, loyal, faithful love however is a choice. Which is why God gave us free will. He created us to love Him, but we have a choice. He didn't lay everything out so that everyone would have no choice but to throw their hands up and say "Well, that's that, I have no choice but to admit there's a God and believe in Him!" He left enough clues to His existence, His power, His design so that we could make a choice to follow the clues and decide whether we want to put our faith in Him or not. Otherwise, it would be a one-way relationship, not a living, breathing realtionship as He wants it to be. However, by giving us the free will to choose Him, he also gave us the free will to not choose Him. By giving us the free will to choose love, He also gave us the free will to choose hate. He does not want to see us hate and hurt each other, but He also knows we can choose to love and care for each other and Him.

He allows seemingly awful, horrible, inhumane things to happen because He allows people to choose. Of course He would always rather that people not choose those things, but He gave us free will. If he stepped in and intervened every time something bad happened, He would be taking away the chance for someone to use their free will, which would be in direct contradiction with what he created. God is perfect, He cannot contradict Himself. Therefore, if He stepped in and stopped someone from doing something bad every time something bad was going to happen, He would be violating free will - that which He created.

I could never believe in a God who created humans, gave them free will, and then just sat up in heaven and watched the suffering - far removed from all the pain. But He didn't do that. He became man - Jesus Christ - and bore the punishment for all the sins of all people for all time. God hates sin not the sinner. God does not identify people with their sin, rather He sees the sin as something alien, something that He never intended to be there. But alas, there is free will. And so He became a Man and suffered excruciating pain for all the punishment of sins - all so that He could reconcile us to Himself. He knows the pain of suffering. He is not an indifferent God. He is a lovesick Father who desperately wants us to choose Him, but also knows that He wants us to really choose, so that we will love Him the way that He loves us. That is why I believe in the Christian God; He is not far removed from feeling human pain and suffering. He felt it - He came and suffered horrible pain.

But of course, as I said, this is all personal opinion. Depending on how one interprets the Bible one could form many different opinions about God and free will and the like.

Have fun disproving these from Aquinas:


First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.



Nothing can move itself? Can't energy cause motion? How do you explain walking?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.



You leave room for there to exist things that were not caused by other things. Caused things can be "caused" by these non-caused things. (See your next question for an example)

WHy does 3 have to be true?

You give no reason how a first cause has any relation to a diety.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.



You make absolutuely no reason why there can't be more than one neccessary thing. And how can you even say they are organic, or metaphysical, or even physical? Perhaps Abstract?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.



This isn't even a proof... it is a description of how St. Aquinas sees his god.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.


Ha!


We have intelligent men that explain the laws of nature to us. If the designer were so intelligent, we wouldn't need intelligent men to figure out what those designs were. This ignoring the fact that your "proof" jumps from conclusion to conclusion without reasoning between.

Have fun disproving these from Aquinas:

fine:
Aquinas was a dirty douchebag
wayne brady has choked the Bitch

1) Nothing can move itself.


Except that some particles, so far as we can tell, can pop in and out of existance at random, which, combined with gravity, causes motion.


2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.


This assumes that existance is linear and had a beginning where inertia was stronger than any other force.



3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.



No, its called Gravity.



Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:


Except, you know, those things that pop in and out of existance.



1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.



"I caused a slinky!"



2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)



Since when do we have evidence that OBJECTS are caused, rather than altered from other objects?



3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.



Unproven.



4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.



False and unproven premises and illogical conclusion.



Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.



Events are caused, not objects.

Unproven.

Not even logical.

Unrelated conclusion.

Sorry, but Aquinus was a moron.




Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.



There has never been any evidence for perfection in any state whatsoever. Even a theoretical form of perfection, truly empty space, has yet to be proven possible. You may as well say there's a perfect hunk of manure in the universe somewhere that all other manure will be judged by, even though nothing is alive yet to create that manure, nor to judge what qualities makes manure more or less perfect than any other manure.



Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.


Ha!

Unrealistic conclusion. The laws are a function of math. They result in MASSIVELY flawed organisms. If there's intelligence behind it, that intelligence is drunk most of the time.

Here you go, over 300 proods of God: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ROUNDNESS, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (V)
(1) Isn't it amazing how perfectly round the planets are?
(2) Someone sure must have been in control of that "big bang" in order for them to shape up like that!
(3) Just place a stick of dynamite under a huge rock. You'll see that the explosion does not produce perfectly round smaller rocks.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNCONSCIOUS THEISM
(1) Atheists think the universe created life.
(2) Well, they should if they thought about it really, really hard.
(3) But only a God can create life.
(4) So Atheists should believe in God, if they weren't so dumb.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

I think those arguments (the first post's) are good, following the assumption that the universe was at one point created.
If god created everything, who or what created god? And if god has just always existed, isnt it easier just to save a step and conclude that the universe is infinitly old? I think that this idea of creation is man-made, not everything had a start.
Besides, dosnt some law of physics say that matter can not be created or destroyed, by any known means? Dont hold me to this, but i think its the law of thermal dynamics.. it says that matter can only be converted from one form to another, so i figure that theres no reason for us to assume all the universe's matter was ever created.

Besides, dosnt some law of physics say that matter can not be created or destroyed, by any known means? Dont hold me to this, but i think its the law of thermal dynamics.. it says that matter can only be converted from one form to another, so i figure that theres no reason for us to assume all the universe's matter was ever created.

In this universe, yeah...but who's to say what things were like before the universe began, or what it might be like in other universes for that matter.

Well, im not one of those nuts who insists all of the laws are physics are 100% valid. The majority of sane scientists dont, since we can never be 100% certain of ANYTHING.