@Kestrel - Right on. And not to mention that it is an extremely dangerous mass delusion that has led and certainly will continue to lead to many, many innocent human lives being lost. A socially acceptable mass delusion that tends to lead to harm of others... I really think believing that aliens are speaking to you is a lot safer for everyone!
Buckiller, then what about people who don't get the chance? People born with severe disabilities etc and can't do much until they die at 10 years old or so. Do you blame God for not making life better for them and not giving them a chance?
@JohnFlux,You're pointing out that my argument doesn't make sense, but you are responding with points that aren't logical either. I'll show you what I mean later.As for as the no-true-scotsman fallacy, I don't understand your reference, but it seems that you understand my point.God, by definition, is a perfect being. The word God implies this, at least in the classical theism sense. However, you're right, there's no way to prove God's perfection without at some point referring to the Bible. Regardless, it's quite evident that the universe didn't always exist. Aquinas refers to the theory of "movement" (which simply means change) when he talks about this: Things that are moved are only moved because something else moved them. If we trace back motions to their beginning, we will come to whatever began to move them. There has to be a very beginning to this series of change, because no thing can move itself. Therefore, God is the Unmoved Mover.I believe there is also scientific evidence for the universe being finite as well, but I'm not much of a physicist or astronomer. As far as there being multiple gods, well that's plausible I suppose. But I'll refer to Occam's razor: the simplest answer tends to be the best one.As far as my point 2 being illogical, necessary beings cannot be created because they always existed. Your rebuttal is illogical. The idea of being necessary is incompatible with the idea of being created.And your rebuttal of point 3: so you're saying that the divine being could have always existed as a whole made up of parts? Again, Occam's razor is my weapon of choice. I think it's quite easier to believe that one simple God exists who is responsible for everything rather than a whole bunch or one that's divided into several parts which did not precede him.And as far as God's employees: those are the angels. I'm not sure if one just makes coffee though.
To be "necessary" in existence is a common conception in philosophy. Sorry that you misunderstood. Necessary existence simply means that the thing must have always existed. Its opposite is contingent, which means an object relies on another for its existence.In this case, if a necessary being existed, it had to have created the universe, if the universe is a created thing, which I believe it is. Also in this case, a necessary being cannot have created itself, because that is nonsensical.God cannot move/change himself because he is actuality. I should have probably started with this argument since it probably will make more sense to the atheist/skeptical.In reality, there is actuality and potentiality, as I'm sure you're aware of as a physicist. All objects, as we can observe, exist in both potentiality and actuality at the same time. For instance, my laptop computer is actually on my lap right now, but also potentially on the floor. If I were to move my laptop to the floor, I would be taking it from potentiality to actuality in relation to the floor (and vice versa for my lap). However, my laptop cannot bring this kind of change upon itself, but rather someone must move it.Now God, whom we refer to right now simply as the first creator of things (a point which you probably don't agree with, but you have to at least presume God exists for any of this to make sense), aka the Uncaused Cause. We call him this in that he caused contingent things to come into existence through his existence, which is necessary (again, meaning eternal). Now an object can only be brought into actuality by an object that is already in actuality (the only exception being God). Therefore, all objects have their existence in and through God's existence.Since an object is only in actual existence so far as God is in actual existence, God must be in complete actuality and therefore have no potentiality. There can never exist a thing in actuality that God does not already have actuality. Therefore, God is not potential and thus cannot change. This is also the reason why God must be simple (not composite), because having parts is to be contingent, which God is not.My source is the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, known as the Summa Theologica. You can read more about it and probably get a better elaboration if you google that.In reference to Occam's razor - you're right, it's not proof. However, I find it convincing enough that there is more likely to be one God than many, since the world does not seem to operate in a conflicting manner (in that oxygen always has 8 protons and humans can live by breathing it, things like that). However, if I abandoned this reason for monotheism, the God is Act argument still works better.I take your word for it that "brane" is a serious idea. However, I know there are many intelligent, brilliant, and deeply spiritual physicists out there, a few whom I am acquainted with. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that their faith is not undermined by this idea. I'm not a physicist in any manner, so forgive me, but I cannot pursue debating that subject as I am ill-equipped to do so.
@PiddlyDYou're absolutely right that one cannot prove God based on logic and reason alone. However, I don't think you need to take reason out of the equation if you believe in God. Such faith is blind faith.I believe there are REASONS to explain God's existence, but they are absolutely not scientific, nor philosophical proof. Aquinas's conclusions were torn apart by modern philosophers like Bertrand Russel and Friedrich Nietzche, and they did so rather well. However, for those who can at least imagine that a divine being exists, Aquinas's philosophy makes sense. Notice how I began by saying "if the universe is contingent...," which makes the argument only valid so long as one believes the universe is contingent on something greater.Once again, I know there is no way to prove God. However, to say that I have no solid reasons for belief in God is wrong. To believe in something based on faith alone does not make it true. However, when faith meets reason, at least you can say you believe in something that makes sense.
The trick is to not fool yourself into thinking that you have even the most rudimentary understanding of what God is doing or how He thinks. You thank God for what you feel he has given you and that is enough.
mcpiggyDec 29, 2009
@Kestrel - Right on. And not to mention that it is an extremely dangerous mass delusion that has led and certainly will continue to lead to many, many innocent human lives being lost. A socially acceptable mass delusion that tends to lead to harm of others... I really think believing that aliens are speaking to you is a lot safer for everyone!
larsoncDec 30, 2009
This account has been closed by the user
tomjthayerDec 30, 2009
prove it
johnfluxDec 30, 2009
Buckiller, then what about people who don't get the chance? People born with severe disabilities etc and can't do much until they die at 10 years old or so. Do you blame God for not making life better for them and not giving them a chance?
nine56Dec 31, 2009
@JohnFlux,You're pointing out that my argument doesn't make sense, but you are responding with points that aren't logical either. I'll show you what I mean later.As for as the no-true-scotsman fallacy, I don't understand your reference, but it seems that you understand my point.God, by definition, is a perfect being. The word God implies this, at least in the classical theism sense. However, you're right, there's no way to prove God's perfection without at some point referring to the Bible. Regardless, it's quite evident that the universe didn't always exist. Aquinas refers to the theory of "movement" (which simply means change) when he talks about this: Things that are moved are only moved because something else moved them. If we trace back motions to their beginning, we will come to whatever began to move them. There has to be a very beginning to this series of change, because no thing can move itself. Therefore, God is the Unmoved Mover.I believe there is also scientific evidence for the universe being finite as well, but I'm not much of a physicist or astronomer. As far as there being multiple gods, well that's plausible I suppose. But I'll refer to Occam's razor: the simplest answer tends to be the best one.As far as my point 2 being illogical, necessary beings cannot be created because they always existed. Your rebuttal is illogical. The idea of being necessary is incompatible with the idea of being created.And your rebuttal of point 3: so you're saying that the divine being could have always existed as a whole made up of parts? Again, Occam's razor is my weapon of choice. I think it's quite easier to believe that one simple God exists who is responsible for everything rather than a whole bunch or one that's divided into several parts which did not precede him.And as far as God's employees: those are the angels. I'm not sure if one just makes coffee though.
nine56Jan 1, 2010
To be "necessary" in existence is a common conception in philosophy. Sorry that you misunderstood. Necessary existence simply means that the thing must have always existed. Its opposite is contingent, which means an object relies on another for its existence.In this case, if a necessary being existed, it had to have created the universe, if the universe is a created thing, which I believe it is. Also in this case, a necessary being cannot have created itself, because that is nonsensical.God cannot move/change himself because he is actuality. I should have probably started with this argument since it probably will make more sense to the atheist/skeptical.In reality, there is actuality and potentiality, as I'm sure you're aware of as a physicist. All objects, as we can observe, exist in both potentiality and actuality at the same time. For instance, my laptop computer is actually on my lap right now, but also potentially on the floor. If I were to move my laptop to the floor, I would be taking it from potentiality to actuality in relation to the floor (and vice versa for my lap). However, my laptop cannot bring this kind of change upon itself, but rather someone must move it.Now God, whom we refer to right now simply as the first creator of things (a point which you probably don't agree with, but you have to at least presume God exists for any of this to make sense), aka the Uncaused Cause. We call him this in that he caused contingent things to come into existence through his existence, which is necessary (again, meaning eternal). Now an object can only be brought into actuality by an object that is already in actuality (the only exception being God). Therefore, all objects have their existence in and through God's existence.Since an object is only in actual existence so far as God is in actual existence, God must be in complete actuality and therefore have no potentiality. There can never exist a thing in actuality that God does not already have actuality. Therefore, God is not potential and thus cannot change. This is also the reason why God must be simple (not composite), because having parts is to be contingent, which God is not.My source is the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, known as the Summa Theologica. You can read more about it and probably get a better elaboration if you google that.In reference to Occam's razor - you're right, it's not proof. However, I find it convincing enough that there is more likely to be one God than many, since the world does not seem to operate in a conflicting manner (in that oxygen always has 8 protons and humans can live by breathing it, things like that). However, if I abandoned this reason for monotheism, the God is Act argument still works better.I take your word for it that "brane" is a serious idea. However, I know there are many intelligent, brilliant, and deeply spiritual physicists out there, a few whom I am acquainted with. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that their faith is not undermined by this idea. I'm not a physicist in any manner, so forgive me, but I cannot pursue debating that subject as I am ill-equipped to do so.
jgzmanJan 3, 2010
Try not! Do! Or do not. There is no try.
nine56Jan 4, 2010
@PiddlyDYou're absolutely right that one cannot prove God based on logic and reason alone. However, I don't think you need to take reason out of the equation if you believe in God. Such faith is blind faith.I believe there are REASONS to explain God's existence, but they are absolutely not scientific, nor philosophical proof. Aquinas's conclusions were torn apart by modern philosophers like Bertrand Russel and Friedrich Nietzche, and they did so rather well. However, for those who can at least imagine that a divine being exists, Aquinas's philosophy makes sense. Notice how I began by saying "if the universe is contingent...," which makes the argument only valid so long as one believes the universe is contingent on something greater.Once again, I know there is no way to prove God. However, to say that I have no solid reasons for belief in God is wrong. To believe in something based on faith alone does not make it true. However, when faith meets reason, at least you can say you believe in something that makes sense.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2010
mirrorD:
gerrylazloJan 8, 2010
The trick is to not fool yourself into thinking that you have even the most rudimentary understanding of what God is doing or how He thinks. You thank God for what you feel he has given you and that is enough.