Why do you or don't you believe in God?

[Squonk]

Oh surely I should.

 

[CurtSibling]

If you wish to be taken seriously, yes.

.

 

[Squonk]

While I have doubts if it is so indeed - it'd give me better perspective perhaps, but is itself irrelevant to most of what I write - I'm even more doubtful if I'm the only one here who should read more.

 

[Shoot To Thrill]

Even if this is completely true, there's no reason that this "first mover" should be a Judeo-Christian god. In fact, there's no reason to believe the first mover is even sentient. I can start a colony of bacteria quite easily and do things to to it that would be god-like from their perspective; doesn't mean I'm omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and especially not omnibenevolent.

Well don't confuse my beliefs first of all. I never claimed that he must be a Judeo-Christian God. The only reason I mentioned Aquinas is because of the logic he uses. Even he admitted that the God he beleived in might not be the right one, but that there must be some sort of Divine Entity.

Yes you could start a colony of bacteria, but look around at what you would use to do that? It's kind of hard to make a colony of bacteria when the instrumets for it don't exist... Oh and maybe even harder if the bacteria doesn't either

 

[Shoot To Thrill]

Well!
I suggest you look beyond the church-dispensed line of religious thought and
check your libraries/bookshops/web for data on the sources of spiritual study
that predate the current religious thinking. Read the Talmud, read the Old
Testament, read the book of Thoth. Why not read up about the wisdom of
Babylonian yogis who taught students in the time of Moses and other ancient prophets?

These paths and many others will lead to a great deal of rich ideas and concepts.

You really have no reason not to look into the wisdom of the past.
As a self-styled spiritual person, don't you owe it to the great spiritual thinkers of the past to heed their teachings?

If you refuse to, wouldn't you just be speaking empty words?

This is the reason I don't follow an organized religion. There are so many religions today, and even more "dead" religions. They all claim to be the "true" religion, but none of them are able to prove it. Throughout history many different religions claim many different things, and historically speaking, there is not a difference between Christianity and Zoroastrianism, or Hinduism. They all claim that their stories are the truth, but they are all equally improbable.

I take offense thought that people like you, Curt, automatically assume that just because somebody has a beleif in a god or religion that they refuse to "expand their horizons." I know many Christians and Jews, and many of these people I consider genius'. You have no idea how people who have faith have it tested by people everyday like you, who are more civil about it, but especially people that name call and poke fun because they are so "simple."

It's ironic though I guess, because people who have never had faith cannot possibly understand it.

 

[punkbass2000]

Well don't confuse my beliefs first of all. I never claimed that he must be a Judeo-Christian God. The only reason I mentioned Aquinas is because of the logic he uses. Even he admitted that the God he beleived in might not be the right one, but that there must be some sort of Divine Entity.

Well, I agree with you here, then. I certainly admit the possibility of a "higher power" of one kind or another. A watchmaker or whatever.

Yes you could start a colony of bacteria, but look around at what you would use to do that? It's kind of hard to make a colony of bacteria when the instrumets for it don't exist... Oh and maybe even harder if the bacteria doesn't either

OK, that's fair. But you must admit linear thinking to make this argument, which isn't inherently true.

Beyond this, Aquinas had several "problems". For one, at the time, Aristotle was regarded very, very highly as the foremost intellectual thinker. His rationale in almost every subject was on the verge of being as unquestionable as the Church itself. Aquinas set out to unite Christianity with Aristotle. However, today, few of Aristotle's theories have borne true. He was a great and influential thinker and we may not be where we are today without his contributions, but he erred in more ways than I can describe or even enumerate. Most of Aquinas proofs end with both questionable premises and conclusions, and largely presume Aristotle's opinion to be fact. My girlfriend has a lengthy essay specifically on why his third proof is false, if you're interested, and the other four can be similarly deconstructed and virtually discarded out of hand. At the best, they're interesting thoughts that lead to uncertain conclusions about the presence of "higher" beings than ourselves.

 

[Shoot To Thrill]

Beyond this, Aquinas had several "problems". For one, at the time, Aristotle was regarded very, very highly as the foremost intellectual thinker. His rationale in almost every subject was on the verge of being as unquestionable as the Church itself. Aquinas set out to unite Christianity with Aristotle. However, today, few of Aristotle's theories have borne true. He was a great and influential thinker and we may not be where we are today without his contributions, but he erred in more ways than I can describe or even enumerate. Most of Aquinas proofs end with both questionable premises and conclusions, and largely presume Aristotle's opinion to be fact. My girlfriend has a lengthy essay specifically on why his third proof is false, if you're interested, and the other four can be similarly deconstructed and virtually discarded out of hand. At the best, they're interesting thoughts that lead to uncertain conclusions about the presence of "higher" beings than ourselves.

I think Aquinas' mission was to attempt and unite the Church with Science. To give a scientific approach to religion, I have long forgotten which number goes with which proof, but I don't see how you can disprove the first mover theory. I know his fifth proof was not very... "scientific," as well as another, maybe the fourth? I forget.

 

[Syterion]

The Ten Commandments are practically the basis of nearly every legal system on the planet, even in countries where Christianity has little influence.

What? Have you read the Ten Commandments? The only useful ones are Thou shalt not kill or steal. The others are not even close to being any foundation of legality.

But we all knew I believe in the God of the Bible, yes? You want to know why. Telling you is probably going to push the 10,000 byte limit on posts, but I'll try.

It's 15,000 now.

 

[punkbass2000]

I think Aquinas' mission was to attempt and unite the Church with Science.

This is a semantical argument at best. Aristotle virtually defined Science at the time. A good summary of the relationship between Aquina and Aristotle:

To many, the worldview disclosed in Aristotle's writings seemed to be a Pagan threat to Christianity. To others, including Aquinas, Aristotle's works provided an exhilarating cosmological, metaphysical, and epistemological framework on which to build a coherent and all-emcompassing Christian worldview. However, although Aristotle was "the Philosopher," he was not infallible, and Aquinas felt free to reject those aspects of his philosophy that conflicted with Christian revelation

-"Classics of Western Philosophy", Sixth Edition, Edited by Steven M. Cahn. Pg. 407, "Thomas Aquinas".

To give a scientific approach to religion, I have long forgotten which number goes with which proof, but I don't see how you can disprove the first mover theory.

I can't, but also recognize that this is not Aquinas' theory in any sense, he simply used it (Plagiarized, even). Aquinas claims Aristotle' first mover to be "God". Kant and most modern physicists agree with this reasoning, even though they may not refer to this first-mover as God.

I know his fifth proof was not very... "scientific," as well as another, maybe the fourth? I forget.

I'll quickly rundown the flaws in Aquinas's arguments. First, the three conditions which are presumed for all five:

i. that the universe is causally ordered and known to be so (fairly clear false, and I can elaborate if need be.)
ii. that this is hierarchical order with the lower causes instruments of the higher causes and all contributing simultaneously to bringing about an effect (not blatantly false, though Aquinas tends to misguidedly presume that the top of this hierarchy is God by definition: putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.)
iii.that the ultimate explanation of any effect can only be found by going outside the entire series of causes and effects to a transcendent, infinte, first uncaused cause (IOW, in his initial premises he already presumes the first-mover argument to be true, and thus, of course, finds it to be so)

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions, but even within his own framework Aquinas makes many errors:
i. I've already done the "from motion" argument.
ii. "from efficient causality"
This is the "first-mover" argument restated, simply throwing in the (unfounded) premise and conclusion that this "efficient cause" must be God.
iii. "from contingency"
He argues that since everything can exist and not exist (not at the same time) that there must be something that exists by necessity. This is simply faulty logic. Again, he calls this "necessary existence" God.
iv. "from gradation of things"
First he presumes that there are degrees of morality, nobility, truth, etc., possessed by many things (this premise already presumes God). He concludes that something must be the "moralist", "truest", "nobilist", etc. This again is faulty logic. There's no particular reason to suppose that (even if the things he lists could be, sonehow, quantified), that there must be something that is the definition of these qualities outside of the abstract definitions provided by humanity itself. That there are beings with mass that are the "fastest" does not mean there are masses that travel at our beyond the speed of light, for example.
v. "from design"
Here Aquinas argues that things which lack knowledge (inanimates, by and large) act in consistent ways and that something must have "told" them to do such. This, is yet again, the first-mover argument with slightly different criteria.

In short, Aquinas prattles on for 1300 pages with shaky premises, logical leaps and obvious inacuracies. Few take him seriously. He is ridiculed by most modern philosphers. His only reasonably valid argument is a copy of Aristotle; Aquinas contributed next to nothing. He didn't even show any of the arguments to really represent anything resembling the Christian God that he wanted to. All his arguments end with the conclusion (or something simlar to), "and this being we call God".

 

[samildanach]

The other way to phrase it is this:
A personal experience allowed me to see the hypocricy in evangelical christianity.
I went through an experience of being told that 'God loves you as you are. He is calling you, come and join.' Which soon when I was in changed to 'It is not acceptable to be who you are. God doesn't accept all of you. You have to apologize for who you are. Apologize again, all the time, every day for the rest of your life. Ask god to make you into something else. You have to abandon who you love. You have to become something else.'
That experience has caused me to choose not to believe. That choice is so strong that I find it impossible to even find out about other gods, I believe the whole system of religion is corrupt.

You seem like a strong person. I was watching daytime T.V. a day or two ago and Kitten was on. Kitten got some attention when she appeared on Big Brother in the U.K. She was with her partner IIRC and she was talking about having kids. I think she will be a good mother and will do her very best . Who knows how it will turn out though.
Are you considering having children and will you be needing any help?
I'm assuming that both you and your partner are both beautiful scandanavians

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I can accept the existance of God but only so much as in a Deist sense. Regardless if this being you describe is indeed "supreme" I can't imagine it being petty enough to reward and punish us based on how much we kiss its ass during life. If it is just, I can't imagine it being cruel enough to impose infinite penalty on those who commit this finite "offense" against it. The Christian god is a jerk and I have no intention of ever having a relationship with such a being even if I believed it existed. If there is a god, it is about as interested in us as we are in an anthill, it is interesting to look at from time to time, but we have much more important things going on.

 

[Quasar1011]

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ as His Son, because I believe in absolute truth.

 

[CurtSibling]

I take offense thought that people like you, Curt, automatically assume that just because somebody has a beleif in a god or religion that they refuse to "expand their horizons." I know many Christians and Jews, and many of these people I consider genius'. You have no idea how people who have faith have it tested by people everyday like you, who are more civil about it, but especially people that name call and poke fun because they are so "simple."

I do not understand your hostility - But I will indulge you, out of pity.

Three points:

Point one:
I don't recall even speaking to you, so you are the one being rude here.

Point two:
It is typically predictable for those of a defensive mindset to harshly reject new ideas, as you have displayed here.

Point three:
You give life to the 'narrow-minded devotionist' stereotype in your post, far more than I ever could.

Even if that was my intention - Which it was not.

It's ironic though I guess, because people who have never had faith cannot possibly understand it.

And you round it off with delicious arrogance, that you are the only holder of any sort of wisdom.
My intention was to offer pathways to those who seem trapped in profitless thinking.

What you demand, claim or say, is of so little concern to me as to be not noticed.

But all the same, I welcome diversity.

Now, I suggest you take two priorities to heart, my good fellow.

One:
You should learn to read into a person's intention before entering into
tirades that damage your standing far more than it hurts mine.

Two:
A christian is expected to have virtues - Common courtesty is one of them.

Take heed, and good day.

 

[Mathilda]

Are you considering having children and will you be needing any help?
I'm assuming that both you and your partner are both beautiful scandanavians

Well, I'm afraid you missed the boat by a few years
I've already got two kids and have absolutely no plans for any more.
Very considerate of you though

 

[LLXerxes]

why do I? because my friend tell me i'm going to hell if i don't
actually, I dont' know why. in this world that is confusing 'n stuff like this I dont' know what to believe.

 

[onedreamer]

Well the reason people believe that the universe is not eternal is that the evidence we have tells us that it had a beginning. That means that there was a "condition" when there was no universe. Your statement about an eternal universe does not have a firm basis in science.

LOL... and what evidence do you have to tell that the Universe is not infinite ? You're only talking about theories, those are not evidences and they are not a firm basis in science, either. To me, and I have a pragmatic scientific mind, the theory that Universe is infinite makes more sense than the one of the Big Bang or of God.

 

[onedreamer]

If the point was that there's always something good to be found in everything, surely. Communism is theorethically a noble idea.
But USSR as a state was not less bloodier than nazi Germany, though of course it got much milder with time.
There's no way You can compare religion to USSR.

Again this is just your biased point of view because you live in Poland and you were taught to think so. Point is that Stalin did what he did to avoid a war with Germany because he had no allies. Surely what Russia did in Poland is not to be acclaimed, but I believe Hitler would have invaded Poland with or without Stalin, and he believed the same, so instead of remaining passive and waiting to be the next, he decided to sign that alliance. You know what happened afterwards though...

 

[Birdjaguar]

LOL... and what evidence do you have to tell that the Universe is not infinite ? You're only talking about theories, those are not evidences and they are not a firm basis in science, either. To me, and I have a pragmatic scientific mind, the theory that Universe is infinite makes more sense than the one of the Big Bang or of God.

The best scientific evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning and is still expanding.

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html

How do you explain our expanding universe? An infinite universe would not be expanding. Check your definition of inifinite, it does not mean very very large. Your "pragmatic and scientific mind" is at odds with most modern cosmologists. I suggest you work hard to prove them wrong through your published scientific articles in journals and not in OT.

An infinite universe would probably have to be eternal too; this cosmology is fraught with scientific problems, unless you claim modern science is completely wrong too.

Personally, I relegate god to the mere eternal and infinite and science to the confines of the physical universe.

 

[onedreamer]

Actually, you're turning everything upside-down. A finite universe cannot keep expanding because it has limits, an infinite universe can keep expanding indefinitely. It's exactly the contrary of what you think...

Everything regarding the birth of universe, its dimensions, its life etc , is nothing like science. All scientists have are a collection of theories and hypothesis, which cannot be considered a "Science". What I tried to explain from the first post in this regard and that maybe you missed, is that most probably, our science cannot explain everything about universe, because our science is not an absolute concept but something made up by us, and thus measured on us. I doubt our science will ever be able to fully explain the concept of "infinite", because we are finite beings with finite minds and vision.
Close your eyes and try to imagine an infinite universe. Can you do it ? Can you count infinitely ? The answer is no, you can't, because you're life is finite.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Actually, you're turning everything upside-down. A finite universe cannot keep expanding because it has limits, an infinite universe can keep expanding indefinitely. It's exactly the contrary of what you think...

Everything regarding the birth of universe, its dimensions, its life etc , is nothing like science. All scientists have are a collection of theories and hypothesis, which cannot be considered a "Science". What I tried to explain from the first post in this regard and that maybe you missed, is that most probably, our science cannot explain everything about universe, because our science is not an absolute concept but something made up by us, and thus measured on us. I doubt our science will ever be able to fully explain the concept of "infinite", because we are finite beings with finite minds and vision.
Close your eyes and try to imagine an infinite universe. Can you do it ? Can you count infinitely ? The answer is no, you can't, because you're life is finite.

Maybe we are talking without enough defined terms. By universe, I mean the physical universe. If we were talkiing about existence, which is "larger" in my mind than the universe, then I agree, that is beyond science and what reason can comprehend. God is that which is eternal, infinite, unchanging and permanent.